| This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia: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 the current main page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Would an admin summarize the main points for the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ScottyBerg sock review? The discussion was initiated on 28 January 2012; the most recent comment was three days ago. Cunard (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Greyshark09 (talk · contribs) has requested that an administrator close a discussion at Talk:Caesarea#Merge proposal. Please do so. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
An uninvolved administrator is required to close the merger proposal of Arab–Israeli conflict in sports.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#"My contributions" link for anonymous IP editors? Would an admin also implement the consensus by filing a Bugzilla request? Cunard (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin close this discussion. It has been open for more than 30 days, and discussion went inactive a week ago. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Move discussion has been open for well over a week now; given the active nature of the talk page it would be nice to close out this discussion if a consensus can be extracted. VQuakr (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Non controversial merge RFC discussion - consensus needs a sum up. Please close. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Unclosed DRV discussion, which has already fallen of the main DRV page. Somebody please close it. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Please could someone close this multi-move: the discussion for which is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#Moving "Isaac Asimov's ..." articles. Sorry for the irregular form of the proposal, and I would be happy to correct the links once it's closed. --xensyriaT 21:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello guys close this request for comment. It is over. --Highstakes00 (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Now open for 22 days, i.e. well beyond the usual 7 days. Discussion has stalled -- no posts since one on 14 April, and before that nothing since 7 April. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Now open for 18 days. I was a participant, so cannot close it myself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Now open for 17 days. I was a participant, so cannot close it myself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Plz can be closing? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I think this is a clear WP:SNOW closure right here. 15 delete !votes with no objections. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 23:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
This discussion is inactive since Monday and I think it can be closed now. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 22:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Discussion has been inactive for 9 days now, opponent was presented with edited solution on which he never reacted and nor have anyone else. One way or another, since no editor which never participated in similiar discussion has been found, could you close the request? Thank you. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if the nominator and administrator User:Tenebrae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is acting on good faith or not, but look at the comments he made toward me and others. Look at what he did to my Block History before I moved it to my talk page. Look at the comments in User talk:Elen of the Roads#User:George Ho/Block History#Blackmark. Look at the comments in User talk:Tenebrae. Seriously, even with the consensus over significance and stuff, I am not sure if the discussion can go on any longer. --George Ho (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Closed by JHunterJ after 7 days. Dpmuk (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Should have been closed after 7 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Should have been closed after 7 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Should have been closed after 7 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Should have been closed after 7 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Should have been closed after 7 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Should have been closed after 7 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The consensus unanimously opposed this proposal, and I bet many more will oppose. Odds of supporting this proposal may be none. --George Ho (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
This has been open for a couple of months now, partly because of a long wait for a foundation legal opinion, but discussion has pretty much stopped and this needs closing. I started it so am involved and Moonriddengirl was involved in her WMF role so can't close either. I'd hope to be able to find a image copyright admin to talk a look but a post to WP:MCQ has yielded no responses so bringing here. Dpmuk (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Allow watchlisting of Special:Contributions/User pages and its sub-proposals? Would an admin also implement the consensus by filing a Bugzilla request? Cunard (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Does not appear to be anywhere near a close result - but would an unilvlved admin kindly close it? 3 appear to consider the Tea Party to be properly mentioned (even if it is not deemed Radical Right) while 11 deem it improperly in the article. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
An unclosed deletion review.—S Marshall T/C 14:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
A proposed basis of closure was made by a neutral third party on 30 April . This was accepted by TPH . Since then there has been no objection and only a few minor edits to the project. The whole project is more than two months old and I would say that all the key points have been made. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion there are consensus among uninvolved admins on some kind of short term sanction either block for a week or one one month topic ban.--Shrike (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
RfC on merge, please assist in closing. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The proposal is standing for a couple of years already.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
There are three oppositions and two supports. However, opposition begs chances, while supporters do not want to give chances. --George Ho (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Can an admin look at the following merge requests at Talk:UFC 149: Aldo vs. Koch and Talk:UFC 150, on the face of it there appears no consensus to merge, but given the lack of poicly based reasons and the recent outcomes of :
Can an admin close the discussions . Mtking (edits) 05:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 1#User:Cla68 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 30#The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1966)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Could someone close this RfC? It's rather malformed, being put on the main noticeboard, instead of the talkpage, and seems to have fairly clear consensus. 86.** IP (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Closed Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
This has been awaiting closure for over a month and it's been about a week and a half since the last comment. I've taken part in the discussion so can't close it myself. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
This was an RfC to decide whether there's consensus to add the subject's surname to the article, against his wishes (it was his slave name and he rejects it). The RfC closed after 30 days. TuckerResearch concluded that around 22 users (who were not single-purpose accounts) wanted to add the name, and 14 wanted to omit. Further discussion here. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Closed Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Per the header, this RFC should have been deleted about seven days ago. There is really only one "certifier". There appears to be a second, Guy Macon, but in the "Views" section he states "I am not involved in the current dispute", which means he shouldn't have made himself a certifier. Jeh (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Please close straw poll on Seamus incident talk page. Please note that a non-admin previously tried to close the poll, but their closure was undone. Debbie W. 05:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Closed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
can an admin either close or relist this? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin close and summarize Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vision Thing? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Can an admin either close or relist this? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
This open DRV will soon fall of the main DRV page. Closure needed. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 10:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Would someone be so kind as to close out this RFC? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
It's been eight days since the original post. What is the result of this discussion? --George Ho (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
(I hope this is the right place to make a request of this type. If not, please let me know.)
