Misplaced Pages:Closure requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AlbinoFerret (talk | contribs) at 21:19, 7 August 2015 (OneClickArchiver archived Talk:Heather Bresch#Request for comment to [[Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 18#Talk:Heather Bresch#Request for comment|Misplaced Pages:Administ...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:19, 7 August 2015 by AlbinoFerret (talk | contribs) (OneClickArchiver archived Talk:Heather Bresch#Request for comment to [[Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 18#Talk:Heather Bresch#Request for comment|Misplaced Pages:Administ...)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20	Archive 21
Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25	Archive 26	Archive 27
Archive 28	Archive 29	Archive 30
Archive 31	Archive 32	Archive 33
Archive 34	Archive 35	Archive 36
Archive 37	Archive 38	Archive 39

This page has archives. Sections older than 300 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Shortcuts

The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Misplaced Pages. Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications.

Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here.

Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal request for closure is 30 days (opened on or before 29 November 2024); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early. However, editors usually wait at least a week after an RfC opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance.

Please ensure that your request for a close is brief and neutrally worded. Please include a link to the discussion. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. Be prepared to wait for someone to review the discussion. If you disagree with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. You can start discussion at the original page or request a Closure review at Administrators' noticeboard with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for previous closure reviews.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Because requests for closure made here are often those that are the most contentious, closing these discussions can be a significant responsibility. Closers should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion. All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that those editors may have.

A request for comment discussed how to appeal closures and whether an administrator can summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus was that closures should not be reverted solely because the closer was not an administrator. However, special considerations apply for articles for deletion and move discussions—see Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions and Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closing instructions for details.

Once a discussion listed on this page has been closed, please add {{Close}} or {{Done}} and a note to the request here, after which the request will be archived.

Requests for closure

XfD

CfD backlog

There are currently many open discussions, including some from early April. Please see the list at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure.

Thanks to those who have closed the oldest ones from January to March in recent weeks. – Fayenatic London 08:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a nearly a month after the previous message and the backlog has only increased in the past month. Please help!! Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Another few weeks and April is at least cleared. The May backlog has piled up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Administrative

Requested moves

Requested moves backlog

Anyone have a mop? Some of the discussions there are backed up all the way from early February. Erpert 08:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: situation is much improved, but there's still a six-week backlog of move requests. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

As of late July 2015, the backlog is still about one month (and some of the ones in the backlog should actually be easy closes; others?... not so much). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Race (biology)#Proposal three: Fully diffuse and redirect to dab

Resolved – No action needed; request rescinded. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼ 16:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kraxler: Should be speedily re-closed. It's the same proposal as the previous one (by its only 'Support' !voter) in slightly different wording: merge all the content to Breed and wherever else, so the title can be redirected to the Race disambiguation page (same as nom's response to the RM, too). Every objection to the first edition applies to the second, and it raises no new issues, ideas, evidence, anything. It's pure WP:PARENT, and the result sought is literally not possible under policy, because we can't merge completely unrelated topics. This noise is disruptive of the ongoing RM. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼ 04:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not really the place for arguments of the merits of the issue, they should be done at the discussion/RfC. A speedy close at this moment (total of 3 !votes) would look like a WP:SUPERVOTE, especially by someone who has closed already a similar discussion on the same page. Either somebody else closes it early, or I may have a look at some later time. Kraxler (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not meaning to inject merits arguments; it was just that it's rehash of what was closed pretty much moments earlier. It's going nowhere anyway (the proposer has even said so, and appears to have come around), so it won't need a formal close. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼ 16:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Places in Bangladesh)#Request for Comments

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Places in Bangladesh)#Request for Comments (Initiated 3543 days ago on 18 April 2015)? Please consider Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Proposal for WP:NCGN#Bangladesh in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)#RFC: Lead of Zeitgeist (film series)

Will an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)#RFC: Lead of Zeitgeist (film series)? (Initiated 3500 days ago on 31 May 2015) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

In view of the contentiousness of this article and of recent disruptive editing, an administrative close may be preferred. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Clinton#Infobox heading survey

