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.

From the !votes, nine or so are opposed to including the comment in the lead, one (User:mazty) is vocally supporting (but it appears from their comments that they just hate Nintendo as they state their derogatory opinions as facts without reliable sources...), and one who supports more ambiguously and one neutral. This seems to be aWP:SNOW case as most almost everyone agrees that the putting"(although some industry figures have disputed its exact classification)" in regards to the Wii U's generation status in the lead is putting undue weight on a minority view that better belongs in the reception section.Thegreyanomaly (talk)18:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Please note the users emotive insults. Sources were referenced and presumptions made on all sides of the debate - user was warned in thread for his aggressive tone before.Mazty (talk) 00:00 3 July 2013 (GMT+2)
  • Mazty unfortunately is lying here. Other than saying they were lying, I never directly insulted them. They have stated multiple claims denigrating the Wii/WiiU within said discussion (such as saying the original Wii was weaker than the original Xbox) without actually citing reliable sources. That said regardless Mazty's conduct or statements, there is a clear snowball consensus that the statement"(although some industry figures have disputed its exact classification)" puts undue weight on a minority opinion.Thegreyanomaly (talk)21:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Please only use this space to request a close, and not as an extension or a meta-analysis of the RfC. I'll take care of this one and close within the next few hours.I, Jethrobot^{drop me a line}(note: not abot!)04:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done.I, Jethrobot^{drop me a line}(note: not abot!)06:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A long and at times contentious RFC that needs an uninvolved admin to close. Due to several problems, the first RFC (open for 40 days) was closed with no consensus byUser:Dpmuk who also moderated this RFC. This second RFC has been open for 58 days with the last vote lodged 46 days ago and formal discussion ending 42 days ago. User:Dpmukposted on 11 June that he would be away for a few days but would close within a week if another admin had not already done so, that was 18 days ago. User:Dpmuk suggested posting here at WP:AN/RFC if the RFC remained open too long.Wayne (talk)06:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk)13:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion has been ongoing for seven days and it is clear per the consensus that a move is needed so it is impossible for a non-admin to close it.PantherLeapord (talk)09:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Closed byCuchullain (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}09:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Moved from incorrect posting atWT:AN. —Scott•talk18:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Can someone close an old merge poll attalk:PSR B1919+21?LGM-1 was merged into the article in 2013 February by Wtshymanski. However, he didn't close the merge poll or migrate the project banners. I tried to note the merger with{{mergedfrom}} and close the merge discussion with{{discussion-top}}/{{discussion-bottom}} on the talk page, and migrate the project banners from LGM-1 to PSR B1919+21, but keep getting reverted. --65.94.79.6 (talk)04:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I've undone their reversion of your close. Seems like a good close to me - conversation is stale and the merge has happened so I can't see any reason to oppose this bit of house keeping. The fact that an IP editor did it makes no difference and they shouldn't be reverting for that reason (which appears to be the case from the edit log).Dpmuk (talk)19:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Requesting an uninvolved party to evaluate for consensus and close an involved and heated discussion that lasted over a week, is at a clear standstill, and has very low involvement now. –Prototime (talk ·contribs)05:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus was unclear, so I{{relisted}} it. -Nathan Johnson (talk)19:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide more reasoning as to why you relisted it? Even if you don't believe consensus clear (which is debatable, given the vivid discussion and the !votes), I'm unclear as to why a no-consensus closure wouldn't be more appropriate. –Prototime (talk ·contribs)21:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

To provide more time for uninvolved users to comment in the hopes of reaching a consensus. -Nathan Johnson (talk)01:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I wish I were convinced that were possible, but most of the editors involved are clearly not going to budge, all of the same points are being rehashed over and over, and new participants are simply lining up to agree with arguments already made. I hardly see how providing more time for discussion is going to change anything at this point. –Prototime (talk ·contribs)03:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Further discussion is not necessary. Sixteen editors have participated, all the arguments have been put forward and now the discussion is going around in circles. It is highly doubtful more editors will bring fresh viewpoints to the discussion. The whole debate would be best served by an admin sifting through what is an extensive and largely repetitive discussion and determining which arguments—if any—are most consistent with the naming guidelines.Betty Logan (talk)02:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but there seems to be a rush to get this toWP:MR, so closed. -Nathan Johnson (talk)12:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note that I have brought this tomove review.Hot Stoptalk-contribs17:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination is more than a month old, but seems to have been left out of the daily logs when it was relisted, and either needs closing or relisting (and inclusion in the dailies this time). I can't do it myself because I !voted in it. —David Eppstein (talk)01:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Closed bySalvidrim! (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}09:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be great if another admin could close/relist this one. I have been closing all the football squad discussions recently, and it would be great to have someone else help out. If the result is delete/keep, I have a bot that can take care if removing the transclusions or removing the tfd tags. Thanks!Plastikspork_―Œ^(talk)05:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done byBDD (talk ·contribs). --Salix (talk):21:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for closure and evaluation of consensus on merge discussion: Could an uninvolved admin please take a look atTalk:Cooperative_State_Research,_Education,_and_Extension_Service. I believe an appropriate amount of time has elapsed. Discussion has been open since May 15, 2013 and last comment was made June 24, 2013. Thank you for your help!Amnorris2 (talk)21:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

 Not done This looks like a snow close of not merge, but I don't think we here should do it. I didn't see anyone arguing for the merge, but the discussion as to what to do was a bit disjointed. I suggest the editors in question simply remove the merge tag, close the discussion themselves, and then make any other edits as necessary. An uninvolved and formal close is not needed here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)23:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Can an univolved administrator please close this expired RfCWikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#RfC: Is "Madrid" a good example of "Naming conventions (use English)" ?. Since the bot removed the template therehave been no comments from editorshas been one comment from one editor who had not previously commented during the RfC. --PBS (talk)08:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done - No consensus for replacing the word 'Madrid'.Closed here.EdJohnston (talk)03:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion was started over two months ago and was relisted for the first and only time almost eight weeks ago. --Jax 0677 (talk)19:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done closed byRossami (talk ·contribs). --Salix (talk):05:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion was started over six weeks ago an was relisted for the first and only time over one month ago. --Jax 0677 (talk)01:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done--Salix (talk):04:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I request that this merger proposal be speedily closed with the decision "Rejected". I believe that this is a malicious proposal by a banned editor. The rational is as follows:

1. The merge proposal was made at about 22:00 on 11 July 2013 by an unregistered user
2. The IP addressed used by that was212.183.140.15, a dynamic address owned byVodafone.
3. Earlier that dayUser:Cobulator was banned as a sock-puppet ofUser:DeFacto
4. User:DeFacto has used IP addresses from Vodafone in the past –here andhere
5. Sockpuppets ofUser:DeFacto proposed a similar merge of the articleMetrication of British Transport back intoMetrication in the United Kingdom shortly after the new article was created – seehere.