Namely:
It's been at the backlog for nearly a month and is quite stale at this point, I believe. Both sides had good points, and I wish we could have gotten a wider range of input. There is no clear consensus at the moment, however, and it doesn't look as though one is going to develop any time soon. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 18:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin (or admins) close:
Would an admin assess the consensus and summarize the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 95#Time to make WP:BRD policy?, which was listed and archived from Template:Centralized discussion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Discussion was open for more than one month is inactive since 26 April 2012. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 15:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
This is archived but there is still one DRV open. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
added "closed due to inactivity, no consensus" Nobody Ent 23:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin summarize Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ? A close was requested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 1#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ, and the RfC was delisted due to inactivity but was not summarized. A summary will allow the subject and participants to have a third-party list the RfC's findings.
When I saw http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=493621214#User:Fae at WP:AN, I reviewed the RfC/U and found that unlike the most recent RfC/Us at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive it had not been summarized.
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer#Summary and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoodDay are two excellent examples of how complex RfC/Us are summarized. Cunard (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Apologies to the community, I had not realized this discussion had been continuing. To make everything explicit, my close does not include any summary, other than the edit summary of closed due to inactivity and no consensus as listed on the archive page; this is not an official close by a community elected admin but a gnomework task because no one else will do it performed by an eponymous nobody. As there is currently an ongoing ArbCom case regarding Fae it probably doesn't matter at this point.
As to my inappropriate "summary," which is a talk page comment illustrating the potential difficulty an actual closer would have -- my actual statement is "this was just started by a bunch of editors who are all homophobes except all the ones who aren't" -- which is the union of two disjoint subsets which form the Universal set. No statement is made as the number of members in each set. I will also contend that an editor reading all of the RFC and all of the talk page will find my summary reflects what is actually there to a reasonable approximation. Nobody Ent 01:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin summarize the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested articles#RFC? The discussion was listed at Template:Centralized discussion; the last comment was on 17 May 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 55#RFC on non-free content handling, in particular in history revisions with regard to the questions asked by FT2 (talk · contribs)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The discussion is still ongoing, but it has gotten slow. --George Ho (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I need someone to close discussion at Talk:Jacobus Deketh/GA2. It's straightforward enough, I think. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you please close Talk:Ashton_Kutcher#Merge_discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Please close Talk:Big Bang#RfC: Which draft should be selected?, thanks!! – Lionel (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
A deletion review focusing on copyright and fair use as it applies to Dungeons & Dragons.—S Marshall T/C 18:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin review Talk:Matt Lucas#Former partner RfC for closure? Opened 23 May. Thanks, --92.6.202.54 (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I imagine this is a fairly clear-cut 'no consensus' result, but it would be helpful for an uninvolved administrator to rubber-stamp this expired and de-listed RFC. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 05:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
This RfC has remained open for months. Would an uninvolved admin please close and summarize the discussion. Thanks. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Requesting close, RFC tag expired, would an uninvolved editor or admin please summarize the discussion? Monty845 04:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
This RFC/U needs closure after It went inactive on 22 May 2012. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 06:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin close and summarize Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Ban April Fools pranks? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
At Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Possible_Queue_6_late_substitution_or_addition, I have explained why Template:Did you know nominations/John Tiffany needs rush closure and special queue placement. The 66th Tony Awards are tonight and this is a great hook to have on the main page in Queue 6 tonight.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Either a nominator must withdraw this nomination, or someone here shall close it as "no consensus to delete" as not substitute for WP:VPPR. --George Ho (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Due to the contentious history of this article, claims of ArbCom sanctions with this particular subject matter, and other problems simply needing a dispassionate uninvolved 3rd party coming in to review the discussion about, I'd like to request some administrator willing to wade into this discussion (at your peril) to close this discussion. Just be aware it is a tarpit of problems waiting to drag you down into the abyss if you aren't careful, so tread lightly and back yourself up with additional help if you wade in here as well. The discussion on this RfC has apparently run its course simply needing resolution. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
An RfC concerning reference style that was opened on April 12. Danger! High voltage! 22:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin close and summarize Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
open for several weeks now, and the discussion appears to have died. Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
open for several weeks now, and the discussion appears to have died. Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Two weeks ago tomorrow, it was requested that the article Luka Magnotta be renamed as Murder of Lin Jun. Since we passed the 7-day mark after which the discussion could be closed, it has surprised me that no admin has done this already, given the contentious and high-profile nature of the topic. After a very active discussion over those first seven days, only one comment has been made on the request.