Collapsing struck-out discussion for readability.
Nothing new or useful has been added to this discussion for days, and no new comments at all for over a day. There is no point to allowing as picayune a matter as the presentation of a name in an infobox to drag on any longer than it already has, so I request that a determination of consensus be made and that the discussion be closed. The entire article is currently locked down over this issue, so a swift resolution will enable a return to normal editing. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC) There has been 3 new !votes in the last two days and discussion seems quite active. If it has slowed a little then I would suggest it is because it is a holiday weekend in the US and people are busy. — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC) +1 !vote since this was filed. — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC) The subject of the discussion is a detail too minor to merit more than a week's worth of discussion, and the entire page is administratively locked pending the outcome of the discussion on this minor detail. Given the high visibility of this article, that favors a quick closure. During the week when discussion was "quite active" it was also highly circular, and contentious to the point that the aforementioned administrative lock was imposed. Lastly, after over thirty editors have weighed in (the "+1 !vote since this was filed" is probably because this was filed), opinions remain about evenly split, so there is no realistic hope of a consensus being achieved through additional argument. The only outcome of further discussion is likely to be further rehashing of points that have already been made, and a further descent into negativity. bd2412 T 21:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC) If the closure ends in a no consensus then the protection will need to run its full course per the condition of clear consensus that was set upon it (another 6 days). If a clear consensus can be had then I would be happy to enforce it, I don't care what goes in the infobox but my concerns are in trying to prevent the edit-warring from breaking out again. If that happens then we will be looking at a one month protection unless the individual edit warriors are handled accordingly. — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC) A condition unilaterally set by you, and able to be overridden by the community. It appears that you are attempting to WP:OWN the entire discussion. I therefore request that you recuse yourself from further administrative involvement in this matter. bd2412 T 00:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC) I exercised my discretion per WP:FULL and WP:PREFER as any admin may, following that policy to the letter. It states "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus (see above)." Further, I stated this at the ANI thread and there was no uninvolved admin that took exception or asked for this to be altered. On the contrary, it received support by consensus from those that commented. You have !voted and are involved and others have related this to you as well. This looks like you are trying to do a run around and undermine an administrative action because you don't like it. I'm owning my actions but certainly not that article. There has been one edit request which was handled since it was locked so that isn't a big deal. The one that should recuse is you. — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC) I have nothing to recuse from, as I am not seeking to take any administrative action in this matter; the only such action that I have undertaken was to undo your ill-considered block of a fellow admin - which, apparently, earned your enmity. You would do well to engage in some self-reflection and consider whether there is really any reason that you need to continue being attached to this matter at all. There are other admins in Misplaced Pages. bd2412 T 02:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC) No enmity. I am concerned from your top post "The entire article is currently locked down over this issue, so a swift resolution will enable a return to normal editing" combined with a later post "...opinions remain about evenly split, so there is no realistic hope of a consensus being achieved through additional argument" and I'm drawing the conclusion that you want someone to find a no consensus just so that page protection might be lifted but that is against the purpose of having the editors work at consensus per WP:PREFER. It was faulty logic to assume that a no consensus outcome would mean page protection would be nullified prematurely and that is the only real point that I've been making. Well, I do think the request is premature because other !voters may still opine to help achieve some form of consensus. An essay not yet in project space, Consensus requires patience comes to mind. Regarding the unblock, you disregarded consulting me as you should have per policy which took from me the ability to correct my mistake. Another admin came to my talk page and explained about the edit conflict and then I came to address the issue finding that you had already decided on unblocking. It would have been cleared up anyway but I did perceive that you were lacking in respect towards me. I'm not holding onto any grudge though. But now things have the appearance that you are trying to undo another admin action of mine and I'm left wondering why? Just as you have noted about me "whether there is really any reason that you need to continue being attached to this matter at all...", I'm left to wonder the same about you. I didn't initiate the above. Nonetheless, if a no consensus outcome is found upon closure then I would not object to a review of the protection at ANI and whether it remains necessary. I would abide by whatever that consensus may be. — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC) I made a bad block once; another admin removed it, and I thanked them for doing so, because the expediency of undoing an errant administrative action outweighed the protocol of waiting to see how I would deal with it. We police each other; there's no one else to do it. With respect to the current infobox discussion, this is the hangover from a dispute that has been going on since 2007. It doesn't need to stretch on further. The discussion is dead, and the idea that a consensus will form in another week is certainly not something that would be suggested by the history of the matter. For the same reason, I have no intention of dragging this back to ANI, to be relitigated in another forum for another week. bd2412 T 04:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3474 days ago on 26 June 2015) AlbinoFerret 19:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Can I get an uninvolved administrator to look at this? bd2412 T 00:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Strange as it might seem, the more you post and show there is a heated controversy, the less likely you will find takers after only 9 days. AlbinoFerret 04:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC) @AlbinoFerret: - where do you get "only 9 days" from? The discussion began at Talk:Hillary Clinton#Infobox and image captions on June 12, which is 23 days ago. It specifically says in the survey section that this is a continuation of the two previous discussions over the past month. bd2412 T 22:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC) While discussions on the topic preceded the RFC, the RFC started on June 26th . AlbinoFerret 12:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC) @AlbinoFerret: - I am troubled by the implication that any editor can basically make any discussion drag on without end by merely creating a new section and rephrasing the question under discussion there as a new RfC. bd2412 T 20:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC) I have to take issue with BD2412's claim above: "The discussion is dead, and the idea that a consensus will form in another week is certainly not something that would be suggested by the history of the matter." That might be true if we measured consensus by counting votes; but we all know they're !votes, and we don't count them. So consensus must be measured by assessing and weighing the arguments. By that measure, I, for one, see consensus in that discussion. There is an (albeit undocumented) convention clearly and strongly supported implicitly by the community at large for reflecting the article title in the infobox heading, a convention adhered to by the vast majority of our articles, including this article since its inception. No good reason to start ignoring that convention now in this article has been presented. If there was little or no objection to making them different in some case, that would be one thing. But clearly in this case there is objection, so the convention should be followed. That's following consensus. --В²C ☎ 19:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC) There's the problem with "undocumented" conventions in a nutshell. We have a status quo ante, and a rule that absent consensus for a change, the status quo ante should continue. We have a lengthy move discussion preceding the current dispute that argues all the points of Misplaced Pages:Article titles, but makes not one single mention of a change to the substance of the article. We have a roughly even split in the opinions expressed on the matter, with reasonable arguments being raised on both sides, and an absence of policy mandating a specific outcome. bd2412 T 20:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC) What's the problem with undocumented conventions? Do we really have to document every convention? Are some conventions so obvious that no documentation is necessary? Isn't this one of them? I daresay this might be the first time it has ever even been challenged. The problem isn't the undocumented convention. The problem is the stubborn refusal of some to acknowledge it. --В²C ☎ 21:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC) An undocumented, unacknowledged convention with many counter-examples isn't much of a convention. Jonathunder (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC) With 5 million articles even .01% counter-examples are going to be "many", so having "many" counter-examples is not persuasive evidence against a convention. What you need to do is hit WP:RANDOM at least 10 times and see how often you do or don't get matching titles and info box headings (not including disambiguation and redoing hits without infoboxes). Here we go. Skomarje Y Bill Wallace (American football) Y (disambiguated title, plain heading) Abdul Aziz Mirza Y Loubens, Ariège Y (disambiguated title, plain heading) Narasin Y Edir Macedo Y Bhiloda Y Kevin Callan Y Make It Big Y Aura (Miles Davis album) Y (disambiguated title, plain heading) That's about as good as convention gets on Misplaced Pages. --В²C ☎ 22:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC) @Born2cycle: - since you are of the opinion that a policy-based consensus has already been established, would you agree that it would be appropriate for an admin to close the discussion at this time? There is not going to be any great shift in participation, and the argument has already become circular and repetitive on both sides. bd2412 T 23:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Although I believe that that is the correct way to read consensus, in practice many don't seem to do that. Besides, the discussion is ongoing and I don't favor closing ongoing discussions. The normal time for an rfc is often a month, isn't it? --В²C ☎ 01:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC) The RM that led to the current dispute was opened on April 26 and closed on May 8, a total of 12 days. I can't imagine why it would take longer to settle the name in the infobox than the name in the article title. bd2412 T 02:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC) --В²C ☎ 22:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC) The issue here is that somebody thought the article should be fully-protected for two freaking weeks. Lift the protection on a probationary basis; anybody who's aware of the contention and takes to edit warring, can quite simply be blocked for disruption. This is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit; it's not the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, unless two or three people can't keep their cool. Alakzi (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC) ~~Oh, I don't see a problem with unlocking the article with the understanding that the infobox heading is to be left alone until this rfc is resolved. --В²C ☎ 16:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)~~