The case for writing the article in the first place isTalk:Imperial and US customary measurement systems#here.Martinvl (talk)07:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Discussions can be started by any editor, registered or not.
2. There is no discussion of the issue involved, hence no need for a formal closure.
3. In violation of the instructions for this noticeboard, this is not a neutral request for closure.
4. This is not a request for closure of a discussion, but a request for intervention in the matter. As such, it should be addressed toWP:AN orWP:ANI.
5. Concerns about block or ban evasions should similarly be addressed toWP:AN orWP:ANI, and requests for sockpuppet investigation should be directed toWP:SPI.VanIsaac_WSVex^contribs22:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Agree this request is inappropriate for this board. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)23:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved admin please take a look atWikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Archive 4#Use of account creator and close the discussion. Which ever way this is closed (except no consensus obviously) a change/clarification will need to be made atWP:Account creator,Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Account creator, and (if it's closed that way) removal of account creator rights from some people.Callanecc (talk •contribs •logs)11:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Closed discussion. I'd appreciate it if someone else did the other parts. Thanks. -Nathan Johnson (talk)16:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• BumpWerieth (talk)15:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Hi Werieth, these look like old discussions that don't need to be closed formally.SlimVirgin^(talk)00:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC over the level of detail appropriate for a recent "controversy", which has now run for over a month. Some concern expressed over a possibleWP:COI from one editor, and off-site canvassing from another (mention of which had to beWP:OVERSIGHTed for outing them by name). --McGeddon (talk)09:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

 DoneSlimVirgin^(talk)21:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Open for over two weeks without relisting. --Jax 0677 (talk)04:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)06:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This RM needs closing. Thanks.Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs)14:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

 DoneSlimVirgin^(talk)21:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This RfC was scheduled to run for a period of 10 days as a follow-up to a previous discussion. That time has elapsed, so could an administrator please close the discussion?Imzadi 1979 →23:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

 DoneSlimVirgin^(talk)22:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

We would appreciate the help of a previously uninvolved admin to close a discussion about three proposed editshere. That section contains links to previous installments of the discussion that are currently archived. The discussion was going very actively throughout the month of April but was put on hold by a moderator who wanted to focus on a different section of the article. When that section was improved, we started to discuss these three edits again in June, but the moderator again redirected our efforts into a different section. Both of those other sections are now substantially improved, the moderator has withdrawn, and it's time to finally resolve these three proposed edits.

Also, we'd appreciate a volunteer admin to serve as our new moderator. kind regards ....Phoenix and Winslow (talk)13:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. Hi Phoenix, it's not clear that this request is realistically actionable.Your link leads to a loose discussion that would require a lot of reading, and yourpost on that page about this request for closure links to other pages going back to April, and asks that the closer read those too. This is all for three minor edits. The best thing would be for the people involved to decide whether there's consensus, and if it can't be decided, open a formal RfC (if the edits are worth that) with a clear question, so that the closer can easily see who is supporting and opposing.SlimVirgin^(talk)20:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The RM has been open for 7 days now.Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs)08:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

 DoneSlimVirgin^(talk)21:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move has now been open for a month.Hot Stoptalk-contribs08:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Closed byAmakuru (talk ·contribs).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}01:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Move request open for a month that involves multiple pages.Hot Stoptalk-contribs08:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done by BDD. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)06:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC has been open for 30 days. The issue originally went toWP:Dispute Resolution but no agreement could be reached during DRN withUser:The Devil's Advocate andUser:BlackHades supporting inclusion of Dawkins in the article andUser:ArtifexMayhem andUser:Aprock opposing the inclusion. As no agreement could be reached among the 4 editors during DRN, our mediatorUser:Guy Macon suggested we start RfC and that the results of the RfC would be final.[1] After 30 days, the results of the RfC have been 7 to 1 in favor of inclusion of Dawkins by previously uninvolved editors. (8 to 3 overall). Requesting closure for the RfC.BlackHades (talk)02:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

 DoneSlimVirgin^(talk)20:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Open for over two weeks without relisting:

1. WP:RFD#Direct_Realism
2. WP:RFD#Arts_and_crafts
3. WP:RFD#Logical_Fallacy
4. WP:RFD#Un-word of the year (Germany) --Jax 0677 (talk)16:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The first two and the last wasClosed byRossami (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA). Done the third.Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}08:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Open for over one month, and ten days have elapsed since the latest relist. --Jax 0677 (talk)21:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Closed byDarthBotto (talk ·contribs).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}05:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Open for over one month, and one week has elapsed since the latest relist. --Jax 0677 (talk)09:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Closed byThryduulf (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}05:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Open for over one week without relisting:

1. WP:RFD#TV18
2. WP:RFD#Heavy_metal_in_countries_with_an_oppressive_regime --Jax 0677 (talk)13:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Closed byThryduulf (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA) andRossami (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA) respectively.Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}05:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Open for over seven weeks without any relisting. --Jax 0677 (talk)13:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Closed byRossami (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}05:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Open for over one week without relisting:

1. WP:RFD#Sassanid_Arabia
2. WP:RFD#Dont call me crazy --Jax 0677 (talk)13:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Both wereClosed byThryduulf (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}05:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Open for over four weeks, and relisted over one week ago:

1. WP:RFD#Anti-choice
2. WP:RFD#Hefemale --Jax 0677 (talk)01:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Both wereClosed byThryduulf (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}05:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Page has been moved and deleted, but nominator wants to salt the page. Needs administrator to evaluate and close accordingly.Ansh66617:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Closed byGene93k (talk ·contribs).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}05:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Highly controversial article. RFC open for 7 days (as of 6/27), last !vote 6 days ago. Survey !votes results approachingWP:SNOW but several editors without !votes commenting in extensive threaded discussion. Threaded discussion is primarily previously involved editors rehashing same debates, but a few people notified by RFC discussing as well. Survey !votes have a lot of new voices. At least one "opposing" editor explicitly abstaining from RFC, a few others with discussion but no !vote.Gaijin42 (talk)14:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done. Please see/read the paragraph above starting "Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure." -Nathan Johnson (talk)19:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

@Nathan Johnson This article has been subject to highly contentious editing, edit warring, etc. There are active "threats" in the discussion to nominate the article for deletion immediately, and accusations of violations of policy all over the place. I am coming here for closure to keep everything as above board as possible so that there are no accusations of impropriety or manipulation of the RFC closure analysis (particularly as I am the creator of the RFC, and one of the more active prior-involved editors)Gaijin42 (talk)00:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Closed as no consensus with a suggestion to reopen the RfC. -Nathan Johnson (talk)01:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I have reopened it per your suggestion.Gaijin42 (talk)03:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

 DoneSlimVirgin^(talk)02:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Move request open for a month.Hot Stoptalk-contribs08:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Closed byTariqabjotu (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}08:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Excruciatingly long process here, these 57 MfDs from May 26 and May 27 were allowed to proceed mostly without relisting.  At a maximum, even with two relists, these all should have been closed four weeks ago. Unscintillating (talk)02:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• To clarify, there are three MfDs that are still open. Unscintillating (talk)22:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

  One MfD is left.  Thanks,Unscintillating (talk)23:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

  The last one is atWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Louis Charles de La Tour d'Auvergne.Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}06:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  The last one was closed byCambridgeBayWeather (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA), thus marking section as resolved.Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}21:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC was open for a month, consensus not obvious.rʨanaɢ (talk)16:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

 DoneVanIsaac_WSVex^contribs07:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

AfD has been open for 11 days without close or relist; heavy participation.ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb12:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done byBeeblebrox (talk ·contribs).WikiPuppies_bark^dig18:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Please closeHelp talk:Citation Style 1#RFC: Consistent date location. The RFC has expired and I believe a consensus was developed (broad support for the general concept; narrower support for the most popular solution). I believe closing this formally will be helpful for the developers who will code the solution without necessarily having avidly followed the discussion.Jc3s5h (talk)23:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Having requested here and in other locations for an uninvolved editor to close this without result, I have ignored all rules and closed it myself, even though I opened the RFC.Jc3s5h (talk)19:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been open for more than the originally stated 10 days. It seems to have run its course and I think we have consensus to go forward with the proposed system of article name changes. Can we have an uninvolved admin confirm the consensus and close it? VC 21:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done --tariqabjotu03:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Both RMs need closing. Thanks.Insulam Simia (talk)16:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done -DarthBotto _talk•cont09:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The move request was posted onJuly 1, and was relisted once. The relisting admin has since provided hisopinion and is now involved. I request admins to please close the move request. Thanks.Chaipau (talk)12:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I still think it should be relisted; almost no one has commented. That's probably why BDD chose to comment a couple days after relisting. --tariqabjotu05:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

n.b. While I'm nowinvolved, the request is now in the backlog, and consensus seems clear. So this is probably worth a second look. --BDD (talk)18:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Closed byTariqabjotu (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}07:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_June_26#File:Dog_Gone_-_Family_Guy_promo.png
2. Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_June_26#File:Screams_of_Silence_-_Family_Guy_promo.png
3. Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_June_26#File:No_Chris_Left_Behind_-_Family_Guy_promo.png
4. Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_June_26#File:Business_Guy_-_Family_Guy_promo.png
5. Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_June_26#File:FGOJ.jpg
6. Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_June_26#File:Shakira_-_Give_it_up_to_me.jpg

QuotingWP:FFD: "Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised." These discussions have not been modified in nearly a month, as such, action should be taken.Beerest355Talk23:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

All six wereClosed byQuadell (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}05:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved admin assess consensus at this AfD? It has been open for 15 days with just the one reposting after 7 days. I do not think the discussion needs another repost and should be closed, but if an uninvolved admin disagrees, that's fine (and for the record, I am involved in the discussion).I, Jethrobot^{drop me a line}(note: not abot!)17:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done --BDD (talk)18:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

This RFC/U has been open for over a month. A recent proposal was undertaken and implemented to raise the conduct issues at WP:AN, inthis thread. Would an admin please close this as the proposal was agreed upon and the AN discussion is continuing? ThanksBlackmane (talk)10:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like this was Done by BDD.Beeblebrox (talk)01:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The section ofWP:D dealing withpartial title matches is marked as disputed or under discussion. Therelevant discussion has been open over two weeks, with no participation in the past few days. Would an uninvolved admin assess whether{{disputed tag}} should be removed, and if the language should be changed as a result of the discussion? --BDD (talk)23:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

 DoneVanIsaac_WSVex^contribs11:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Due toMathbot being down, unclosed AfDs are not showing up in the list atWikipedia:Articles for deletion. There are 5 needing to be closed forJuly 14, 2 forJuly 15 and 20 forJuly 16. Could someone please take care of this?Prioryman (talk)20:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

At the time of writing the following discussion are open on the pages listed by Prioryman:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zane B. Stein (July 14)

  Relisted_→AzaToth22:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tito Traversa (July 14)

  Closed byStifle (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}23:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional evil corporations (July 15)

  Closed byBeeblebrox (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}06:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloomberg Aptitude Test (July 16)

  Closed byYmblanter (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}06:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia (July 16)

  I relisted this one.--Ymblanter (talk)09:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The others have either been closed/relisted already.Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}07:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Three proposals were made, two have been closed, one is ready to be closed.Beeblebrox (talk)06:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The third should have, though, been closed with the other two, on July 18, as it does absolutely, categorically, nothing that is not already in place. Clearly the proponent did not know that it already was. Ignoring this and allowing it to self archive is entirely appropriate.Apteva (talk)13:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to note that Apteva is the subject of the proposal.Beyond My Ken (talk)18:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Sigh... how predictablyWP:IDHT.......Beeblebrox (talk)01:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

After seeing the above from Apteva I will support aWP:IDHT block without hesitation.PantherLeapord (talk)11:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

As much as I would support that, we really just need an admin to formally close the discussion.VanIsaac_WSVex^contribs11:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Why has nobody closed this yet? It's not a difficult close and it is not controversial so why the delay?PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log10:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Admins aren't paid any more than everyone else, a request will sit here until an admin decides they want to handle it. As this is now one of the oldest requests still pending someone will probably handle it fairly soon. Actually, this does notrequire an admin to close it. A topic ban discussion does not require the use of any admin tools, just an understanding of how consensus works. Any uninvolved user in good standing can handle this.Beeblebrox (talk)20:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

And, it's been Done by Basilisk.Beeblebrox (talk)23:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The RFC was started approximately a month ago, and I suppose the RFC bot will remove the tag in a couple days. Requesting an uninvolved admin/editor to close this discussion so we can carry forward with the proposal and its implementation.TheOriginalSoni (talk)14:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Closed.Hobit (talk)02:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Ran for 30 days, WP:SNOW result.In ictu oculi (talk)00:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done byUser:Dpmuk. --RL0919 (talk)17:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 July#Moctezuma II has been open for three weeks, and consensus seems clear. The three other cases open atWP:MRV have also run the required amount of time, and may merit closes. --BDD (talk)23:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done byUser:EdJohnston --RL0919 (talk)17:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This has been open since 10 May 2013, over two months.Northamerica1000^(talk)16:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done byUser:The Bushranger. --RL0919 (talk)17:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Consensus at this RfD is clear after two weeks. Since it involves a BLP, a swift close would be appreciated. --BDD (talk)22:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done byJohnCD; thanks to him. --BDD (talk)22:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Please close out the above recentWP:AFD. As the nominator I have decided that the nomination was made in error and am withdrawing it. Thank you.Quis separabit?17:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done --BDD (talk)22:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Consensus here appears clear. --BDD (talk)17:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Closed byYmblanter (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}09:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No comments for more than a month. — Train2104 (talk •contribs)23:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Closed byYmblanter (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}09:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Several discussions, many which have been open for weeks after relisting.74.203.127.2 (talk)22:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The following sections contain unclosed discussions:

• Template:Infobox NI station

  Closed byRL0919 (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA). --RL0919 (talk)21:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox Ireland station

  Closed byRL0919 (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA). --RL0919 (talk)21:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox professional association

  Closed byPlastikspork (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}23:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox Greek Dimos

  Closed byPlastikspork (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}10:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox Papua New Guinea place

  Closed byPlastikspork (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}10:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The other sections are closed.Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}09:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Why have the other discussions not been closed? They only seem to have been left open to garner enough delete votes to justify the deletion of the templates and there is no clear consensus either way, despite having both been open for more than a month and relisted as well. --AussieLegend (✉)10:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The RfC has had no comments for ten days. Formal closure rather than auto close is needed to settle the dispute. --Mufka^(u)(t)(c)12:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, now. The thing has run its default course, and has expired. An outside judgment would be nice.InedibleHulk(talk)07:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion now archived atWikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_142#Request_for_comment_regarding_tense_for_past_events.Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}09:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I de-archived it so it's back where it was. --Mufka^(u)(t)(c)17:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

•  DoneVanIsaac_WSVex^contribs23:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion has been open for two and a half months. There are some laggard commenters, but I think there has been enough input to gauge consensus. -MrX13:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

 DoneSeraphimblade^{Talk to me}09:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Here. This was closed by an involved editor after a month and there have been a number of objections so it needs a neutral closer.User:Carolmooredc18:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please do close it. (Also see:WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Request Admin Closure of RfC erroneously closed by involved editor.) My recommendation: Post a "Moved to" link. –S. Rich (talk)18:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk)18:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been open and stagnant for more than one month, and I am too deeply involved in the discussion to close it myself. --Jax 0677 (talk)17:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

 DoneI, Jethrobot^{drop me a line}(note: not abot!)16:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

This RfC has been closed by the bot after 30 days, and now an uninvolved editor is needed to sum up consensus. The purpose of this RfC was to determine whether there is consensus to add any of the proposed versions to the article as first drafts. This RfC is based on the previous RfCs ([2] and[3]).Beagel (talk)18:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk)18:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This is an RfC that's been running since May, regarding the inclusion of a particular BLP example. It expired in June and is attracting no comments from new editors. Two of the three editors still discussing it have said, weeks ago, that they're ready for an admin to assess and close the RFC. --McGeddon (talk)15:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, McGeddon. I agree, it would be helpful if someone closed this RfC as "consensus" or "no consensus".My very best wishes (talk)22:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm the third of three editors. I too am quite ready for community decision and formal closure. --Andrewaskew (talk)03:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk)18:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that anRFC on MOS talk I originally launched has been live for more than four weeks and appears to have settled into relative inactivity. My signature and the opening wording were subsequently changed, but I haven't bothered to scrutinise those changes.

I wonder whether an uninvolved admin would think it's appropriate to do the honours. It was a relatively complex issue, so perhaps one for an admin who is experienced at RFC closures. Thanks for your time, and I guess there's no particular hurry.Tony(talk)03:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It is getting pretty old though...Dicklyon (talk)05:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Closed byBD2412 (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA). Although the issue was indeed complex, the determination of consensus was straightforward. Cheers!bd2412T00:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

This has been open since June 29, well beyond the standard one-week move review period. All of the July discussions have even been closed by now. It's time to wrap this up. --tariqabjotu16:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Now I await the flak.Dpmuk (talk)04:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

This RM is in the backlog, consensus is clear, and it's a move that has been previously discussed. --BDD (talk)20:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• A non-admin has relisted the discussion. I've taken it up with him, and my opinion stands; a close would be appreciated. --BDD (talk)00:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Closed byEdJohnston (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}10:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

This is reasonably contentious, so a formal close would be appreciated. I have preemptively closed the section since someone has just raised the issue again on a related page; all the same arguments are being repeated again, and I'd rather prevent it from spilling over. (The RfC is very long already, and I think there's been more than enough discussion - I'm an involved editor, so please let me know if this isn't proper.) Of course, we still need someone to evaluate consensus. Thanks!Arc de Ciel (talk)04:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your closure. Please don't close until this board responds.--Canoe1967 (talk)13:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Please, yes, let's have someone who is uninvolved make a formal closure. And please understand that whoever closes it needs to be prepared for the fact that the RfC has a very determined minority who will question any consensus. --Tryptofish (talk)16:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I am reviewing the RfC right now, and will close in the next few hours.I, Jethrobot^{drop me a line}(note: not abot!)17:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

 DoneI, Jethrobot^{drop me a line}(note: not abot!)20:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 13#Template:The Lodger

  relisted byPlastikspork (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA)Frietjes (talk)17:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 13#Template:Infobox royalty

  Closed byBD2412 (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}23:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

  I certainly would not mind another admin checking my work. Not that I'm second-guessing myself, but when I close contentious and deeply involved discussions, I like to be sure that I have not missed the call. Cheers!bd2412T00:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

  Seems a good close to me.Dpmuk (talk)04:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks. Cheers!bd2412T20:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 13#Template:Infobox former monarchy

  Closed byPlastikspork (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}09:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 13#Template:Infobox Sassanid shahanshah

  Closed byPlastikspork (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA)Frietjes (talk)17:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 13#Template:Infobox Safavid shahanshah

  Closed byPlastikspork (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA)Frietjes (talk)17:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 13#Template:Infobox peer

  Closed byPlastikspork (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}09:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 13#Template:Infobox Ottawa ward

  Closed byPlastikspork (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA)Frietjes (talk)17:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 13#Template:Infobox Northwest Territories government departments

  Closed byPlastikspork (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA)Frietjes (talk)17:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 13#Template:Infobox Canadian leadership election

  Closed byPlastikspork (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA)Frietjes (talk)17:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

open for over a month.Frietjes (talk)20:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion has been going on for a while. I think it's time to close this.--FutureTrillionaire (talk)02:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a subsection ofWP:ANI#Preempting discussion of Jesus. Could the whole section be closed at once, please? --Stfg (talk)08:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done -jc3700:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Bot just removed the RFC tag but the discussion itself hasn't been closed. Any chance we could get an uninvolved admin to interpret a consensus and do the necessary functional stuff? Not particularly controversial, I don't think. Cheers,Stalwart11114:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• ClosedHobit (talk)17:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Nominator has withdrawn, no outstanding delete !votes.Ansh66606:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

 DoneStAnselm (talk)06:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hasn't quite been a month, but discussion has slowed down considerably.Beeblebrox (talk)22:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm trippin. I looked at the wrong timestamp, it has been almost two months and no new comments are coming in.Beeblebrox (talk)17:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The last activity on the RfC when this was posted was on the 20th of july. Not even one month. Since then participation has increased and !votes are still coming in. As such I think that it should be left open for a bit longer until this latest surge passes.PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log00:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks to me like the RfC was opened on 14 July, so RfCbot should be removing the tag shortly. I think it's best in this case to wait the entire 30 days. Cheers. -Nathan Johnson (talk)17:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I believe you are making the same mistake I did, it was in fact opened on June 25[4] so I'm not sure why it took so long for the bot to remove the tag, probably the same thing that confused both of us.Beeblebrox (talk)03:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

 DoneQwyrxian (talk)08:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 12#Template:Mission County (proposal) California
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 12#Template:Infobox Northern Ireland Assembly constituency
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 12#Template:Infobox EU legislation
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 12#Template:Infobox European Parliament election
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 12#Template:Missing

open for over a month.Frietjes (talk)20:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

now all closed. thank youPlastikspork.Frietjes (talk)17:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Unopposed RfC on promoting a draft naming convention to guideline. Ran 40 days. (As nom.)LeadSongDogcome howl!15:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. I'm not entirely sure this requires a close.I, Jethrobot^{drop me a line}(note: not abot!)12:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree it's not required by policy, but I'd prefer not to close it myself to avoid injecting any hint of biased process.LeadSongDogcome howl!20:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I looked at closing this, but I'm a bit worried about moving something to be a guideline with as sparse attendance as this has had. I realize it's a very specialized topic so attendance will necessarily be small, but was this widely advertised to all Wikiproject(s) that might be interested?Hobit (talk)17:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:SILENCE would seem to apply here.Beeblebrox (talk)17:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the "weakest form of consensus". I think we should have something stronger when it comes to making something a guideline. YMMV and I certainly wouldn't object to someone closing this as successful. I personally just don't know enough about the topic area to know if the right folks were notified or if this discussion was in effect a walled garden.Hobit (talk)17:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done It was an RFC, so that automatically notifies a large part of the community (or at least anyone who watches RFC pages), and it was also notified on a few relevant notice boards. I've closed as promote. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)18:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Not an especially controversial RM, but I'd appreciate a timely close so I can begin with the cleanup it will entail. --BDD (talk)18:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Closed byFavonian (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}13:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The RfC has gone for three weeks, with no comments for the last week. The consensus atTalk:Prince George of Cambridge#What course is left to be run in that lame RfC? is that it is time to close it.StAnselm (talk)09:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. There goes an hour of my life I'll never get back...Beeblebrox (talk)23:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This has gone on for three weeks, with only one comment in the last week. That most recent comment was along the lines of most (we're pretty much in aWP:SNOW situation here, with only two editors taking an stance "against" the status quo. I filed the RfC and suspect that if I am the one to close it, I may be accused of being too involved and trying to force an early close. Cheers -SchroCat (talk)19:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. -SchroCat (talk)11:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Gone on for >30 days, consensus is pretty clear for the two added proposals, consensus is not present for the other part, so a summary of ideas would be the best idea probably. ~Charmlet^-talk-22:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