It seems pretty clear that there is no consensus for this move, and it's probably not unfair to say there is a consensus against the move. Either way, the rest of the activity on the talk page indicates that the question has become not whether we should rename Luka Magnotta but whether we should create Murder of Lin Jun as its own article. (Incidentally, attention to that discussion could also be helpful.) I've tried to be patient about this, but administrator attention and a decision will be very helpful in putting this discussion behind us so we can focus on the myriad other issues that have shown up there. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Has already been relisted twice. Discussion stalled since 24 May. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Short discussion, stalled since June 4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
This RFC was never closed though the RFC bot removed the template as expired. Can an admin please have a look at Talk:Astrology#RFC_on_change_to_pseudoscience_summary_in_lede? Thanks. SÆdontalk 01:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
open for several weeks now, and the discussion appears to have died. Frietjes (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Could someone close or relist this one? I would, but I closed it the first time, before the DRV and subsequent relisting (which I fully supported). I will be happy to take care of any cleanup issues (e.g., either restoring, deleting, or renaming the templates). Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
No discussion since May 28. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Stalled since June 4, apart from a request for closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Would an otherwise uninvolved administrator please review and close with a decision the expired RfC located at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Proposed_modification_to_WP:NFC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
This has a big majority of support to move and has being needed to be closed for days. Thanks. Jacob102699 (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
open for several weeks now, and the discussion appears to have died. Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Open for 42 days, and only 2 comments in the last 17 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
No discussion since 30 May. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Very long discussion, only one contribution in the last week. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Even longer discussion, very contentious. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
This request for uninvolved admin RfC closure has now exceeded 30 days without response. The subject in question is an oft-recurring one and warrants an unambiguous administrative resolution. Your assistance is appreciated. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Discussion to change/add wording to the Block policy? (initiated 18 February 2012). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Unblocking bot accounts? (initiated 10 May 2012). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin close Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice and provide guidance about how a subsequent RfC would be better focused? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Category:Terminology (initiated 20 May 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
This might be a bit early, but discussions on merging Nintendo 3DS XL to Nintendo 3DS is here. When an admin feels it should be closed, please do so. Thanks, « ₣M₣ » 19:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I notice that the reviews that I started are still active. I wonder if there is a consensus. --George Ho (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Would an administrator assess the consensus of five proposed changes to the notability of academics guideline? Discussion of the proposals is at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)#Proposed_changes. NJ Wine (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
This idea has been repeatedly, recently rejected by pretty much everyone who has come across it yet the creator of the idea seems to think if he keeps re-presenting it with slight modifications it will suddenly become aprooved. I have explained to him that the underlying concept is completel antithetical to the way Wikipedia works and that no amount of tweaking it will change that, but he seems to be somwehat resistant to "clue adjustment" in this department and apparently intends to keep this farce open. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why the first listing got relisted, but could someone come by and close this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Could someone be so kind to close the merger proposal of English national identity article. I think that user who proposed merger did not follow all necessary steps (he did not start the discussion) and there was no discussion about his proposal. I could start discussion myself, but since I do not support his proposal it would probably be absurd. There are articles about the other national identities, like Scottish national identity, Canadian identity, Taiwanese identity, Jewish identity... The article on "English national identity" obviously meets the general notability guideline because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (43,500 of them) --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin summarize the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI? The discussion was listed at Template:Centralized discussion; the last comment was on 13 May 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Staledraft and Proposed slow deletion? The RfC was initiated on 2 June 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Move review#RfC to see if there is broad support for RM closure reviews (initiated 20 May 2012), taking into consideration the other discussions on the page? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at the following MfDs:
Editor requested a rename of Paradise to Heaven (but both articles exist). Now a second proposal to merge has been forwarded, but the old rename proposal is still hanging out. I think it should just be speedily closed as a procedural close -- Talk:Paradise/Archive 1#Requested_move for details. --KarlB (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Can an uninvolved administrator please close this discussion at IPCOLL and render a decision that respects the majority consensus. The advanced proposal seeks to eliminate mandatory, formulaic, boilerplate text currently inserted into some 200 articles. After a lengthy debate, 23 editors voted in favor of the proposal to remove the boilerplate text while 19 opposed (24 to 20 if IPs are included). A decision that respects the valid concerns voiced by the majority of the community should be respected and implemented.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Image categorisation? Initiated 11 June 2012, the discussion was listed and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. The last comment was made on 20 June 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:List of banned users#Treatment of de-facto-banned users (initiated 9 May 2012)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Neutral closure needed; discussion has been on-going since June 12. --KarlB (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Close paraphrasing#RfC: Should this be a guideline ?? Initiated 2 June 2012, the discussion was listed and archived from Template:Centralized discussion because of inactivity. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Needs to be closed. --George Ho (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
This RfC ran for 30 days and became rather heated towards the end, with considerable incivility, edit warring, and even an ANI thread. Would someone take a look to determine consensus, please? Rivertorch (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Closed. Sandstein 13:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Archiving talk pages? The RfC is listed at Template:Centralized discussion and no discussion has occurred since 18 May 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the discussion is in my favour. Rcsprinter (gossip) @ 19:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Everyone's spoken; realistically, time to close the discussion and enact the results. --Rschen7754 03:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:User pages#Request for comment - Advertising on user pages? The RfC was listed and archived from Template:Centralized discussion and the last comment was on 20 May 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion#Do we really need this deletion discussion category? (initiated 20 May 2012)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin summarize the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#PORNBIO: yes or no? (maybe) (initiated 23 March 2012)? An RfC was held under a subsection at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#RFC for more feedback (2 May 2012). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
A requested move of Stephane Charbonneau was opened almost four weeks ago, and after plenty of feedback, there hasn't been anything for a week. Especially since a parallel request was closed over a week ago, I think there should be enough evidence for an administrator to rule without fear of disenfranchising anyone. Thanks, BDD (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The merger discussion must be closed if it slows down. --George Ho (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I am requesting this be closed now as 2 weeks have passed now and it appears there is a consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Closure needed of this discussion. Several proposals have been mooted, all with varying levels of support, but there are divides that don't seem likely to be breached by further discussion, so a neutral closure/assessment of consensus is needed. --KarlB (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 July 9#Justin Bieber on Twitter? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
These discussions need to be closed. I think a consensus is already established. --George Ho (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved administrator close the RfC at Talk:Nation of Islam#RfC. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 13:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I would like someone to look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agent00f; there is a "view" subscribed to by a large enough number of editors at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Agent00f#View_by_Drmies and a move to close at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Agent00f#Move_to_close. Editor in question has had ample opportunity to show a dedication to cease disruptive editing (in this case, filibustering and stalling) and has not seized that opportunity. This has been running since 12 May. Thank you in advance. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
(below comments merged from a duplicate request) – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 06:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Intelligent, sensitive and well reasoned closure needed of this fairly problematic thread. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been stagnant for almost 2 weeks with an agreement being reached to use "Wells's". Would an admin please close, thanks Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated.
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Trout#Too inflammatory? (initiated 5 June 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Sensible, diplomatic admin needed to close a 3 month old RfC at Talk:Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War#Request_for_comment. --Noleander (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
We need an uninvolved administrator to assess the consensus on this discussion, to determine whether this discussion after the article's 2nd AFD has reached a consensus on whether to merge. BOZ (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#The WP:SOURCESEARCH paradox (initiated 17 June 2012)? Cunard (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:User access levels#Rights of indef blocked users (initiated 5 June 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia: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 the current main page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |