This is anarchive of past discussions onWikipedia:Closure requests.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent main page.

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:List of deprogrammers#RFC: The inclusion of names, the validity of references, and BLP (initiated 4 October 2014)? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done.I, JethroBT^{drop me a line}08:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Gaza flotilla raid#Request for comment II (initiated 6 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the following content be added to this article?"

Would an experienced editor also assess the consensus atTalk:Gaza flotilla raid#RfC: UNHRC vote in the lead (initiated 6 October 2014)?

Please consider the previous RfC close atTalk:Gaza flotilla raid#Request for comment in your closes. Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The first discussion,Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#Request for comment II, was closed byFormerIP (talk ·contribs).02:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And now the second. Done.Formerip (talk)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:The Game (Queen album)#RfC: Genres listed in this article's infobox (initiated 2 October 2014)? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

•  DoneThereis consensus to include the genrespop anddisco rock (which currently redirects todance-rock) in the infobox, in that order of significance. There isno consensus to includepomp rock. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}14:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Garbage (album)#RfC: genre infobox dispute; Power pop & electronic rock (initiated 2 October 2014)? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

•  DoneThereis consensus for inclusion of{{Infobox album|
  Genre=power pop,dance rock, andelectronic rock}} in this article. There seems to be multipleindependentreliablesources that support this inclusion. There was alack of consensus to includetrip-hop or to use the termtechno-rock term for electronic rock in this discussion. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}14:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Game of Thrones (season 5)#RfC: Is WatchersOnTheWall.com a suitable source for this content? (initiated 26 September 2014)? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

•  DoneThere isNo consensus to allow WatchersOnTheWall as a reliable source for use in this article. I'll note that the suggestion that this is thewrong forum for this discussion, which should have been taken up onWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard instead, seems very accurate to me. I would strongly suggest starting a new discussion there to see if the "experts" on reliable sources can add some more weighted arguments to the discussion in one direction or the other. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}14:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:International military intervention against ISIL/Archive 3 (initiated 5 October 2014) andthe RfC atTalk:International military intervention against ISIL/Archive 3#Ordering of Factions in Infobox (initiated 7 October 2014)? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Something strange happened here with archiving. It seems thatTalk:International military intervention against ISIL/Archive 3#Ordering of Factions in Infobox was archived toTalk:International military intervention against ISIL/Archive 3 but I don't see any RfC (guessing the bot removed the tag and it's all just one discussion. Reading through and closing now...
•  DoneNo consensus to make any changes. The scope of this RfC seems like it may have been too wide for the number of contributors. If there is any interest in re-proposing this kind of change, I suggest first opening an RfC to see if there is consensus to make a change, and if that closes as there is, then start another RfC to see what that change should be. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}14:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#RFC: Military intervention against ISIS 2014 in Iraq (initiated 5 October 2014) andTalk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Scope of Article (initiated 11 October 2014)? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

•  DoneTalk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#RFC: Military intervention against ISIS 2014 in Iraq withNo consensus to create an article containing all states that have launched a Military intervention in Iraq against ISIS in 2014.
• Already doneTalk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Scope of Article asResult the other article was deleted so this discussion is pointless now byLegacypac —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}13:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Efforts to impeach Barack Obama#RfC: Should the last 3 paragraphs in the public debate section be separated into a different section? (initiated 25 September 2014)? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

•  DoneThereis a consensus that no content related to the lawsuit should be included in this article as it belongs inits own article, which interestingly to me isn't linked to from{{Barack Obama}} nor is it linked in the "See Also" section as I would expect it to be. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}16:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing#Objection to revert (initiated 1 October 2014)? See the subsectionTalk:Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing#Request for comments, where the opening poster wrote: "Does the "Health risks" section of3 October or4 October best represent the sources above?" Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Closed per no consensus, the discussion has moved on somewhat and nobody is posting in the RFC any more.SPACKlick (talk)16:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTemplate talk:JPY#Shouldn't the link be piped as "JP¥"? (initiated 11 October 2014)? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

•  DoneThereis a consensus to useJP¥ in place of¥ in this template. I'll also note that the two other discussions seem to mostly support this consensus as well although they may need a more thorough closing based on their own merits. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}16:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Traditional marriage#RFC : Has advocacy language snuck onto this page to framework the readers interpretation? (initiated 6 October 2014)? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

 DoneFormerip (talk)13:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor required to close the question of whether to refer to the creature from the filmAlien as a "xenomorph" or an "alien". RFC has now been open for more than 30 days. --McGeddon (talk)11:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Done

Closed in favour "alien"SPACKlick (talk)13:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:The Zeitgeist Movement#Request for comment on reception section (initiated 7 October 2014)? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

 DoneFormerip (talk)18:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Joni Ernst#"opposes abortion", "opposes environmental regulation" (initiated 26 October 2014)? See the subsectionTalk:Joni Ernst#Summary of positions, where the opening poster wrote:

I would like to request a protected edit, to make the summary of her positions consistent with the coverage it received, per Vanamonde93. Before doing so, we need to establish consensus, so I am requesting here that editors weigh in. I propose that her positions on abortion and personhood are added to the summary in the lede.

Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - RFC is still running, and there are opinions on both sides, so that asnow closure is not in order. RFC should be allowed to continue 30 days.Robert McClenon (talk)03:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

30 days have now passed.Cunard (talk)02:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

 DoneFormerip (talk)19:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects#RfC: Should Wikinews be unhidden by default? (template) (initiated 29 September 2014)? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• This is done, but needs a template editor or experienced admin (i.e. not me) to make the appropriate change toTemplate:Sister_project_links.I, JethroBT^{drop me a line}22:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

   Done --ThaddeusB (talk)19:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an admin assess the consensus atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#Appeal of broadly construed three month topic ban (initiated 22 October 2014)? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done[1] --ThaddeusB (talk)19:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:John Wood (Room to Read)#Request for comment (initiated 26 October 2014)? Please note thatTalk:John Wood (Room to Read)#Requested move was initiated 23 November 2014. Thanks,Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Done - Closed byUser:Dekimasu and article renamed.Robert McClenon (talk)06:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Arius#Rfc: Did Constantine and Licinius legalize Christianity? (initiated 20 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Was Christianity legalized throughout the Roman Empire by Constantine or Galerius?" Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Consensus is that the RFC does not ask what the article should state and is not a valid RFC, and that any editor who has a question about what the article should say should originate a new RFC.Robert McClenon (talk)07:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Watergate scandal/Archive 1#Add "international reactions" section? (initiated 31 October 2014)? Thanks,Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Done - Consensus was to add the section. Since one of the reactions was in the US, it is called "Reactions".Robert McClenon (talk)07:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:France#RfC: Should the lead's coverage of French history be broadened? (initiated 22 October 2014)? Thanks,Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Done - Rough consensus to expand lede's coverage of French history.Robert McClenon (talk)16:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#Removal of the Timeline Section (initiated 6 November 2014)?WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks,Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Done - There is consensus to retain the section. Not a snow closure, however.Robert McClenon (talk)07:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Two envelopes problem#Request for comments (initiated 19 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "There is an ongoing discussion about whether or not we should include to the main article an excerpt from a published paper written by Tsikogiannopoulos." Thanks,Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Done - Consensus was not to include the excerpt from the paper.Robert McClenon (talk)06:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atthe RfC atTalk:100-gigabit Ethernet#Wots in a name (initiated 29 September 2014)? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

DoneSamsara17:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:United States pro-life movement#Supporters of anti-abortion violence: a fringe element in the US RTL movement: should there be a sentence about them? (initiated 15 October 2014)? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

 DoneGoPhightins!23:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Please evaluate consensus here, and take the appropriate action. In this particular case, please be mindful of the large number of SPAs and IPs that have commented without providing any relevant reasoning behind their comments.RGloucester —☎17:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done (by one of the participants...).Number5723:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Turkish people#Christians (initiated 22 September 2014)? See the subsectionTalk:Turkish people#Request for comment (initiated 12 October 2014), where the opening poster wrote: "Request for comment is on weither or not its notable to add Christianity to the infobox even though less than .001% of Turkish people are Christians." Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

 DoneNumber5723:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Application of sharia law by country#RfC: question about "application of sharia" in the article? (initiated 22 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Should "application of sharia" in this article include "legal code that applies parts of and norms derived from sharia"?The context for the dispute and discussion can be found on talk pagehere; and therein, the terms sharia, Islamic law and religious law of Islam are synonymous.

Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

 DoneNumber5723:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Chinese as a foreign language#RfC: inclusion of ethnic Chinese non-native speakers (initiated 26 October 2014)? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done —Mr. Stradivarius^{♪ talk ♪}11:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Increasing length of time for AfD discussions (initiated 20 November 2014)?WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done —Mr. Stradivarius^{♪ talk ♪}11:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposing DRN for user conduct issues (initiated 10 November 2014)? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 DoneNumber5712:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTemplate talk:No footnotes#Requests for comment (initiated 6 November 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

This proposal to deprecate{{No footnotes}}, and replace it with - a somewhat differently worded -{{No inline citations}}, needs (additional) input.

Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 DoneNumber5711:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RfC: Comma before Jr. or Sr. (initiated 30 October 2014)? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 DoneNumber5712:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Steam#Requests for comment (initiated 6 November 2014)?82.136.210.153 (talk ·contribs) wrote:

Comment Legobotremoved the RfC template. What's going to happen next?

Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 DoneNumber5711:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#RFC: expressing coordinates as decimal vs. DMS (initiated 7 November 2014)? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 DoneNumber5712:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Ukraine#RfC for including casualty statistics as exceeding casualty statistics for 9-11 (under 3000 at 9-11, just over 3000 in Ukraine) (initiated 3 November 2014)? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 DoneNumber5712:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:List of individuals sanctioned during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine#Request for comment (initiated 14 November 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Doesthis article violateWP:What Wikipedia is not? If so, which part? If not, does it violate any other rule?" Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 DoneNumber5712:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Is a consensus formed? If not, can you give it a few more weeks? If closed, I will start a new RM on the title itself. --George Ho (talk)00:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be consensus, and the RFC is still open.Robert McClenon (talk)02:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

After noting that the RFC was still open, I expressed an opinion, and so have become involved.

Will an experienced editor please assess the consensus atTalk:Battle of Cedar Creek#Request for comment concerning the name of the article?Robert McClenon (talk)06:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

•  Done I have closed the discussion as:There is a consensus thatBattle of Cedar Creek is thePRIMARY topic. There is also a consensus that there should be aBattle of Cedar Creek (disambiguation) page. There is no consensus on what the exact hatnote on the primary topic should be but it would be common sense to make it{{Other|Battle of Cedar Creek (disambiguation)}}. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}15:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:List of environmental organizations#Request for commentDone -(Initiated 4099 days ago on 28 November 2014)
? The opening poster wrote:

I'm uncertain about the value/ strengths/ focus of this article. Arguably, its main strength is the listing of environmental NGOs. But, as argued above, would this best be done via Categories by country? Should this article be renamed/ refocused/ further developed as aList of environmental non-governmental organizations, by country? Should it be deleted? Thanks for your input.

Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 DoneNumber5715:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:What I've Been Looking For#First female artist to debut two songs at the same time on the Hot 100Done -(Initiated 4166 days ago on 22 September 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• {{Done}} Closed the discussion asThere is a consensus to not exclude the text given inthe diff. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}17:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Imran Khan/Archives/2015/August#How many infoboxes should be in an articleDone -(Initiated 4120 days ago on 7 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

{{done}}Number5717:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#RfCDone -(Initiated 4126 days ago on 1 November 2014)
? The opening poster wrote:

I broached this topic at the talk page for RS/N but the primary discussion should clearly be here, as the discussion now in Archive46 makes clear.

Should the following be placed in this policy:

Headlines of news articles are not intrinsically part of news articles, but should be treated separately as sources rather than being used for claims cited to the news article.

Please consider the previous closed RfCsWikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 43#RfC - are newspaper headlines a reliable source per se?Done - (Initiated 4268 days ago on 12 June 2014) andWikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 46#Add something about never using headlines as sources?Done - (Initiated 4221 days ago on 29 July 2014) in your close. Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

{{done}} --ThaddeusB (talk)19:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an admin or admins assess the consensus atWikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Media Viewer RfC Question 1Done -(Initiated 4155 days ago on 3 October 2014)
andWikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Media Viewer RfC Question 2Done -(Initiated 4155 days ago on 3 October 2014)
. Please noteWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#Close Review Media Viewer RfC. An editor wrote at the bottom of the AN discussion: "I support the idea of having three a panel of 3 close this, considering how contentious this matter is." Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Already done byCenarium (diff) andEdokter (diff) respectively. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}03:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Battle of Cedar Creek#Request for commentDone -(Initiated 4131 days ago on 27 October 2014)
? The opening poster wrote:

We have other two topics named "Battle of Cedar Creek":Battle of Cedar Creek (Jacksonville) andBattle of Cedar Creek (1876). Recently, I createdBattle of Cedar Creek (disambiguation) just in case. This "Battle of Cedar Creek" topic discusses one of battles fought in Virginia in 1864 during the American Civil War. Is this topic primary perWP:primary topic? If not, how can you disambiguate this Virginia battle?

Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

•  DoneThere is a consensus thatBattle of Cedar Creek is thePRIMARY topic. There is also a consensus that there should be aBattle of Cedar Creek (disambiguation) page. There is no consensus on what the exact hatnote on the primary topic should be but it would be common sense to make it{{Other|Battle of Cedar Creek (disambiguation)}}. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}15:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Shooting of Michael Brown#RFC: Alleged theft of cigars from convenience store?Done -(Initiated 4098 days ago on 29 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 DoneNumber5712:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an admin assess the consensus atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#Electronic cigaretteDone -(Initiated 4123 days ago on 4 November 2014)
? See the subsectionWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:AlbinoFerret. If there is a consensus for a topic ban, please add the topic ban toWikipedia:Editing restrictions. Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Already done byChillum on 03:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC) —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}00:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:House of Assembly of Jamaica#RfCDone -(Initiated 4120 days ago on 7 November 2014)
? The opening poster wrote: "Should the{{Politics of Jamaica}} be added this article?" Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 DoneSamWalton (talk)00:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus attalk:Azad Kashmir/Archives/2015/March#PoK as title or Anything related to disputedDone -(Initiated 4206 days ago on 13 August 2014)
? See the subsectionTalk:Azad Kashmir#RFC: Disambiguating PoKDone -(Initiated 4111 days ago on 16 November 2014)
. Please consider the unclosed 2012 RfCTalk:Azad Kashmir/Archives/2012/December#Request for comment: claimed districts in your close. Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to waste admin time for a formal close.. consensus is already implemented among participants and RFC was withdrawn. --lTopGunl (talk)06:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I think a formal close would be helpful to record the consensus since this was previously discussed in the 2012 unclosed RfCTalk:Azad Kashmir/Archives/2012/December#Request for comment: claimed districts.Cunard (talk)02:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• This isn't as clear cut as it looks. Apparently there are other uses for "PoK" and there is already a DAB page atPOK. I've commented in the discussion as such, and in doing so am tooI to close it now. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}17:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• {{Done}} Apparently, the RfC wasn't about the anagram of PoK, but it was instead about the full titled version of what the anagram represents. I've closed it as such and declared that if anyone considering my comment made out of confusion as making me involved is welcome to revert and request a new closer here. Please do not archive this section for at least 72 hours. The exact closure was:The consensus is thatPakistan occupied Kashmir andPakistan-occupied Kashmir should redirect toAzad Kashmir andPoK should be a disambiguation page.Note: My comment below was made out of confusion which was cleared up in the response and since it was not what the basis of this discussion was, I do not feel it implies I wasINVOLVED. If you disagree, feel free to revert and request a new closer atWP:ANRFC —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}18:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Formula 1Done -(Initiated 4146 days ago on 12 October 2014)
? See the subsectionWikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Formal pollDone -(Initiated 4145 days ago on 13 October 2014)
. Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• In progress —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}16:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
• {{Done}} I've closed the discussion with:There is consensus to use the national flag icon of an athlete in an international competition as a graphic symbol for that athlete for competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in the particular sport. There is consensus that F1 is such an international competition and that use of flag icons to represent a driver's chosen nationality is acceptable to represent their participation in an event where they represented that country. There is also consensus that the flags should not be used to represent the driver for other events where they do not represent a specific country or for general use. There were some valid concerns thatMOS:ICON was aWP:LOCALCONSENSUS as a whole and as such not enforceable as a community wide consensus. My eyes are however bugged out after reading that discussion, so if there is something I have missed, please point it out to me and I'll revise the closure as is appropriate. Thank you. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}17:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atthe RfC atWikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Should we allow DVD release dates in series overview tables?Done -(Initiated 4125 days ago on 2 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Done}}.SamWalton (talk)16:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTemplate talk:Care Bears#CompaniesDone -(Initiated 4140 days ago on 18 October 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Closed as no consensus.SamWalton (talk)17:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Since the proposal is being criticized as "proposer admitted to be a sock puppet" and during the discussion we had found a better page where it could be merged, i.e.Human rights abuses in Kashmir. I think this merge needs to be closed because many of the votes have been made in favor of merging the article into Human rights abuses in Kashmir. It would be better to start a new one. Thanks.OccultZone(Talk •Contributions •Log)02:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4327 days ago on 14 April 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}00:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
•  DoneThere is consensus to merge this article withHuman rights abuses in Kashmir and leave a redirect with appropriate templates. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}17:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The consensus has formed. --George Ho (talk)00:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4118 days ago on 9 November 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}16:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Closed as no consensus.SamWalton (talk)18:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Old MFD with overdue closure for a month. —xaosflux^Talk17:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4127 days ago on 31 October 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}20:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
•  Done Closed as:No consensus to disband this WikiProject Taskforce (even a task force with only three or four actual members as the others were accounts created that have no edits except for this discussion and adding themselves to the wikiproject and have been reported toWP:SPI to be investigated and dealt with) and whileWikipedia:WikiProject Football/Task forces and sub-projects says it isgenerally inadvisable to create task forces without prior discussion it doesn't prohibit it. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}18:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Since the proposal is being criticized as "proposer admitted to be a sock puppet" and during the discussion we had found a better page where it could be merged, i.e.Human rights abuses in Kashmir. I think this merge needs to be closed because many of the votes have been made in favor of merging the article into Human rights abuses in Kashmir. It would be better to start a new one. Thanks.OccultZone(Talk •Contributions •Log)02:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4327 days ago on 14 April 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}00:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
•  DoneThere is consensus to merge this article withHuman rights abuses in Kashmir and leave a redirect with appropriate templates. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}17:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:2014 Isla Vista killings#RFC - Violence against men category for article 2014 Isla Vista killingsDone -(Initiated 4144 days ago on 14 October 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Closed with consensus against inclusion of the category.SamWalton (talk)00:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Debito Arudou#RfC: Is the "Academic Publications" subsection of "Publications" in this BLP warranted?Done -(Initiated 4143 days ago on 15 October 2014)
? Please consider in your close the related comment atTalk:Debito Arudou#Suggestion for improving this BLP (1) from the subject of the article. Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Done}}. Closed with consensus against a full list.SamWalton (talk)11:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Joni Ernst#RfC Pro Life StanceDone -(Initiated 4138 days ago on 20 October 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC){{Done}} - No consensus because editors considered the wording of the RFC to be unclear. A new RFC with clearer wording would be in order.Robert McClenon (talk)02:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Vietnam War#war crimes should be at least mentioned in the leadDone -(Initiated 4144 days ago on 14 October 2014)
? See the subsectionTalk:Vietnam War#RfC: Should the lead state "War crimes were committed by both sides"?Done -(Initiated 4136 days ago on 22 October 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Done}}. Closed with consensus against inclusion of war crimes information in the lead.SamWalton (talk)11:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Captain Marvel (DC Comics)#RfC: Article/character name and usageDone -(Initiated 4133 days ago on 25 October 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Done}}. Closed as no consensus due largely to lack of participation.SamWalton (talk)11:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Need closure and assessment of the consensus. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ}02:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4125 days ago on 2 November 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}20:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Done}} - Closed byUser:Snow Rise.Robert McClenon (talk)03:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atthe RfC atTalk:Ayurveda#Should this article be categorized as "pseudoscience"?Done -(Initiated 4126 days ago on 1 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC){{Done}} - Rough consensus against characterization.Robert McClenon (talk)02:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey#RfC: Reinsertion of photographsDone -(Initiated 4123 days ago on 4 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Done}}. Consensus was for keeping the images.SamWalton (talk)17:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atthe RfC atTalk:Calcium#Supplementation & CancerDone -(Initiated 4128 days ago on 30 October 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Done}} - Agreement on revised wording of statement.Robert McClenon (talk)03:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 114#Creation of the "Special talk:" namespaceDone -(Initiated 4140 days ago on 18 October 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Declined Insufficient participation for a site-wide change. --DQ(ʞlɐʇ)23:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an admin assess the consensus atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive267#Proposed site ban for BlastikusDone -(Initiated 4094 days ago on 3 December 2014)
? If there is consensus for a ban, please add{{Banned user}} toUser:Blastikus and link to the discussion using the |link=[[discussion]] parameter. Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Declined Insufficient participation for a site-wide ban. --DQ(ʞlɐʇ)22:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Clemson–South Carolina rivalry#Request for CommentDone -(Initiated 4130 days ago on 28 October 2014)
? The opening poster wrote:

Recently some editors have expressed the opinion that the non-athletic history/background section of the article should be significantly reduced or eliminated while another editor feels that the length, detail and weight of non-athletic history/background section of the article is appropriate and proper. Please indicate whether you feel that the section should be a) kept as is or b) cut back and summarized or c) completely removed. As you can see, Third Party Opinion was already solicited for this topic.

Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Trimming the non-athletic history splits the difference between deleting it and keeping all of it.Robert McClenon (talk)04:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union#RfC: Recent fixtures and upcoming fixtures should not be included in rugby team articlesDone -(Initiated 4144 days ago on 14 October 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• {{Done}}There is consensus for the removal of lists of recent and upcoming fixtures from any articles that still include them as they are non-encyclopedic. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}05:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atthe RfC atTalk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming#Poll discussion - Should we also require a secondary RS as part of listing criteriaDone -(Initiated 4131 days ago on 27 October 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

{{done}}Sunrise(talk)18:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:S. Truett Cathy#RfC: "anti-gay", againDone -(Initiated 4129 days ago on 29 October 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done - No consensus, but the questioned wording has been removed, so issue is resolved.Robert McClenon (talk)04:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Persib Bandung#RfC: Should it be shorter?Done -(Initiated 4143 days ago on 15 October 2014)
andTalk:Persib Bandung#ConsensusDone -(Initiated 4117 days ago on 10 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Done -There is consensus that this article is too long and needs to be trimmed.
•  Done -There is a consensus that the affiliated clubs section will be removed from the article. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}18:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTemplate talk:Tq#Removing the italics optionDone -(Initiated 4144 days ago on 14 October 2014)
? The opening poster wrote: "Should we remove the italicize-quotation option from this and any similar[i.e., quotation-formatting] templates?" Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• In progress —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}19:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done -There isno consensus to removeitalics as an option for this or any other quotation-formatting templates for use outside of article space. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}19:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Miniseries naming conventionDone -(Initiated 4143 days ago on 15 October 2014)
? The opening poster wrote:

This discussion started in January 2013, but was soon after archived, and the discussion never closed. The purpose of this discussion is to determine ifWikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Episodic television should be rewritten to state that "(TV miniseries)" or "(miniseries)" should be the standard for disambiguators in TV miniseries articles that require disambiguation in their titles.

Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Done -There is consensus that the disambiguator for a TV miniseries should be(miniseries) except in rare occurrences when more detail is required. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}20:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a proposal and discussion here—Talk:SpaceX#Tom Mueller - other founderDone -(Initiated 4211 days ago on 8 August 2014)
and subsectionTalk:SpaceX#Proposal —that really ought to be closed by an outside uninvolved closer. Would appreciate the overview.N2e (talk)18:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• In progress —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}20:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  DoneThere is consensus thatTom Mueller should not be listed as a founder in this article until a time when adequate sources can be found. There is no consensus that all sources need to be approved on the talk page before they can be added to the article. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}21:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Proposal: remove parenthetical information from lead (RfC)Done -(Initiated 4138 days ago on 20 October 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done I've closed the discussion. There wasn't enough participation for me to even guess at the larger consensus, but the participants agreed that something needed to be done, so I've asked them to try to get a larger discussion going. - Dank (push to talk)05:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:List of One Piece characters#RFC: Straw Hat Pirates as Main characters or Protagonists?Done -(Initiated 4142 days ago on 16 October 2014)
andTalk:List of One Piece characters#Character additionsDone -(Initiated 4142 days ago on 16 October 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

•  DoneNo consensus has been reached.
•  DoneThere is a consensus to includeSabo and there is no consensus toBartolomeo. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}06:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an admin or experienced editor please readWikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Notice of intention to stand to down as TFA coordinatorDone -(Initiated 4110 days ago on 17 November 2014)
andWikipedia talk:Today's featured article#RfC: Team of coordinators, or consensus-buildingDone -(Initiated 4102 days ago on 25 November 2014)
and decide (a) whether it is appropriate to close any or all of the discussions there and (b) if so what the consensus is. (FYI, I gave a week's notice of my intention to ask for this closure atWikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Wrapping this up and left talk-page messages for Montanabw (link) and Pigsonthewing (link); the former has replied at her talk page and on the WT:TFA talk page, the latter has not). Many thanks.Bencherlite^Talk15:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The longer this goes on, the less time people will have to look over TFA decisions made for early January, so a prompt closure - or alternatively a decision that it cannot be closed at this time, if that is the case - would be appreciated.Bencherlite^Talk

 Done the first discussion where there was clear consensus for the nominated candidates. Deciding what to do with the second now...SamWalton (talk)11:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Second RfC closed.SamWalton (talk)12:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Paul LePage#RFC: Paul LePage and the Sovereign Citizen's MovementDone -(Initiated 4137 days ago on 21 October 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Justnoted onWP:WikiProject Maine's talk page. As such, suggest holding off on closing until project members have a chance to respond. I'm unable to close this discussion myself as I am a resident of the state of Maine (and a member of the wikiproject for the state) that strongly opposes Governor LePage (despite the fact that I would have to close it as a consensus to not include the controversial content), and I don't want this residency to be usable as an argument to overturn the closure. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}15:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

{{done}}.Formerip (talk)21:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atthe RfC atTalk:Indo-Canadians#Merge discussionDone -(Initiated 4135 days ago on 23 October 2014)
? The opening poster wrote: "Question: ShouldIndo-Canadians in British Columbia andIndo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver be separate or should the latter be merged into the former?" Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Done byUser:S Marshall

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 115#Proposal for countering systematic biasDone -(Initiated 4100 days ago on 27 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

{{done}} --ThaddeusB (talk)19:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Unarchived the discussion hasn't been closed yet. Based onThaddeusB's contributions, it looks like he meant to markWikipedia talk:Canvassing#Canvassing Country / Nation level Wikiprojects as closed but accidentally marked this one as closed.Cunard (talk)00:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, the two conversations are the same thing. The one I closed is is transcluded into VP. The close doesn't come through the transclusion, but it is closed. I can{{atop}} to VP discussion too if you really want. --ThaddeusB (talk)16:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I am mistaken. I did not notice that the discussions were identical and one was transcluded to the other. Sorry for the mistake.Cunard (talk)19:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

An experienced closer is needed to closeWikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 117#Should the +reviewer bit be removed from inactive reviewers?Done -(Initiated 4111 days ago on 16 November 2014)
—{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}01:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done byUser:Samwalton9

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 17#Ordering of sectionsDone -(Initiated 4132 days ago on 26 October 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

{{done}}.Formerip (talk)17:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:2014 Hong Kong protests/Archive 3#RfC: Proposal to move the content of Chronology section to WikinewsDone -(Initiated 4129 days ago on 29 October 2014)
? The discussion was removedhere with the edit summary "moving RfC back to current Talk", but it was not moved back. Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion has been archived, so deciding on a consensus won't be easy. --George Ho (talk)01:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

{{done}}.Formerip (talk)17:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atthe RfC atTalk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 18#RfC: Three months moratorium on page movesDone -(Initiated 4129 days ago on 29 October 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

{{done}}.Bellerophon_{talk to me}21:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion appears to have run its course. Need an unonvolved party to assess and close it. --ThaddeusB (talk)19:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at this, but given that votes are more-or-less 50/50 and we're in the I/P topic area, I don't think it can be safely closed until the 30 days are up.Formerip (talk)19:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4109 days ago on 18 November 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}20:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm writing in support of the polite resolution of the discussion occurring on this topic when consensus closes in three days. Thank you for you help.Rustandbone (talk)18:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

{{done}}Bellerophon_{talk to me}03:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 14#Editor PollDone -(Initiated 4116 days ago on 11 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

As the editor who started the poll, I have to ask why it needs to be closed? The parameters of the poll say that it cant be used to come to any conclusions or changes to the article. This looks like a waste of time that could be better spent closing something that needs closing.AlbinoFerret17:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Endorse the above view. The poll did not ask for a ruling on consensus and any conclusions drawn would be procedurally invalid based on the phrasing of the pole.Bellerophon_{talk to me}01:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

•  Not done per comments above. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}01:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Punjabi language#RfC: Writing Systems of Punjabi languageDone -(Initiated 4124 days ago on 3 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done by Snow Rise.Number5718:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Vagina#RfC: Should both three and four layers be mentioned as composing the vaginal walls?Done -(Initiated 4123 days ago on 4 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done by S Marshall.Number5718:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive269#Closure review: America: Imagine the World Without HerDone -(Initiated 4117 days ago on 10 November 2014)
after there has been sufficient discussion? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Already done - Closed byUser:SarekOfVulcan 20:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC) as original closure was correct.Robert McClenon (talk)21:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#RFC: Should WikiProject article categories be renamed to WikiProject X articles by quality, A-Class WikiProject X articles, etcDone -(Initiated 4127 days ago on 31 October 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 DoneNumber5718:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Mark Begich#RFC for content attributed to votesmart.orgDone -(Initiated 4128 days ago on 30 October 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

•  Done - No consensus, and so no change to article. Another RFC with more effort to attract participation would be an option.Robert McClenon (talk)21:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#RfC: Voting crats cannot closeDone -(Initiated 4104 days ago on 23 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done by S Marshall.Number5718:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion has been open for 2-1/2 weeks. --RoySmith(talk)13:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4097 days ago on 30 November 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}18:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Already done by☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC) —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}22:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

One discussion may have reached a consensus. --George Ho (talk)21:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4088 days ago on 9 December 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}21:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

{{done}} --BDD (talk)15:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:List of academic ranks#Request for comment: Splitting the academic rank topicsDone -(Initiated 4124 days ago on 3 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done - There is agreement that the work being done by one editor in splitting the rank topics is satisfactory.Robert McClenon (talk)04:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atthe RfC atWikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 50#Main Page ITN picture locationDone -(Initiated 4139 days ago on 19 October 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure this really needed a close, but I've Done it anyway.Formerip (talk)01:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an admin assess the consensus atWikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 1#Hudson Street Hooligans? Thanks,Cunard (talk)19:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4096 days ago on 1 December 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}06:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

•  Done by Salvidrim!.Cunard (talk)01:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an admin assess the consensus atWikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 6#Moxie Raia? Thanks,Cunard (talk)19:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4091 days ago on 6 December 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}06:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

•  Done by Salvidrim!.Cunard (talk)01:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia talk:Administrative Standards Commission#RfC: Should Requests for Adminship be supplemented or replaced by an elected committee?Done -(Initiated 4128 days ago on 30 October 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that the discussion seems to have largely moved on on that page and there's afresh RfC started to continue the discussion, I'm not sure this needs an official close.SamWalton (talk)00:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. I withdraw this RfC closure request.Cunard (talk)01:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus atTalk:Electronic cigarette#Vapor, Mist, & Aerosol RFCDone -(Initiated 4112 days ago on 15 November 2014)
?SPACKlick (talk)23:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Would a experienced uninvolved editor please close this. discussion and responses stopped about a week ago. The issue is very contentious on the page and only one part of a multi question RFC appears to have a clear answer though the response to others may help. Thanks.AlbinoFerret14:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Done -(Initiated 4109 days ago on 18 November 2014)
—{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}00:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That needs to be corrected, I started the RFC, on the 15th of NovemberdiffAlbinoFerret14:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

{{done}} byS MarshallSPACKlick (talk)15:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Request an admin's assistance to assess the RfC consensus atTalk:Axis powers regarding; Should this article have a "former country" type infobox.