Collapsing struck-out discussion for readability.

Nothing new or useful has been added to this discussion for days, and no new comments at all for over a day. There is no point to allowing as picayune a matter as the presentation of a name in an infobox to drag on any longer than it already has, so I request that a determination of consensus be made and that the discussion be closed. The entire article is currently locked down over this issue, so a swift resolution will enable a return to normal editing. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

There has been 3 new !votes in the last two days and discussion seems quite active. If it has slowed a little then I would suggest it is because it is a holiday weekend in the US and people are busy.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
+1 !vote since this was filed.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The subject of the discussion is a detail too minor to merit more than a week's worth of discussion, and the entire page is administratively locked pending the outcome of the discussion on this minor detail. Given the high visibility of this article, that favors a quick closure. During the week when discussion was "quite active" it was also highly circular, and contentious to the point that the aforementioned administrative lock was imposed. Lastly, after over thirty editors have weighed in (the "+1 !vote since this was filed" is probably because this was filed), opinions remain about evenly split, so there is no realistic hope of a consensus being achieved through additional argument. The only outcome of further discussion is likely to be further rehashing of points that have already been made, and a further descent into negativity. bd2412 T 21:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
If the closure ends in a no consensus then the protection will need to run its full course per the condition of clear consensus that was set upon it (another 6 days). If a clear consensus can be had then I would be happy to enforce it, I don't care what goes in the infobox but my concerns are in trying to prevent the edit-warring from breaking out again. If that happens then we will be looking at a one month protection unless the individual edit warriors are handled accordingly.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
A condition unilaterally set by you, and able to be overridden by the community. It appears that you are attempting to WP:OWN the entire discussion. I therefore request that you recuse yourself from further administrative involvement in this matter. bd2412 T 00:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I exercised my discretion per WP:FULL and WP:PREFER as any admin may, following that policy to the letter. It states "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus (see above)." Further, I stated this at the ANI thread and there was no uninvolved admin that took exception or asked for this to be altered. On the contrary, it received support by consensus from those that commented. You have !voted and are involved and others have related this to you as well. This looks like you are trying to do a run around and undermine an administrative action because you don't like it. I'm owning my actions but certainly not that article. There has been one edit request which was handled since it was locked so that isn't a big deal. The one that should recuse is you.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I have nothing to recuse from, as I am not seeking to take any administrative action in this matter; the only such action that I have undertaken was to undo your ill-considered block of a fellow admin - which, apparently, earned your enmity. You would do well to engage in some self-reflection and consider whether there is really any reason that you need to continue being attached to this matter at all. There are other admins in Misplaced Pages. bd2412 T 02:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
No enmity. I am concerned from your top post "The entire article is currently locked down over this issue, so a swift resolution will enable a return to normal editing" combined with a later post "...opinions remain about evenly split, so there is no realistic hope of a consensus being achieved through additional argument" and I'm drawing the conclusion that you want someone to find a no consensus just so that page protection might be lifted but that is against the purpose of having the editors work at consensus per WP:PREFER. It was faulty logic to assume that a no consensus outcome would mean page protection would be nullified prematurely and that is the only real point that I've been making. Well, I do think the request is premature because other !voters may still opine to help achieve some form of consensus. An essay not yet in project space, Consensus requires patience comes to mind. Regarding the unblock, you disregarded consulting me as you should have per policy which took from me the ability to correct my mistake. Another admin came to my talk page and explained about the edit conflict and then I came to address the issue finding that you had already decided on unblocking. It would have been cleared up anyway but I did perceive that you were lacking in respect towards me. I'm not holding onto any grudge though. But now things have the appearance that you are trying to undo another admin action of mine and I'm left wondering why? Just as you have noted about me "whether there is really any reason that you need to continue being attached to this matter at all...", I'm left to wonder the same about you. I didn't initiate the above. Nonetheless, if a no consensus outcome is found upon closure then I would not object to a review of the protection at ANI and whether it remains necessary. I would abide by whatever that consensus may be.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I made a bad block once; another admin removed it, and I thanked them for doing so, because the expediency of undoing an errant administrative action outweighed the protocol of waiting to see how I would deal with it. We police each other; there's no one else to do it. With respect to the current infobox discussion, this is the hangover from a dispute that has been going on since 2007. It doesn't need to stretch on further. The discussion is dead, and the idea that a consensus will form in another week is certainly not something that would be suggested by the history of the matter. For the same reason, I have no intention of dragging this back to ANI, to be relitigated in another forum for another week. bd2412 T 04:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

(Initiated 3474 days ago on 26 June 2015) AlbinoFerret 19:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Can I get an uninvolved administrator to look at this? bd2412 T 00:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Strange as it might seem, the more you post and show there is a heated controversy, the less likely you will find takers after only 9 days. AlbinoFerret 04:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
@AlbinoFerret: - where do you get "only 9 days" from? The discussion began at Talk:Hillary Clinton#Infobox and image captions on June 12, which is 23 days ago. It specifically says in the survey section that this is a continuation of the two previous discussions over the past month. bd2412 T 22:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
While discussions on the topic preceded the RFC, the RFC started on June 26th . AlbinoFerret 12:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@AlbinoFerret: - I am troubled by the implication that any editor can basically make any discussion drag on without end by merely creating a new section and rephrasing the question under discussion there as a new RfC. bd2412 T 20:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I have to take issue with BD2412's claim above: "The discussion is dead, and the idea that a consensus will form in another week is certainly not something that would be suggested by the history of the matter." That might be true if we measured consensus by counting votes; but we all know they're !votes, and we don't count them. So consensus must be measured by assessing and weighing the arguments. By that measure, I, for one, see consensus in that discussion. There is an (albeit undocumented) convention clearly and strongly supported implicitly by the community at large for reflecting the article title in the infobox heading, a convention adhered to by the vast majority of our articles, including this article since its inception. No good reason to start ignoring that convention now in this article has been presented. If there was little or no objection to making them different in some case, that would be one thing. But clearly in this case there is objection, so the convention should be followed. That's following consensus. --В²C ☎ 19:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

There's the problem with "undocumented" conventions in a nutshell. We have a status quo ante, and a rule that absent consensus for a change, the status quo ante should continue. We have a lengthy move discussion preceding the current dispute that argues all the points of Misplaced Pages:Article titles, but makes not one single mention of a change to the substance of the article. We have a roughly even split in the opinions expressed on the matter, with reasonable arguments being raised on both sides, and an absence of policy mandating a specific outcome. bd2412 T 20:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
What's the problem with undocumented conventions? Do we really have to document every convention? Are some conventions so obvious that no documentation is necessary? Isn't this one of them? I daresay this might be the first time it has ever even been challenged. The problem isn't the undocumented convention. The problem is the stubborn refusal of some to acknowledge it. --В²C ☎ 21:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
An undocumented, unacknowledged convention with many counter-examples isn't much of a convention. Jonathunder (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
With 5 million articles even .01% counter-examples are going to be "many", so having "many" counter-examples is not persuasive evidence against a convention. What you need to do is hit WP:RANDOM at least 10 times and see how often you do or don't get matching titles and info box headings (not including disambiguation and redoing hits without infoboxes). Here we go.
Skomarje Y

Bill Wallace (American football) Y (disambiguated title, plain heading)

Abdul Aziz Mirza Y

Loubens, Ariège Y (disambiguated title, plain heading)

Narasin Y

Edir Macedo Y

Bhiloda Y

Kevin Callan Y

Make It Big Y

Aura (Miles Davis album) Y (disambiguated title, plain heading)

That's about as good as convention gets on Misplaced Pages. --В²C ☎ 22:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@Born2cycle: - since you are of the opinion that a policy-based consensus has already been established, would you agree that it would be appropriate for an admin to close the discussion at this time? There is not going to be any great shift in participation, and the argument has already become circular and repetitive on both sides. bd2412 T 23:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Although I believe that that is the correct way to read consensus, in practice many don't seem to do that. Besides, the discussion is ongoing and I don't favor closing ongoing discussions. The normal time for an rfc is often a month, isn't it? --В²C ☎ 01:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The RM that led to the current dispute was opened on April 26 and closed on May 8, a total of 12 days. I can't imagine why it would take longer to settle the name in the infobox than the name in the article title. bd2412 T 02:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

--В²C ☎ 22:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC) The issue here is that somebody thought the article should be fully-protected for two freaking weeks. Lift the protection on a probationary basis; anybody who's aware of the contention and takes to edit warring, can quite simply be blocked for disruption. This is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit; it's not the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, unless two or three people can't keep their cool. Alakzi (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

~~Oh, I don't see a problem with unlocking the article with the understanding that the infobox heading is to be left alone until this rfc is resolved. --В²C ☎ 16:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)~~

I am withdrawing my request for closure of this discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It'll have been a month by July 26. I'd suggest an Admin close it soon after – it looks to me like there is a measurable consensus now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it has already been 6 weeks since the whole infobox discussion began; the survey started a month ago was just the latest iteration of that same discussion. bd2412 T 15:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Clinton#Infobox heading survey

Discussion has tapered off and it should be formally closed. Calidum T|C 01:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

While we're at it, the Talk:Hillary Clinton#Portrait discussion is also ripe for closing. bd2412 T 15:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Bot requests#RfC: Remove persondata practical steps

Removal of wikipedia:persondata by bot: the RfC ran for 30 days, not sure what can be concluded at the end of it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Wikidata#Edit in Wikidata links

Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at this RfC – including whether there should be a follow-up RfC (and what should be discussed). (Initiated 3497 days ago on 3 June 2015) - Evad37 02:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Microsoft Surface#Surface ≠ Surface RT

The whole discussion has turned into a trench warfare. TheHoax (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3490 days ago on 10 June 2015)

This discussion was archive boxed on July 14 after an RfC was opened seeking more input on the topic, though that hasn't had any new input in about 4 days and so probably could be closed. PaleAqua (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3457 days ago on 13 July 2015)

Talk:Political positions of Jeb Bush#RFC: Should present position be summarized before discussing evolution of position?

Could someone please close this RfC that's been open for about four weeks? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bergen County, New Jersey#RfC: Should the photos be stacked in the municipalities section?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bergen County, New Jersey#RfC: Should the photos be stacked in the municipalities section? (Initiated 3503 days ago on 28 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Done AlbinoFerret 17:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Palestine grid#RfC - Should the Palestine grid, obsolete system, be used in infobox?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Palestine grid#RfC - Should the Palestine grid, obsolete system, be used in infobox? (Initiated 3500 days ago on 31 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Done AlbinoFerret 16:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Ruby RfC June 2015

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Ruby RfC June 2015 (Initiated 3477 days ago on 23 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Genetically modified food#RfC: Should the "Safety Consensus" discussion be moved out of the Controversy section?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genetically modified food#RfC: Should the "Safety Consensus" discussion be moved out of the Controversy section? (Initiated 3482 days ago on 18 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ramadan#Health section

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ramadan#Health section (Initiated 3480 days ago on 20 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kill 'Em All#RfC: Should we separate the songs in "Music and lyrics"?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kill 'Em All#RfC: Should we separate the songs in "Music and lyrics"? (Initiated 3486 days ago on 14 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Done AlbinoFerret 16:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC for web/internet/streaming series naming conventions

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC for web/internet/streaming series naming conventions (Initiated 3488 days ago on 12 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Succession to the Throne Act, 2013#RFC: Quote - which version?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Succession to the Throne Act, 2013#RFC: Quote - which version? (Initiated 3497 days ago on 3 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167#Sub-national varieties of English?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167#Sub-national varieties of English? (Initiated 3489 days ago on 11 June 2015)? See the subsection, an RfC, Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Proposal to deprecate Template:English variant notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

N Stale. Discussion is in an archive, editors are free to reopen the debate if it is still a live issue. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Reopened to allow for closure. Cunard (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The unarchiving was reverted with the edit summary "don't unarchive ancient discussions". I don't think a discussion last active a month-and-half ago is an "ancient" discussion. RfCs are typically closed between 30-90 days after they're opened. I reiterate my request for a closure because the result could affect what happens to the {{English variant notice}} template. Cunard (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (films)#RFC: Link the word “production” in NFF

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (films)#RFC: Link the word “production” in NFF (Initiated 3494 days ago on 6 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment

(Initiated 3461 days ago on 9 July 2015) While this RfC has not run the full thirty days, a vote has not been added in 7 days. Requests have been made to close the RfC by editors involved, and the original poster refuses to close it - I'd ask you to look under "Arbitrary Section Break 02" to get a good sense of the willingness of the original poster to work with his fellow editors. An administrator's close would be highly appreciated. Thank you for your time. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please decline this request. This RfC was launched 6 July 2015 and 30 days would be 6 August 2015. Discussion is ongoing. We will be back 6 August 2015 requesting a formal uninvolved third party administrative close since the article is under discretionary sanctions, see you then, thanks. Kindly allow time for wider community feedback. We have no deadline and no reason not to go the full default 30 days and get as much diverse community feedback as possible. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Hugh (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Most of the discussion is now about the clearly improper phrasing and improper canvassing by the proposer. In my opinion, it should be closed as invalid. But, in any case, Comatmebro is correct that no vote or comment related to the proposal (as opposed to comments about the RfC) has been added in 7 days. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be closed and HughD should probably face sanctions for cross posting/spamming. Springee (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"should probably face sanctions" Other venues are available to you for your editor behavior concerns. Your comment is off-topic here at this request for closure notice board. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"no vote or comment related to the proposal...has been added in 7 days" Not true. Discussion is vigorous. Please see:

That's just the last few days. Additional diffs available upon request. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC) We'll be back next week, thanks again. Hugh (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I stated in my original post that no vote had been cast in the last 7 days - which was accurate - I stated nothing about comments related to the proposal. Please do not use my WP:ANRFC to lash out at other editors. Other venues are available to you for that. Your comment is off-topic here. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW I just cast a !vote. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: There's an ANI post up about this dispute now, as well, alleging canvassing and campaigning by an involved editor. Posting here in case that affects how/when the RFC is closed. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Seeing that I never suggested extending the comment period in order to hear input from members of WikiProject Conservatism, but rather asked you why you never notified that project (you never answered my question, or notified that project), I find your question about how long I would extend the comment period odd. I've never advocated extending it. And neither you or I have any control over when it the comment period closes, since we are both involved parties and can't close it ourselves. Our opinions on when it should close don't really matter at all. Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. You can find my answer in my "initial statement" at the ANI filing, following "WP:RFC reminds us...", sorry you missed it. As per WP:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs, we can extend with consensus. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not advocate extending the RFC beyond the standard time frame and I am therefore not a part of any consensus seeking to extend that time frame. Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Done, for what it's worth (which is not much). Guy (Help!) 09:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Guy, please note that the RfC in question is still open. The RfC that was closed was a draft version. If you click on the link at the top of this section it takes you to an RfC that is still open. Thanks, Springee (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please, at WP:ANI reporting user Springee expressed concern regarding the notification of Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds to our colleagues at WP:CONSERVATISM. Since there is no deadline, please hold off on a formal administrative close of Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds until we hear from Springee regarding our option under WP:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs to extend to improve our participation. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Guy, I do not support the above attempt to WP:GAME the system in order to extend the life of the RfC. Springee (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully request formal, administrator close of this RfC Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds, since article Americans for Prosperity is currently under active discretionary sanctions. Please see WP:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log#American_politics_2. The target article of this RfC, Americans for Prosperity, is at the intersection of several active arbitration committee findings, including WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2, WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement, and WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change, broadly construed. The article talk page and the RfC discussion has been contentious, generating several WP:ANI filings. The additional accountability of a formal administrative close by an uninvolved, neutral administrator is necessary to ensure community confidence in the close. Thank you very much. Hugh (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent new !votes include today 6 August, 2 August, 1 August, and 31 July. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Watts Up With That#Request for Comments (RfC): Denialism

(Initiated 3503 days ago on 28 May 2015) There is some debate about whether or not the wording of the RfC makes sense, which the closer will need to take a look at, but some kind of resolution is still needed. MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons#Defining the term Contentious

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons#Defining the term Contentious (Initiated 3475 days ago on 25 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Borodino#RfC: Should the article infobox contain the result "French Pyrrhic Victory" and Talk:Battle of Borodino#RFC redux; alternative proposal

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Borodino#RfC: Should the article infobox contain the result "French Pyrrhic Victory" and Talk:Battle of Borodino#RFC redux; alternative proposal (Initiated 3472 days ago on 28 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of European cities by population#Rfc: How to evaluate cities or countries which are split between Asia and Europe?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of European cities by population#Rfc: How to evaluate cities or countries which are split between Asia and Europe? (Initiated 3469 days ago on 1 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Ruby RfC June 2015

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#RFC: Same-sex union recognition tables

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#RFC: Same-sex union recognition tables (Initiated 3468 days ago on 2 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Eliot Higgins#RfC: Is MIT Professor and former UN weapons inspector's opinion on Higgins' weapons analysis admissible?

Would an uninvolved editor please assess Talk:Eliot Higgins#RfC: Is MIT Professor and former UN weapons inspector's opinion on Higgins' weapons analysis admissible? There has been no further debate for 9 days and the editors appear unable to reach an agreement. (Initiated 3434 days ago on 5 August 2015)? Thanks, Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

RfCs usually run for 30 days, for outside editors to weigh in, not just regulars to the page. So, wait a bit and hope others will see the RfC and respond. As a matter of fact, I will add my opinion sometime today. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Public Storage/1

The questions are (1) were there problems with the first review, and, (2) should the article be GA-delisted? It seems reasonably clear that the consensus is "while there were no "problems with the first review - it seems fine," because a challenge was raised it should be de-listed and re-reviewed for reasons of due diligence. This opinion was expressed by SilkTork and agreed by Prhartcom, LavaBaron (the first reviewer), and CorporateM (the nominator). Three other editors, though disagreeing with the rationale for delisting, supported the delisting itself." Could an uninvolved editor assess this for close? LavaBaron (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I would urge the uninvolved editor to assess carefully, since LavaBaron is proposing the closure wording he wants, and there have indeed been people who have found significant problems with the original review and its swiftness and lack of depth, as witness the sheer number of issues raised in the GAR, which was begun right after the original GA review concluded. (The original review was opened and completed on LavaBaron's first day of GA reviewing.) Some of the opinions of people mentioned above have even changed. Thank you for your time. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Correct, as I noted Three other editors, though disagreeing with the rationale for delisting, supported the delisting itself. While the strong consensus of editors indicated there were no problems with the review, you and another editor expressed your belief (in colorful ways like "you are unqualified" and " blind") there were problems and I have no problem acknowledging that minority during closure (though would suggest we avoid using abusive characterizations of other editors (such as " blind") in a closing rationale). Also, for clarification, I did not provide "closure wording," I provided an accurate summary of the situation. The closing editor is always free to use any wording he fancies. As someone who does a lot of closures myself, I know an accurate summary of the situation is always appreciated. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre#RfC:_Role_of_Sayeret_Matkal_in_the_article

Would an uninvolved editor please assess Talk:Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre#RfC:_Role_of_Sayeret_Matkal_in_the_article? Thanks. (Initiated 3466 days ago on 4 July 2015)? Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Roosh V

Procedural request; thread originally appeared here. Erpert 01:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Could we get a review and close over at BLPN on the discussion of Roosh V by an uninvolved admin? It's been open for over a week, and discussion of the topic has been dead for a few days. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Done – note that I didn't post a decision upon closure at the BLPN section, just referred to a more recent related listing at another noticeboard, which normally could lead to a conclusion of the discussion. Please check whether I handled this correctly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Not done - The discussion at RSN is unrelated to the discussion at BLPN. The discussion at RSN is about CJAD radio and content added from that source, the discussion on BLPN is about using the Anti Defamation League as a source on itself with regards to content on a BLP. Please either re-open the BLPN discussion or provide a proper closure for the BLPN discussion. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Sport_season_articles_and_flag_use_for_club_nationality

Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Sport_season_articles_and_flag_use_for_club_nationality? Thanks, T v x1 11:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3465 days ago on 5 July 2015)

Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films#RfC:_How_should_we_classify_Baahubali

We need a close. People keep reverting all attempts to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.122.101 (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kosovo#Request_for_comment

Administrators, is there any chance one of you could close this? A non-admin stepped into a really complicated RfC and kind of made a mess of closing it, and we really could use a full-on administrative close. Thank you. Red Slash 21:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:

Administrative backlog