 DoneBeeblebrox (talk)19:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

A straightforward 14-day poll asking editors to select one of four possible wordings for a section has now been open for 14 days. --McGeddon (talk)09:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

 DoneBeeblebrox (talk)17:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This old RfD looks ready for a close. --BDD (talk)20:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Cheers!bd2412T16:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This has been open for a month; requesting closure from an uninvolved person.Northamerica1000^(talk)09:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Closed as NC to rename.Hobit (talk)13:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This has been open for almost three weeks now, with no new input for almost two; the apparent consensus is for a move that could have beenboldly done (and often is for this sort of thing), but given the fact that I'm one of only two !voters I think it would be best for somebody not involved to do it. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}17:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done -EdJohnston (talk)01:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

User has been soft-blocked following a RFC/N. There's nothing more to do.Ansh66601:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Regards, —MoeEpsilon02:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please close the rfc section atTalk:University of Dar es Salaam. Thanks.Ali Fazal (talk)19:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

 DoneVanIsaac_WSVex^contribs21:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 27#Template:Algeria squad 2011 African Nations Championship
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 27#Template:History of Iranian dynasties

open for over a month, including the relistings.Frietjes (talk)17:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I did one, but I have no patience for arguments about the relative notability of sporting events so the other one is still open.Beeblebrox (talk)23:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The other one wasClosed byPlastikspork (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}09:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Both of the remaining entries here appear to be ready for a close. --BDD (talk)18:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

 DoneBeeblebrox (talk)17:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Can someone here close some sections not related to rename request? The drama is going spiral right now. And there are accusations, which is againstassumptions of good faith. --George Ho (talk)00:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This is probably overdue. There is a productive conversation going on on this topic atWP:Article Titles.Liz^Read!Talk!00:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Speaking solely for myself: no thanks. I wouldn't touch that hornet's nest. I am inclined to think the whole situation is avidly headed forWP:RFAR and frankly the sooner it does the better. This is no longer a simple content dispute, it's a full on forest fire.Beeblebrox (talk)02:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Over 240 editors have !voted in the move request discussion (over 250 counting IPs), although the pace is beginning to slow. A great many participants onboth sides are both outraged and certain that the result will be exactly what they desire. No matter how this goes, there will be further outrage, and appeals to other forums, so the best course of action is to make sure that everything is done to the letter of the law and with the most effective explanation possible.bd2412T02:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe this particular edit request was around closing certain sections, not the RM (which BD2412 will handle). I've closed several, but new ones keep cropping up (discussing the name change, again, in a new section, or sections which descend into name calling)...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)04:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there're a few requested edits for example. I've been handling some on the talk page but I'm not inclined to make any edits to the article. I'minvolved in the RM discussion and so tainted against making changes of any sort to the article right now.

I'd feel confident someone else could deal with them though. --RA (✍)23:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair for these two users, or anyone else, to keep the discussions open and let the thing drag on. Josh Gorand continues to edit freely on the talk page in question, although Baseball Bugs does not seem to be.StAnselm (talk)01:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The first wasClosed byYmblanter (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA). The second is still open.Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}00:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Ping/bump/whatever. Stands at around 27-13 in favor of a topic ban at the moment, going on 3 days now.Tarc (talk)12:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The proposed topic ban would last through Thursday (when the move request is planned to be closed). If this doesn't close sometime soon, a topic ban will be relatively pointless.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)15:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The second wasClosed byObiwankenobi (talk ·contribs).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}22:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for closure: I think an AN/I was premature and directed the individuals who disagree to return to the article Talk Page, RSN or DRN as this is a dispute over content and sources, not editor conduct.Liz^Read!Talk!18:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Closed byBrownHairedGirl (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}14:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks ready for a close. Personally, I know my keep vote is more of a retarget, and I suspect the same goes for some others. --BDD (talk)16:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

 DoneArmbrust^{TheHomunculus}10:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of these discussions have not been modified in over two weeks and yet remain unclosed. Could an admin step in and perform the appropriate actions?Taylor Trescott -^{my talk} +_{my edits}15:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment Now onlyWikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_July_25#File:WilliamDavidSanders.jpg is open.Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}13:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The last open section wasClosed byNthep (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}20:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 –The discussion was closed by the three admins.Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}09:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to ask that an admin who has had no involvement with this article, either as admin or editor – including no one who has expressed a view on the issue – oversee and get ready to close this RM in seven days. It involves the statement from Bradley Manning today that she regards herself as female and wishes to be known as Chelsea Manning.

The article was moved back and forth without discussion fromBradley Manning toChelsea Manning, and there is now an RM to move it back again. It's likely to be a contentious move involving balancing consensus and the applicable policies and guidelines. Several admins have already been involved today (with the moves or protection) and strong views have been expressed, so to save trouble in future, I'vesuggested on AN/I that an entirely uninvolved admin agree to close the move, and I'm posting here in the hope that someone will step forward to do that.SlimVirgin^(talk)19:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Kudos toSlimVirgin on this posting. This subject needs rapid attention. I sorta wish you hadn't had previous involvement with this page Slim. You'd be in a better position to intervene. Frankly I think this is ridiculous.NickCT (talk)21:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. Cheers!bd2412T21:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks BD, that's much appreciated. If you would be willing to help keep an eye on the article too, that would be great, although if you'd prefer not to mix roles, that's understandable. The problem is that several admins have been editing through protection; not major edits but it's still unfair to non-admins. (I'm not counting Mark Arsten in this, by the way, who's responding to edit requests.) I've left a note on the talk page, but it's not clear anyone's listening.SlimVirgin^(talk)21:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this close is going to need multiple admins. The move has already attracted attention in the wider media and the talkpage is being noticed on Twitter. Quite a number of arguments on the page are getting into the general issue of who gets to decide a person's gender and the whole thing is getting politicised and in some places nasty. Any decision made is going to get challenged by the losing side and almost certainly attract more media attention.Timrollpickering (talk)00:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I am absolutely not opposed to a closure by committee. I agree with the underlying sentiment that the close is going to have to be rock solid. Cheers!bd2412T00:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd say a group of 3 would be wise.Hobit (talk)00:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If there's to be a group, perhaps BD could take the lead and look for a couple of people he knows are uninvolved.SlimVirgin^(talk)00:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I like the sound of this, and I think people here are being very sensible. Just a question though - what would happen if the result is (eek!) No Consensus?StAnselm (talk)01:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. I'll throw out names of some admins I think have a solid reputation for being fair and reasonable and that I've not seen in related areas. BOZ, Kww, Spartaz, Black Kite, and Timotheus Canens all come to mind. I'm sure others can suggest some names too...Hobit (talk)01:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I count at least four pages where this article is being discussed. I think anyone taking action should be aware of conversations on AN/I, the Manning Talk Page, RMs, etc.Liz^{Let's Talk}01:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

First, if there is no consensus, then we do have something of a problem because the page was moved in the first place without a proper discussion. However, the discussion is basically a referendum on the question of which title the page should have. I interpretWP:BRD as requiring a consensus in favor of a title different than the one that existed yesterday, in order for such a change to be effected. Secondly, there is oneWP:RM discussion, and anyone who is commenting anywhere else can comment there as well. Wherever else the topic is being discussed is therefore irrelevant to the outcome of the RM.bd2412T02:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd be available for taking part in the closing, if a group is wanted.Fut.Perf.☼09:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

FPaS: I'd characterize you as having a fairly strong POV when it comes to at least one other sex related area--pornography. Do you lack a strong POV on transgenderism ?Hobit (talk)13:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

What on earth does pornography have to do with transgenderism? (I'd also challenge you to find any hints on Wikipedia about whatever views I might have about pornography. I have never expressed any. I have expressed views about Wikipedia's coverage of porn actors, which is a different thing. Likewise, my views about Wikipedia's treatment of transgender naming issues might have little or nothing to do with my views about transgenderism proper. Duh.) But this is moot now; if the other three have agreed to do the closure, that's fine with me.Fut.Perf.☼15:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it was probably irrelevant.Hobit (talk)16:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm also willing to help close this when it comes to it.ItsZippy^{(talk •contributions)}11:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

PerHobit's suggestion, I askedUser:BOZ andUser:Kww yesterday, and they have agreed to participate in a closing committee for this discussion.bd2412T14:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

With twoSpeedy Keeps, oneIncredibly strong keep, onestrong keep, four regularKeeps, and noDeletes, I think this should be safe toWP:SNOW close by any uninvolved editor.Technical 13 (talk)19:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

 DoneArmbrust^{TheHomunculus}09:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

With threeSpeedy Keeps, six regularKeeps, and noDeletes, I think this should be safe toWP:SNOW close by any uninvolved editor.Technical 13 (talk)19:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

 DoneArmbrust^{TheHomunculus}09:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 August 18#Punch! (Canadian TV series)

   DoneArmbrust^{TheHomunculus}10:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 August 18#Beyond Human (Teletoon)

   DoneArmbrust^{TheHomunculus}10:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 August 5#Portal:Freeware

   DoneArmbrust^{TheHomunculus}10:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 August 2#Christopher Hume

   DoneArmbrust^{TheHomunculus}10:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 17#Democratic Party (Philippines)

  Closed byRuslik0 (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}20:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Of the significant RfD backlog, these appear to just be waiting an administrator or qualified NAC. They're all ones I'd close if I weren't a participant in the discussion. Of course, if you want to close more, that would be appreciated. --BDD (talk)16:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC. Been open for a month.NickCT (talk)17:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Done.I, JethroBT^{drop me a line}20:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been open for roughly 30 days.Edge3 (talk)21:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Closed byKudpung (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)13:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This has been open since 05 July, requesting close please.In ictu oculi (talk)10:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Closed byKudpung (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)14:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Both of the open RfDs here appear to be ready to close. --BDD (talk)16:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Both wereClosed byRuslik0 (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}16:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:History of the Falkland Islands#RfC: Did Vernet seek and obtain British permission before settling?

Rather odd RFC that would benefit from formal closure (RFC has expired anyway). The originator seems very fixed on removing material but my count 4 or 5 editors have commented that he is wrong but he's continued to argue he's right and the material should be removed. Originator seems to be a rather passionate advocate of Argentina's sovereignty claim to the Falkland Islands and it may be appropriate to suggest that he finds another topic to work on. He seems unable to put his strongly held beliefs to one side. It seems that the originator was also involved in a rather protracted dispute atTalk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute that resulted in the page being protected earlier this year from the edit wars that kept breaking out.BedsBookworm (talk)12:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Closed byKudpung (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)16:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC open beyond 30 days.NickCT (talk)06:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done. This one was not particularly well-phrased and the ensuing discussion did not make clear aspecific proposed change, and I believe another RfC will need to opened to follow-up on it.I, JethroBT^{drop me a line}16:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is nearly unanimous, but topic is contentious. RfC about 30 days old. No comments for over a week. Please close. --Sue Rangell✍✉19:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done.I, JethroBT^{drop me a line}21:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Please close RfC at Talk:Tea Party movement

There was a merge proposal atTalk:Tea Party movement on August 8 (27 days ago) — suggesting a merge ofAgenda of the Tea Party movement with the parentTea Party movement article, and while these things normally last 30 days, I see no reason to wait another three days for a close. The "voting" ended on August 10 (9-3 opposed to the merge, and the opposition presented policy-based arguments against the merge). According to the headnotes on this page, "Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where ... the issue is a contentious one." The headnotes also state, "The default length of an RfC is 30 days; where consensus becomes clear before that and discussion is not ongoing, the discussion can be closed earlier, although it should not be closed sooner than one week." The discussion ended on August 12 and is not ongoing. Accordingly, please close the RfC and remove the templates from both of the articles. Thank you. regards ...Phoenix and Winslow (talk)22:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Closed byBinksternet (talk ·contribs).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}16:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFCR#Bradley Joseph needs closed.Werieth (talk)20:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

YDoneKrakatoaKatie01:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Would an admin assess the consensus atWikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC (initiated 28 July 2013)? Thanks,Cunard (talk)08:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• NYB has already agreed to close.--GilderienChat|List of good deeds21:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
• Closed byNewyorkbrad (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}00:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Would an admin close:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Obtund/CVUA/AlexJFox (initiated 27 July 2013)

  Closed byJreferee (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}10:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tony1/Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes (initiated 9 August 2013)

   DoneArmbrust^{TheHomunculus}10:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/ITablet (2nd nomination) (initiated 10 August 2013)

  Closed byBDD (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}21:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Ant-Man (film) (initiated 11 August 2013)

  Closed byJreferee (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}10:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adam mugliston/List of bus routes in Clacton-on-Sea (initiated 12 August 2013)

  Closed by me.Bencherlite^Talk21:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you,Cunard (talk)08:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion has been active for over a month, and it must be closed. --George Ho (talk)23:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

ClosedJujutacular (talk)03:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

After a discussion, we now have unanimous support to delete this item in the RfD backlog. Hooray consensus! --BDD (talk)19:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

ClosedBencherlite^Talk21:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not sure this page isn't a joke, but the discussion seems to have come to consensus to delete as we approach a month of listing. --BDD (talk)21:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

ClosedBencherlite^Talk21:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 28#Template:Saugus River

  Closed byPlastikspork (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}09:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 28#Template:Billboardcomedyalbums

  Closed byPlastikspork (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}05:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 28#Template:Infobox Scotland council area

  Closed byPlastikspork (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}13:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 28#Template:Infobox Scottish island

  Closed byPlastikspork (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}13:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 28#Template:Infobox England region

  Closed byPlastikspork (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}05:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 28#Template:Infobox UK Fire and Rescue

  Closed byPlastikspork (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}09:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 28#Template:Infobox intragovernmental bank

  Closed byPlastikspork (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}09:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

open for several weeks.Frietjes (talk)17:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like an uninvolved admin to please make a closure to this discussion on a guideline I suggested as the RfC period has expired. -DyluckTRocket (talk)13:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Closed - no consensus for the proposed change.bd2412T16:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Consensus for deleting has become clear after relisting the article after some sockpuppetry.Michaelzeng7 (talk)15:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Closed as delete.bd2412T16:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#RFC on governance of the FA forums and
• Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Alternate RFC on governance of the FA forums