• Done -(Initiated 4105 days ago on 22 November 2014)
  --E-960 (talk)10:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• {{Done}}SamWalton (talk)18:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Has gone over 7 days.LibStar (talk)05:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4087 days ago on 10 December 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}21:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

{{done}} by Randykitty.Number5719:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Relist has gone over 7 days.LibStar (talk)12:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4086 days ago on 11 December 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}21:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

{{done}} by Randykitty.Number5719:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an admin assess the consensus atWikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 7#Involuntary celibacy? Thanks,Cunard (talk)19:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4090 days ago on 7 December 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}06:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• {{done}} by Sandstein.Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atthe RfC atTalk:Chandra Levy#Notability of Chandra Levy and events involving herDone -(Initiated 4090 days ago on 7 December 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Done}} - Consensus against moving or renaming.Robert McClenon (talk)03:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Bath School disaster#RfC: Article title changeDone -(Initiated 4116 days ago on 11 November 2014)
? An editor wrote: "It would be preferable to allow a third, non-involved party to close down the discussion." Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Done}} - Article title will be left unchanged.Robert McClenon (talk)03:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Light bulb (disambiguation)#RFCDone -(Initiated 4118 days ago on 9 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC){{Done}}

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Metacompiler#RFCDone -(Initiated 4109 days ago on 18 November 2014)
? If no consensus can be reached from the lengthy RfC, please consider advising the participants on how to frame a better RfC. Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Done}} - Closed as no consensus. The original RFC did not ask a question about the article content. It did not even ask for comments about article content. Instead, it started off with a statement, and then the editors began repeating themselves. Either a new RFC is needed with a question about article content, or the editors can go tothe dispute resolution noticeboard, where a volunteer moderator can try to help the editors decide what the issues are.Robert McClenon (talk)05:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Hi-5 (Australian band)#RfC: Reorganize band members sectionDone -(Initiated 4136 days ago on 22 October 2014)
? The opening poster wrote: "Should the Band members section be simplified to just show current and former members, with members' reasons for leaving and successions to be expanded upon in the band's History section?" Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

{{done}}Number5723:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

These discussion must be closed, but I want someone who knows how to use {{subst:MRV top}} and {{subst:MRV bottom}}. --George Ho (talk)01:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Now that two discussions are closed, someone should close the only one remaining. --George Ho (talk)23:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4117 days ago on 10 November 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}20:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

{{done}} by Black Kite.Number5723:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atthe RfC atTalk:Mahatma Gandhi#Mahatma?Done -(Initiated 4104 days ago on 23 November 2014)
? After closing the discussion, please update the{{Old moves}} template at the top of the talk page. Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

{{done}}Number5723:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an admin assess the consensus atTalk:Electronic cigarette#Proposed removal of claimDone -(Initiated 4082 days ago on 15 December 2014)
? The discussion is not an RfC but involves an{{editprotected}} request. Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

{{done}} byMr. Stradivarius (talk ·contribs).Sunrise(talk)18:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atthe RfC atTalk:2012 Benghazi attack#Current titleDone -(Initiated 4113 days ago on 14 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

{{done}}Number5723:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atthe RfC atTalk:St. Francis Dam#Grunsky NPOV issueDone -(Initiated 4116 days ago on 11 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

{{done}}Number5722:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atthe RfC atTalk:Watergate scandal/Archive 1#Adding media portrayal and public reactionsDone -(Initiated 4102 days ago on 25 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

{{done}}Number5723:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atthe RfC atTalk:PATH (Toronto)#Current titleDone -(Initiated 4116 days ago on 11 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Done}} - No clear question; no clear answer.Robert McClenon (talk)15:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atthe RfC atTalk:Climate engineering#Editing disagreement over soot particlesDone -(Initiated 4108 days ago on 19 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Done}} - See talk page. There was too much going around and around. Anyone who is dissatisfied with the close, rather than reopening an RFC, is advised to request volunteer moderator assistance atthe dispute resolution noticeboard.Robert McClenon (talk)16:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I nominated this move 15 days ago, and today there is not much talking happening. So I am here because I think something should be clear by now. I note that, with an article title beingList of lists of lists, it would be good if the closing admin is familiar with content/noncontent abstraction. -DePiep (talk)20:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4088 days ago on 9 December 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}21:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

{{close}} --Mdann52talk to me!15:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atthe RfC atTalk:Prostitution in South Korea#Reverted removal of the Japanese sex tourists in South Korea sectionDone -(Initiated 4128 days ago on 30 October 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Done}} - No consensus. Suggestions made as to a better RFC orWP:DRN.Robert McClenon (talk)05:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Cambodian genocide denial#RfC: Is the section on Chomsky neutral?Done -(Initiated 4116 days ago on 11 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

{{done}}Formerip (talk)20:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 23#RFC: Lists of countries and territories, List of sovereign states, List of active rebel groups and ISILDone -(Initiated 4102 days ago on 25 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

{{done}}.Formerip (talk)21:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:United States#RFC on Scope of United StatesDone -(Initiated 4119 days ago on 8 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

{{done}}Formerip (talk)02:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive 23#Tom NolanDone -(Initiated 4079 days ago on 18 December 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

{{done}}.Formerip (talk)11:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I think discussion has peaked. --George Ho (talk)04:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4161 days ago on 27 September 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}21:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done I fail to see why a close is needed here - there is no proposal, and no real conclusion reached by the discussion. Of course, I could be missing something here. --Mdann52talk to me!15:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

A previously closed and then reopened request to merge/redirect this article somewhere. Requires a thoughtful and ironskinned admin. Note involvement of "GamerGate" and Jimbo.Hipocrite (talk)15:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

A non-administrator attempted to close this discussion, but it has been reverted. Please note that no non-administrator should be closing this discussion as dictated by the controversial nature of it, and because of previous accusations of procedural failure. It would be nice if some administrator would pop in and make a determination.RGloucester —☎17:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4089 days ago on 8 December 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}17:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. Whoever closes this should read the old discussion, which opened in October. That discussion was reopened by Mr Wales, 11 days ago as said by Mr 13.RGloucester —☎17:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit: It seems someone has hidden the old discussion in an archive. I'll provide the linkhere.RGloucester —☎17:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4129 days ago on 29 October 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}18:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It was actually on October 29, 2014,here.Dave Dial (talk)18:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If this close has been reverted by a single editor purely and solely on the basis that the close was not an admin, the close should be re-instated. The closer was not a rookie, and admins do not receive any special training in closing discussions and it is never permissible to just revert a close without discussion. Per policyhere. the admin status of the closer is not a valid complaint. If it's a bad close, complain atWP:AN.

It's not clear to me whether this was a formal RfC, but if so then the close was premature, because an RfC runs from when it was opened, not from when some other archived discussion was opened. In that case, though, you need to wait for the 30 days to end.Formerip (talk)16:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a valid complaint, given that the discussion was explicitly reopened by Mr Wales because he objected to non-administrator closure. It is quite clear that you are not familiar with the peculiar nature of this particular discussion, and the Wales intrigue involved.RGloucester —☎23:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't valid. It wouldn't matter if the Pope had got involved. It's settled policy that you cannot summarily overturn a good-faith close of an RfC/talkpage discussion, particularly if your only reason is that a non-admin did it. If you feel there is something wrong with the close, take the matter to AN. That's what you're supposed to do.Formerip (talk)23:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It is valid, given the peculiar nature of this case. In any other case, I'd agree with you. In this case, where my non-administrator closure was overturned by Mr Wales for this express reason, we cannot follow through on the same procedural error.RGloucester —☎01:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't followed the whole thing, but if Jimbo previously summarily reverted a good-faith close, that was an error on his part. Rather than duplicate it, I would suggest discussion the whole thing, including the previous revert at AN.Formerip (talk)02:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with FormerIP that it is established policy and practice that non-admin RfC/talkpage discussions cannot be summarily reverted. I have taken this toWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Restoring reverted close of Talk:Cultural Marxism#Re-proposal (permanent link).Cunard (talk)02:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • That's BS. There is no way, after Jimbo reverted the previous close, that a non-admin should close that Merge proposal. Especially with all of the off-site canvassing. There is an admin there now pretending he is neutral who has been heavily involved in the Gamergate controversy. A non-involved admin should read through both the previous Merge proposal and the current one. And the sources. Carefully. Especially when you have [[WP:FRINGE|fringe groups] likeStormfrontsending inSPAs, along with Gamergate people on 4chan and /pol/ NN from 8chan. The whole 'issue' should have been left alone in the first place.Dave Dial (talk)05:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I want to withdraw my deletion request.Bosstopher (talk)15:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done byUser:Malcolmxl5.Sunrise(talk)00:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

New sanctions have been placed,(seeTalk:Ayurveda#Update) further discussion seems to be unnecessary.Bladesmulti (talk)15:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is now atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#Ayurveda.Cunard (talk)02:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4115 days ago on 12 November 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}16:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Already done based on my read ofTalk:Ayurveda/Archive_7#Reviewing_the_restrictions, there is nothing additional to resolve in the ANI thread as the 0RR restriction has been removed.I, JethroBT^{drop me a line}12:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 61#RfCDone -(Initiated 4134 days ago on 24 October 2014)
? The opening poster wrote: "Which of the following formats for presenting late-night anime air times should be followed?" Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The consensus for "Official air times with footnote" seems clear, but the discussion has been archived. Does the rule against editing the content of an archive supersede the request that the RfC be officially assessed and closed? --GRuban (talk)02:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• You can close discussions that have been archived, there is no rule or policy against it. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}03:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done.I, JethroBT^{drop me a line}12:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Songs for the Deaf#Songs for the Deaf is what musical genres? RFCDone -(Initiated 4122 days ago on 5 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 DoneFormerip (talk)11:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4219 days ago on 31 July 2014)
  -2014 September 13#国庆节 {{WP:ANRFC/retarget|type=RfD|国庆日}}
• Done -(Initiated 4218 days ago on 1 August 2014)
  -2014 September 21#Easter Island Syndrome {{WP:ANRFC/no consensus|type=RfD}}
• Done -(Initiated 4210 days ago on 9 August 2014)
  -2014 September 21#Preventive medicine in islam {{WP:ANRFC/delete|page=Preventive medicine in islam|type=RfD|deleted=yes}}
• Done -(Initiated 4199 days ago on 20 August 2014)
  -2014 October 14#Ronald Reagan Election Eve Speech "A Vision For America" {{WP:ANRFC/delete|page=Ronald Reagan Election Eve Speech "A Vision For America"|type=RfD|nac=closure|deleted=yes}}
• Done -(Initiated 4194 days ago on 25 August 2014)
  -2014 October 4#XHICG-TV {{WP:ANRFC/no consensus|type=RfD}}
• Done -(Initiated 4191 days ago on 28 August 2014)
  -2014 September 24#Vladimir Putin's {{WP:ANRFC/delete|page=Vladimir Putin's|type=RfD|deleted=yes}}
• Done -(Initiated 4186 days ago on 2 September 2014)
  -2014 October 8#Kana:wa {{WP:ANRFC/delete|page=Kana:wa|nac=closure|type=RfD|deleted=yes}}
• Done -(Initiated 4185 days ago on 3 September 2014)
  -2014 October 16#Li Holokauste RfD closed with consensuses for deleting 2 and keeping 2 but no consensus on the last.
• Done -(Initiated 4182 days ago on 6 September 2014)
  -2014 October 16#Táiwan Closed as keep
• Done -(Initiated 4176 days ago on 12 September 2014)
  -2014 October 31#Sockpuppet investigations {{WP:ANRFC/delete|page=Sockpuppet investigations|type=RfD|deleted=yes}}
• Done -(Initiated 4171 days ago on 17 September 2014)
  -2014 October 21#Mangga - {{WP:ANRFC/retarget|Manga (disambiguation)}} —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}13:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Done -(Initiated 4166 days ago on 22 September 2014)
  -2014 September 22#Next Fijian general election {{WP:ANRFC/retarget|List of next general elections#Oceania}}
• Done -(Initiated 4166 days ago on 22 September 2014)
  -2014 September 22#Juvenile Law in Illinois {{WP:ANRFC/delete|page=Juvenile Law in Illinois|type=RfD|deleted=yes}}
• Done -(Initiated 4148 days ago on 10 October 2014)
  -2014 October 10#Wikipedia-Supported Software {{WP:ANRFC/retarget|Wikipedia#Software operations and support|nac=no}}
• Done -(Initiated 4148 days ago on 10 October 2014)
  -2014 October 10#Ὀλιγαρχία Closed as keep
• Done -(Initiated 4144 days ago on 14 October 2014)
  -2014 December 16#民主進歩党 - {{WP:ANRFC/no consensus|type=RfD|nac=no}}I, JethroBT^{drop me a line}13:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Done -(Initiated 4137 days ago on 21 October 2014)
  -2014 October 21#Global Jihad RFD non-admin closure was todisambiguate
• Done -(Initiated 4135 days ago on 23 October 2014)
  -2014 October 23#Ἀφορισμός {{WP:ANRFC/delete|page=Ἀφορισμός|type=RfD|nac=closure|deleted=yes}}
• Done -(Initiated 4130 days ago on 28 October 2014)
  -2014 December 18#Example of low wage job - {{WP:ANRFC/delete|type=RfD|page=Example of low wage job|nac=closure|deleted=yes}} —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}13:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Done -(Initiated 4124 days ago on 3 November 2014)
  -2014 November 3#Maangamizi makuu dhidi ya Wayahudi wa Ulaya {{WP:ANRFC/delete|page=Maangamizi makuu dhidi ya Wayahudi wa Ulaya|type=RfD|nac=closure|deleted=yes}}
• Done -(Initiated 4100 days ago on 27 November 2014)
  -2014 December 16#Job system - {{WP:ANRFC/retarget|type=Rfd|Character class|nac=no}}I, JethroBT^{drop me a line}13:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Done -(Initiated 4098 days ago on 29 November 2014)
  -2014 December 24#World's Largest Apple- {{WP:ANRFC/delete|page=World's Largest Apple|nac=no|deleted=yes}}I, JethroBT^{drop me a line}14:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Done -(Initiated 4094 days ago on 3 December 2014)
  -2014 December 3#Truth & Treason {{WP:ANRFC/delete|page=Truth & Treason|type=RfD|nac=closure|deleted=yes}}
• Done -(Initiated 4093 days ago on 4 December 2014)
  -2014 December 4#Blitz (Final Fantasy VI) {{WP:ANRFC/delete|page=Blitz (Final Fantasy VI)|type=RfD|nac=closure|deleted=yes}}

WP:RFD has a large backlog, and any admin or qualified non-admin assistance in closing there would be appreciated. Please take a look at any eligible discussions; the ones I'm listing here are ones where I think consensus is clear but won't close myself because I've participated in them. Feel free to strike through or add a check mark next to each as they're done. --BDD (talk)21:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• BDD, I don't mind working through these, if the consensus is for delete, shall I ping you to carry out the consensus once I close the discussion as a(non-admin closure) or should I get someone else? Thanks. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}22:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I hadn't actually answered your question here. I don't quite feel comfortable being the one to carry out the actual deletion. Sometimes with a backlog, I'll close really obvious delete results when I'm a participant, but otherwise, I'd rather leave it to someone else once I've chimed in. I could go on at length about involved closes, but let's save that for another time. --BDD (talk)14:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

 DoneSteel1943 (talk)20:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Opened on 9 December (14 days ago). No input since 17 December (6 days ago). Edit-warring continues on the infobox.Scolaire (talk)11:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4088 days ago on 9 December 2014)
  I'd say this was invalidlywithdrawn byoriginal poster due to the fact that there had been other contributors on both sides of the discussion. I've reopened the discussion as such. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}21:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done.Arfæst!14:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a consensus. --George Ho (talk)04:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4087 days ago on 10 December 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}23:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done.Arfæst!13:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a consensus. --George Ho (talk)10:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4100 days ago on 27 November 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}12:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done.Arfæst!14:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC close review Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Iran, Hezbollah Reaction to American-led intervention in IraqDone -(Initiated 4119 days ago on 8 November 2014)
after there has been sufficient discussion? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like this was closed on 6 December and is now archived.Formerip (talk)21:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 12#BahometDone -(Initiated 4150 days ago on 8 October 2014)
? Thanks,Steel1943 (talk)20:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done –EdJohnston (talk)02:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 22#JacqueesDone -(Initiated 4097 days ago on 30 November 2014)
? Thanks,Steel1943 (talk)20:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

 DoneCallanecc (talk •contribs •logs)00:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 22#声母Done -(Initiated 4142 days ago on 16 October 2014)
? Thanks,Steel1943 (talk)20:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

 DoneCallanecc (talk •contribs •logs)00:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 24#Serene BransonDone -(Initiated 4094 days ago on 3 December 2014)
? Thanks,Steel1943 (talk)20:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

•  DoneCallanecc (talk •contribs •logs)08:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an uninvolved admin assess this, please?Erpert^{blah, blah, blah...}08:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4076 days ago on 21 December 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}13:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Relisted —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}13:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done –EdJohnston (talk)05:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This discussion started almost 2 months ago. Three editors besides the original nominator (me) agreed to merge/delete per the nom, while one editor opposed everything and another editor opposed some of what was nominated. Nobody has contributed to the discussion in over 10 days, so with 4 out of 6 editors agreeing to merge/delete per the nom, I think that is safe to say that consensus has been establish.JDDJS (talk)00:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4132 days ago on 26 October 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}17:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done – Closed byUser:Good Olfactory on 22 December.EdJohnston (talk)17:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Template:Link section
• Template:Sectionlink

I would close these, but I am closing too many of them. However, I can provide procedural help for anyone who is unfamiliar with how to close discussions and would like to help with closing. Thanks!Plastikspork_―Œ^(talk)22:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4100 days ago on 27 November 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}15:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

   Done byNyttend.I, JethroBT^{drop me a line}09:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 18#RfC on summarizing the most prominent statements in existing MEDRSs' conclusionsDone -(Initiated 4120 days ago on 7 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done.I, JethroBT^{drop me a line}09:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 15#디지털 포트리스Done -(Initiated 4149 days ago on 9 October 2014)
? Thanks,Steel1943 (talk)20:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

 DoneSteel1943 (talk)22:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Relist has gone over 7 days.LibStar (talk)11:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Done. Closed by Randykitty.SamWalton (talk)22:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia talk:Bot policy#RfC: Require all bots to use AssertDone -(Initiated 4100 days ago on 27 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Consensus was that new bots should be required to use Assert. There was no consensus that existing bots be retro-fitted, but there was rough consensus that bots that have edited while logged out should be retro-fitted with Assert.Robert McClenon (talk)20:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, there was an RFC open for a whilehere, but it was never closed with an assessment of consensus. Editor Hits hits resorted to sockpuppetry to promote his perspective, which muddled the discussion, and he has returned with an insistence that the RfC continue. If anybody has a moment to figure out what the consensus was, it would be appreciated.Cyphoidbomb (talk)02:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4105 days ago on 22 November 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}12:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done - After ignoring the posts by the sock-puppets, there is no consensus, so that the article can be left as is, or another RFC can be publicized. If the latter approach is taken, vigilance is needed to protect against further sock-puppetry. By the way, the default period for an RFC really still is 30 days, and claims that an RFC hasn't been completed after more than 30 days really do put the burden of proof on an editor who wants the RFC to run longer.Robert McClenon (talk)20:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atthe RfC atTalk:Dental amalgam controversy#Revisions of 11/2Done -(Initiated 4116 days ago on 11 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Not a validly formed RFC because it is a very non-neutral complaint about a particular editor. Maybe a volunteer moderator atthe dispute resolution noticeboard can facilitate discussion of content issues.Robert McClenon (talk)03:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Phineas and Ferb (season 4)#RfC - Pairing of episodesDone -(Initiated 4104 days ago on 23 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done - After ignoring comments by sock-puppets, there is no consensus. No change to the article is needed. A new RFC can be published. If so, admin attention for possible sock-puppetry would be in order.Robert McClenon (talk)03:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This RfC had mixed response and moved toward a proposal that attempted to address the concerns raised by the editors commenting on the RfC. The person posting the RfC elected to close itper policy for ending RfC's and explainedwhy he did so. Another editor chose to revert his decision to end the RfC insisting this can only be done by an uninvolved editor. There does not appear to be any precedent or policy supporting reversion of the original poster's decision to end an RfC. Besides, no new comments were coming in. The reverting editor argues that a new RfC on new material cannot be entertained until the old RfC is closed by an administrator, and appears to be reverting the ending of the RfC in order to delay further discussion and changes. Please close it ASAP so we can move forward with the article. Thanks. —GodBlessYou2 (talk)23:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No,User:GodBlessYou2, that's quite misleading:you appear to bewikilawyering to get your preferred content into the article against consensus. But an uninvolved admin closing it would be fine, as you say.Bishonen |talk21:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC).

 DoneNumber5717:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Inter-civil war violence in Libya#Rewrite lede?Done -(Initiated 4114 days ago on 13 November 2014)
andTalk:Inter-civil war violence in Libya#Current titleDone -(Initiated 4113 days ago on 14 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Cunard: This also required evaluation ofTalk:Factional violence in Libya (2011-2014)#Requested move, FYI. That said, I almost missed it myself!I, JethroBT^{drop me a line}13:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done.I, JethroBT^{drop me a line}13:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atCategory talk:Chronological summaries of the Olympics#Request for Comment: Where do Chronological Summaries fit in WikipediaDone -(Initiated 4123 days ago on 4 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done.I, JethroBT^{drop me a line}14:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia talk:Civility#Arbcom's position on expletivesDone -(Initiated 4094 days ago on 3 December 2014)
? The discussion is inactive; there has been one comment in the past week. Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Done}}.28bytes (talk)07:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 17#Tadsch MahalDone -(Initiated 4140 days ago on 18 October 2014)
? Thanks,Steel1943 (talk)20:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

{{done}}Number5722:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Been open for nearly a month.Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email)12:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4092 days ago on 5 December 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}23:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

{{done}}Number5716:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

A few more RfDs that essentially just can't be closed because I've participated in them. If any admin wants to be a regular at RfD, I'd be happy to mentor him or her; your work would be helpful and appreciated. Each of these has been relisted before, has a fairly obvious outcome, or both. --BDD (talk)15:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4072 days ago on 25 December 2014)
  -2015 January 1#Ricky Byrd - {{WP:ANRFC/retarget|Joan Jett|nac=closure}} (closed byKelapstick)
• Done -(Initiated 4067 days ago on 30 December 2014)
  -2014 December 30#His poltical opponents - {{WP:ANRFC/delete|page=His poltical opponents|deleted=yes|nac=closure}}
• Done -(Initiated 4067 days ago on 30 December 2014)
  -2014 December 30#Hypnobama - {{WP:ANRFC/delete|page=Hypnobama|deleted=yes|nac=closure}}
• Done -(Initiated 4066 days ago on 31 December 2014)
  -2014 December 31#Dialect of Transylvania - {{WP:ANRFC/retarget|Transylvania|nac=no}}
• Done -(Initiated 4066 days ago on 31 December 2014)
  -2014 December 31#List of oldest people - {{WP:ANRFC/retarget|List of the verified oldest people|nac=no}}

• @BDD: I listed the ones above with red dates on this page a while ago. This may be more efficient than how I listed them, so I'll let it be your call on how to handle the duplicate listings.Steel1943 (talk)16:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks—I hadn't noticed. --BDD (talk)18:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

{{done}} all of them.Number5716:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Relist has gone over 7 days.LibStar (talk)04:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4074 days ago on 23 December 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}23:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

{{done}}Number5715:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion should be closed. --George Ho (talk)05:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

{{done}}Number5715:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• RFC ended.Bladesmulti (talk)09:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

{{done}}Number5715:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Bladesmulti (talk)09:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

{{done}} by Malcolmxl5.Number5713:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Bladesmulti (talk)09:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

{{done}}Number5715:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Restrict title blacklist override and no rate limit to account creation for account creatorDone -(Initiated 4100 days ago on 27 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

{{done}} by Armbrust[2]Bellerophon_{talk to me}00:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

An experienced editor is needed to assess the consensus atWikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 117#Proposal to elevate Wikipedia:Userfication to guideline status.Done -(Initiated 4089 days ago on 8 December 2014)
. I'd do it myself but am involved. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}23:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

 DoneSamWalton (talk)23:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTemplate talk:Infobox person#RfC: Proposed addition of pronunciations to infobox personDone -(Initiated 4111 days ago on 16 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Done}} byS Marshall.SamWalton (talk)22:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please close this; I doubt the group would accept a non-admin close, although consensus is obvious.Done -(Initiated 4100 days ago on 27 November 2014)
–Roscelese (talk ⋅contribs)14:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

{{Done}}SamWalton (talk)21:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

For some bizarre reason, this AfD has been open since it was relisted on the 28th December, the last !votes were on that day, and even though consensus is obvious, it hasn't been relisted again or closed.Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)13:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why it wasn't listed, but{{Done}}SamWalton (talk)21:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• SeeWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: max 1.2C500 bytes a day for Robert Walker.Bladesmulti (talk)09:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Done -(Initiated 4062 days ago on 4 January 2015)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}02:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Already done byWehwalt —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}02:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• No oppose for the block.Bladesmulti (talk)09:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Done -(Initiated 4059 days ago on 7 January 2015)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}02:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia talk:Civility#Banned words list?Done -(Initiated 4111 days ago on 16 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't look like anything which "needs" closing there. the obvious results of the survey appear obvious. I think this might be a good example of a benchmark for the "not every discussion needs closing" rule of thumb, we all talked about previously. -jc3707:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Already done Does not require a formal close.I, JethroBT^{drop me a line}08:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: enable "Syntax highlighter" gadget by default for all editorsDone -(Initiated 4092 days ago on 5 December 2014)
?WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed,WP:SNOW is applicable. So much so that I am dis-inclined to write a formal closure for this one, especially as the conversation is now consigned to the VP archives.Bellerophon_{talk to me}00:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, no formal closure necessary, proposal was obviously opposed and has now been archived.SamWalton (talk)22:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Already done Does not require a formal close.I, JethroBT^{drop me a line}08:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Requesting closure of a move discussion atTalk:Gender bias on Wikipedia/Archive 1/Archives/ 1#Requested move 6 January 2015. --—Rhododendrites^talk \\05:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4060 days ago on 6 January 2015)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}02:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

{{done}} --BDD (talk)20:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

has gone over 7 days.LibStar (talk)02:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• (Initiated 4061 days ago on 5 January 2015)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}02:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

{{done}} byStifle. --BDD (talk)19:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an admin assess the consensus atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#Ryulong accuses me of threatening him, WP:CONDUCT issuesDone -(Initiated 4109 days ago on 18 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Marking thisClosed as it was overtaken by the Gamergate arbitration; case was accepted 27 November 2014.Ncmvocalist (talk)14:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Ran for almost 2 days, none have opposed it, except the users in question. Also consider closing with the original section,WP:ANI#WP:BLUD_on_Talk:Battle_of_Chawinda.OccultZone(Talk •Contributions •Log)09:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4074 days ago on 23 December 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}21:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
• Closed 05:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC) by Llywrch.Ncmvocalist (talk)15:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 116#Alternative proposal: Use ASC for de-adminship onlyDone -(Initiated 4100 days ago on 27 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Another "obvious result appears obvious" - and it's archived : ) -jc3707:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Closed - clearly no consensus; no need.Ncmvocalist (talk)15:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia:Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review BoardDone -(Initiated 4108 days ago on 19 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Closed byStifle as a failed proposal.SamWalton (talk)22:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Already done per above.I, JethroBT^{drop me a line}08:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

An experienced closer is needed to officially closeWikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 117#Talk page sizeDone -(Initiated 4085 days ago on 12 December 2014)
which was a result ofWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive267#User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz archivalDone -(Initiated 4086 days ago on 11 December 2014)
which was but has been archived due to a lack of discussion. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}23:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There was no concrete proposal and editors consistently seemed confused as to what was being proposed. Frankly, nothing needs to be closed here. Just let it sit in the archive as no action taken. If there is a more specific and clear proposal here, just start a new discussion.Oiyarbepsy (talk)00:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• In order to deal with thenearly 2,000 talk pages that are in excess of 175K and causing the exact same issue as the HW event, without needing to have an administrator deal with the situation every time, a clear close to that proposal that assesess whether or not a set of guidelines needs to be designed to deal with these problem pages needs to happen. The discussion atUser talk:Ronhjones#Please explain in response tothis chain of events may also be relevant. —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}00:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

 DoneBellerophon_{talk to me}11:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an admin assess the consensus atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban of Martin HogbinDone -(Initiated 4074 days ago on 23 December 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Closed 22:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC) by Chillum already.Ncmvocalist (talk)14:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Relist has gone over 7 days.LibStar (talk)10:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4081 days ago on 16 December 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}12:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

NowClosedBellerophon_{talk to me}11:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

relist has gone over 7 days.LibStar (talk)02:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4081 days ago on 16 December 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}02:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

NowClosedBellerophon_{talk to me}11:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Please could an uninvolved admin please review this RfC (including the discussion on the project's page), decide if consensus has been reached and help close this discussion. Thanks SurreyJohn   (Talk)11:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4100 days ago on 27 November 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}12:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

{{done}}.Formerip (talk)01:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for closure uninvolved editor/ admin.here. Thanks.(Littleolive oil (talk)04:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC))Done -(Initiated 4081 days ago on 16 December 2014)

 Done. In case it matters, this request duplicates another one relating to the same RfC above.Formerip (talk)23:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No obvious consensus by count, an evaluation of rationales is needed. There are also questions of clarity of the wording which was changed part way through. --TRPoDaka The Red Pen of Doom20:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4081 days ago on 16 December 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}00:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done.Formerip (talk)23:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I need this section closed with a rationale. However, please read the article talk page,Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Arab Winter (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)—including its talk page—and my discussionwith one editor before providing a rationale. --George Ho (talk)05:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4115 days ago on 12 November 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}05:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

{{done}}Formerip (talk)20:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 17#Virginia State Route 638Done -(Initiated 4140 days ago on 18 October 2014)
? Thanks,Steel1943 (talk)20:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

{{done}}TheCatalyst31^{Reaction•Creation}05:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Please dispositionWikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 16 &Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 17, which have both been open for over 30 days. --Jax 0677 (talk)18:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• 16'th is{{done}} —xaosflux^Talk21:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTemplate talk:Succession box#RfCDone -(Initiated 4101 days ago on 26 November 2014)
? The opening poster wrote:

Parallel toTemplate:Infobox Officeholder should this be added "but where the area is so altered as to make such a "predecessor" or "successor" of little or no biographical value, the word "redistricted" should be used rather than using names of officeholders whose connection is accidental by virtue of district number, but unrelated to any election contests between officeholders." See also an earlier RfCTemplate_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_18#RfC_on_successor.2Fpredecessor_where_a_district_is_not_reasonably_viewed_as_the_same_after_redistricting

Please considerTemplate talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 18#RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting in your close.Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

{{done}}.Formerip (talk)21:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Request for Comment: paid fellowships as an academic notability criterionDone -(Initiated 4108 days ago on 19 November 2014)
? Thanks,Cunard (talk)06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

{{done}}Formerip (talk)16:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The consensus must have reached. --George Ho (talk)23:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Done -(Initiated 4078 days ago on 19 December 2014)
  —{{U|Technical 13}}^{(e •t •c)}00:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• {{Done}}Obsidi (talk)07:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)