These are closely related. Please could they be closed together? --Stfg (talk)08:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. It's high time the community move on. I am certain little, if anything, will come of dragging this on anymore.PumpkinSkytalk22:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• The closer should probably also read some of the connected discussions now archived inWT:FAC/59, although the archive is out of order (since it is in chronological order of last posting, not first posting)."Who is in charge of the clattering train?" (ack. E. J. Milliken) starts the discussion off, I think. The RFCs (not yet archived) then start, and the discussion continues in parallel in the "clattering train" thread, the RFC threads andanother archived thread. Good luck.Bencherlite^Talk15:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The second discussion is now archived atWikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive59#Alternate RFC on governance of the FA forums.Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}10:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • WTF? Undone. You archive both or neither, not just one. Talk about bias and prejudice.PumpkinSkytalk20:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I could also say "WTF?". If you would have a taken a little more closer look, than you would have notice, that the sectionwas archived by Miszabot II.Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}20:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
      • My apologies to you then. This is why someone (human not bot) simply needs to close both, which I said needs to happen long ago. But everyone seems afraid to which is why this has been languishing here for weeks. I myself would archive both but I'm sure someone would raise a shitstorm about that too.PumpkinSkytalk20:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
        • • I posted inside Tony's proposal to force the bot the be fair if no one comes along to close both.PumpkinSkytalk21:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• ClosedHobit (talk)03:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks much. You've only archived the first of the two. Your closing remarks seem to cover the second also -- did you mean to archive that as well? --Stfg (talk)08:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Fixed by closer.Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}12:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for closure: This RFC was started on July 31 and it is now August 27th. It also appears a clear consensus has been determined in this RFC and the comments and discussions have slowed to a point where it appears those who wanted to make a comment have. Also, per the talk page, there seems to be some agreement that the RFC has run its course and can be closed now.Kumioko (talk)15:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment Now only the following sections are open:

• 3. Visual editor should display two editing panes by default, one WYSIWYG pane and a smaller pane for source code editing.
• 4. The section edit tabs should be removed for the visual editor
• 6. "Edit source" after section titles on talk pages should be changed back to "edit"
• 7. The default action upon clicking a section edit link should be "edit source", not to open VE

Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}10:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

ClosedNE Ent11:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment A closing statement at the top of the page would be appreciated.@NE Ent:.Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}11:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Well, near the top -- feel free to refactor if you want it top topNE Ent14:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Even ignoring the fact that consensus is clearly leaning in favour of the move, perWP:BRDunilateral moves that arechallenged should be reverted automatically. That the RM lasted a week in this context is disturbing.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)03:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers!bd2412T17:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This RfC has been going for 30 days, and it looks like a consensus has been reached. Since I opened the RfC, however, I would appreciate a formal closure before I act on what I perceive as a general (though not unanimous) consensus supporting my position.Wilhelm Meis(☎ Diskuss |✍ Beiträge)03:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done.I, JethroBT^{drop me a line}19:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Opened almost a month. --George Ho (talk)02:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Closed byJreferee (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}15:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This move review request has been open for two weeks; it should be ready for a close. --BDD (talk)21:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Closed byCuchullain (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}08:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Not an RfC, but discussion has pretty much died down and closure by an uninvolved editor has been suggested. --Paul_012 (talk)09:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done --BDD (talk)19:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No additional comments have been left on the merge discussion in nearly two weeks. It seems that a rough consensus has been reached (per step IV of the merge process onWP:MERGE), anddiscussion has gone silent, so can this be closed?Holiday56 (talk)12:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

 DoneArmbrust^{TheHomunculus}08:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just got done clearing out all the old business there, except for two cases where I had expressed an opinion.Beeblebrox (talk)20:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done theInanygivenhole section.Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}16:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment:Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#Dalermehndi123 is still open.Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}22:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed-- the above RFC on Dalermehndi123 has been open for three months. Could a passing admin with a few moments please close it?I, JethroBT^{drop me a line}16:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done the last one had enough of a consensus that I just closed it anyway.Beeblebrox (talk)18:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This has been open now since 3 weeks, and largely inactive in the last 8 days.Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}14:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Question:@Armbrust: There is a lot of discussion, but it's only by a handful of editors and it goes in a couple different directions, and depending on the proposal, it may not need an official close. What proposal needs evaluation?I, JethroBT^{drop me a line}17:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment Does the addition of the|role= and|gender= parameters inthis edit has consensus?Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}19:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Jreferee (talk)05:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 17#Template:Gypsy
  • Closed byPlastikspork (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}02:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 17#Template:Infobox UK ward
  •  Done --Jreferee (talk)12:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 17#Template:Infobox Northern Ireland district
  •  Done --Jreferee (talk)01:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 17#Template:Infobox French commune
  • Closed byPlastikspork (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}02:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 17#Template:Infobox Falkland island
  •  Done --Jreferee (talk)01:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 18#Template:Noble Network of Charter Schools
  •  Done --Jreferee (talk)01:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 18#Ar and En
  • Closed byPlastikspork (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}02:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 19#Template:Cardiff listed building row
  •  Done. --Jreferee (talk)10:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

open for several weeks.Frietjes (talk)14:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe either the consensus has reached, or is the consensus inadequate. There was a prior consensus inWikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs, or so I thought. If inadequate, can we centralize it inWP:VPPR? --George Ho (talk)17:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Done.I, JethroBT^{drop me a line}03:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Opened almost a month. --George Ho (talk)02:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Done. Cheers!bd2412T18:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a relatively simple discussion. No new arguments for a week. Needs an admin to take a look and close the discussion. Thanks! -Zanhe (talk)21:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Done --Jreferee (talk)14:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion opened two weeks ago, no new comment in 9 days.Folken de Fanel (talk)19:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Done --Jreferee (talk)13:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atWikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Skyscrapercity.com online forum (initiated 14 August 2013)? The question the RfC posed was:

As a standard of practice, can direct links to Skyscrapercity.com's online forums be used as references to support statements of fact about buildings or construction projects, when no other references are available or linkable?

Cunard (talk)09:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

 DoneI, JethroBT^{drop me a line}20:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering)#RfC on whether each expansion should have its own article (initiated 30 July 2013)? The question posed in the RfC is: "Should articles on Magic: The Gathering expansion sets be merged into blocks?" Thanks,Cunard (talk)09:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

 DoneArmbrust^{TheHomunculus}09:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson#Request for comment (initiated 4 September 2013)? The question posed in the RfC is: "The infobox currently has down as a victim 1 dog. Should that stay?" If the consensus is for removal, please implement the consensus. Based on the current discussion,WP:SNOW may be applicable.Cunard (talk)09:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done.I, JethroBT^{drop me a line}18:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 19#Category:Linguistics templates

  Closed byGood Olfactory (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}06:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 20#Category:Honorary degree recipients from the University of Girona

   DoneArmbrust^{TheHomunculus}09:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

— Precedingunsigned comment added byLfdder (talk •contribs) 10:45, 15 September 2013

All easy closes, but an admin is needed.Jackmcbarn (talk)19:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done --BDD (talk)21:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Can someone consider whether a SNOW or a BOLD early close would be appropriate here, based on unanimity so far, decent number of responses and lack of apparent disagreement. Usually I'd say run it for the full time normally, but this is a bit of a sensitive AFD (it's a 4 line BLP of a minor who's probably BLP1E/NOTNEWS) and there doesn't seem much basis to expect consensus to be different in a few days than now. (An explicit note to post requests for review, if any, to DRV, would probably be enough to protect against cutting off anykeep views, if needed)FT2 ^{(Talk | email)}15:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Closed byMark Arsten (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}06:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

There are two discussions which have gone on long enough and are ready for a close here:

• Talk:Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage#Merge with Chelsea Manning article(n.b.Chelsea Manning has reverted toBradley Manning for now)
• Talk:Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage#Requested move 31 August 2013

Note that if the merge discussion is closed with consensus to merge, the RM becomes unnecessary. --BDD (talk)17:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• It was proposed on 27 August that a new article,Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage, be merged intoChelsea Manning (currently located atBradley Manning). It would be appreciated if an uninvolved editor could close the discussion. Many thanks,SlimVirgin^(talk)03:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: to whomever closes these discussions, I make the suggestion that the merge discussion be closed first. If it is determined that the consensus of that discussion is to merge the article, it won't be necessary to touch the contentious topic of what to title the article.-sche (talk)23:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Both discussions wereClosed byS Marshall (talk ·contribs).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}10:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Requesting a neutral and uninvolved closer to shepherd this discussion. Thus far it has been fairly reasonable, but as it's a rename article about a trans* person so I'd rather schedule a closer in advance here, and have someone devoted to monitoring the conversation. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)15:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have closed the discussion perWP:SNOW. Based on the current state of the discussion, and the way its trending, the only possible outcomes were no-consensus (in this case defaulting to no-move) or a consensus against the move. As the end result would be the same, and the discussion was generating a good deal of heat, keeping the discussion open longer would not have been a good idea.Monty₈₄₅16:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Quite reasonable. Thank you.Two kinds of pork (talk)16:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Would an admin assess the consensus atWikipedia:Requests for comment/Joefromrandb (initiated 15 August 2013)? The instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are atWikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. After closing the RfC, please add the RfC toWikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks,Cunard (talk)09:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Closed byNE Ent (talk ·contribs).Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}15:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Closed byBearian (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).ArmbrustTheHomunculus15:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
This is a bit of a sticky issue, in regards to theValeria Lukyanova article. I'm not going to layout reasons for keeping/deleting here, as that would be inappropriate. The current AfD is now two days past due, and is the only extant AfD from September 10. Please follow along with this.. May of 2012, an article forValeria Lukyanova was created. Subsequently, it was placed for AfD. SeeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valeria Lukyanova. 24 May 2012 The AfD was closed as delete by administratorMastCell. No deletion review was requested. May of 2013, the article was created again. 26 May 2013 it was speedy deleted underWikipedia:CSD#G4 by administratorMalik Shabazz. 8 September 2013 it was created again, this time byUser:Bonkers The Clown. 9 September 2013 I tagged it for speedy deletion under G4[5], and informed the article creator[6] 9 September 2013 Bonkers the Clown removed the G4 speedy tag, in violation of the 5th paragraph ofWikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion policy. 9 September 2013 I restore the G4 tag[7], and inform Bonkers the Clown about this and that it is inappropriate for him to remove the G4 tag[8]. 9 September 2013 administratorPostdlf deleted and salted the article, due to two recreations of the article despite the AfD[9], in line withWP:SALT. 10 September 2013; administratorCrisco 1492 restores the article[10] 10 September 2013; administratorCrisco 1492 removes the speedy tag[11], and places the article for deletion again[12]. Crisco 1492 did not discuss the issue of undeleting the article withPostdlf, instead only informing Postdlf of his decision after the fact[13]. He also did not informMastCell that he was effectively overturning his decision on the original AfD. Crisco's decision is no more right or wrong than Pstdlf's or Malik Shabazz's. But, their decisions were overturned anyway, without discussion. This generated further discussion (seeUser_talk:Postdlf#Valeria_Lukyanova), which promptedCrisco 1492 to start a discussion to clarify G4 (seeWikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G4). 18 September 2013User:Innab posts a non-neutral request atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia asking for help at the AfD[14]. After complaint, the wording has since been modified towards neutral. The outcome of this is that there has been an inversion of what a no consensus might mean. If the appropriate process was followed, then a no consensus at DRV would result in the article remaining deleted. But, since MastCell and Postdlf's decisions were overturned by Crisco 1492, and a second AfD was initiated, a no consensus will result in the article not being deleted. The process broke down here. To be clear; I am not looking for any action against/for the admins involved. Rather, I want to avoid another fiasco like we had withCorey Worthington (see alsoWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Corey Delaney discussion). If you are to look atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valeria Lukyanova (2nd nomination) and simply count votes you would be doing a disservice to the issue. To whichever admin takes this issue up, please be careful. There are plenty of interweaving issues at hand;WP:BLP1E,WP:GNG,WP:BIO,WP:ACADEMIC,WP:ENTERTAINER,WP:NOTNEWS, plus a whole host of issues atWikipedia:Deletion policy. Whatever decision you make needs to be a solid one, clearly founded on policy/guidelines, if for no other reason than to stop this train wreck from moving any further down the tracks. Thank you for your attention. --Hammersoft (talk)14:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Ah, the train may have wrecked before, but I think of myself as laying more solid tracks to transport the train. I am not wishing for the train to wreck further. Are you canvassing your opinions? ☯BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯14:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC) I am doing nothing in violation ofWikipedia:Canvassing, as I alluded to at the beginning of this section. I am seeking a careful administrator review of this situation, and did not recommend any particular action. Please be careful with your accusations. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk)14:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Fret not, it's aquestion, and not anaccusation. ☯BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯14:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Then why ask it? You can do the right thing by removing the 'question'. You have my leave to remove my response to you here if you do, including this response. --15:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Its not really correct to claim the only way this recreation could have happened was thru DrV. The deletion was 1.5 years ago and the new article also had subsequent ongoing coverage to rely upon. Articles get recreated all the time that have been deleted at AfD at some point in the past, most commonly when something becomes notable over time. I inflictedThe Annoying Orange on us all after multiple old deletions, I believe. Sure the AFD needs to be closed and there's some reticence to do it because some aren't happy that the subject is notable, but such is life. By the way, I wasn't canvassed to come here, I just saw hammer has been active in the AfD and I figured he was wishing for alternate avenues of relief.--Milowent •hasspoken21:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC) 1) Hammer, since you seem so intent on promoting "proper" procedure, I note that I was mentioned but not notified on my talk page. 2) As Milowent has said, and I have explained several times, DRV is not the only way to restore a deleted article, particularly as the deleted version was not even in the same neighbourhood as the one written. I should note that, had I seen Malik's deletion and compared the two versions, I would have restored the article because that version was even better than what Bonkers wrote. 3) The AFD is actually rather straightforward, IMHO, and the only reason it wasn't closed with the rest of the stragglers yesterday was because I was the one doing the closing (i.e there would have been a COI). — Crisco 1492 (talk)22:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC) You were not informed because there was no reason to inform you. I was not looking for a review of your actions nor that of anyone else's. I was requesting closure, nothing more. As I said in the original request, "To be clear; I am not looking for any action against/for the admins involved". The edit notice says "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion". You are not the subject of the discussion, nor is anyone else. The request for closure is the subject of the discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk)16:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC) If you wanted to be technical about it, as a "best practice" every editor you named in the OP should have been notified. -The BushrangerOne ping only20:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC) <sigh> Look, this has nothing to do with those editors. I requested a closure. Their actions are nothing on which I was seeking action, review or oversight. I even specifically said so. Good grief. Notifying them would achieve nothing, as they have nothing to do with the closure. My point about procedure being followed before was NOT to be a stickler for technical details. The point was that the result of a no-consensus decision is inverted because of the lack of following procedure, and that needs to be considered in closing the AfD. --Hammersoft (talk)20:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC) I just looked at this. I think you are over-bureaucratizing this. It was deleted a year ago, and sources have developed and a new article was rewritten, so giving it a fair run through AfD was totally within reason. Secondly, having gone through AFD, I read a clear consensus in the AfD that she meets the GNG, and when I look at the article and sourcing, I think those !voters are right. I'd close this myself but non-admins are enjoined from closing contentious AfDs, but I would be extremely surprised if someone closed this other than "keep".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)21:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus atTalk:Kaliningrad#Proposed merger - Königsberg to Kaliningrad (initiated 16 August 2013)? Thanks,Cunard (talk)09:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk)11:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)