Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions

Archives

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

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

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

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

Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal request for closure is 30 days (opened on or before 20 June 2024); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early. However, editors usually wait at least a week after an RfC opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 June#Czechoslovak parliamentary election, 1920 (Initiated 3323 days ago on 15 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves backlog

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

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Minority language#Minority languages ​​in geographical articles (Initiated 3395 days ago on 4 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I question if this RFC is in the right place. It probably should have been done at MOS as its asking for more than just the article in question. An admin should probably close this one. AlbinoFerret 22:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Places in Bangladesh)#Request for Comments (Initiated 3381 days ago on 18 April 2015)? Please consider Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Proposal for WP:NCGN#Bangladesh in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Military dates, round 2 (Initiated 3346 days ago on 23 May 2015)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC: What does DATETIES mean for articles on US military personnel?. Please consider the earlier discussion Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 150#Military date format in biographical articles in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Can we get a bot to check the Internet Archive for dead link solutions? (Initiated 3336 days ago on 2 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not finding that item, even in archives of the page. Technically, the problem with doing that is deciding which version in the Internet Archive to use. If it's done badly, Wikipedia may get a link to a domain parking page. John Nagle (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/May 2015#RfC: How strict should MoS-JA be about name order? (Initiated 3357 days ago on 12 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electronic cigarette#Merger Proposal - cloud chasing (Initiated 3331 days ago on 7 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_25#Merger_Proposal_-_cloud_chasing. The page was recently expanded. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at MediaWiki talk:Tag-OneClickArchiver#Protected edit request on 11 May 2015 (Initiated 3357 days ago on 12 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Module talk:Main#Print titles of related articles (Initiated 3355 days ago on 14 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC, which asks if the current identification of Kosovo as a "disputed territory and partially recognized state" should be changed to "sovereign state," has been open for more than 7 days. During this time there have been 5 !votes from editors to change to "sovereign state" and 5 !votes from editors to keep "disputed territory and partially recognized state." (Please note that, of the five !votes for "sovereign state," one is from a SPA that is one month old and the other is from a IP editor.) The conversation has now degenerated into a routine content debate and, since there is not a majority - let alone consensus - to make the change to "sovereign state," a closure by an uninvolved editor and/or admin affirming said lack of consensus would be appreciated. LavaBaron (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the discussion is largely taking place between one editor (IP accounts) and me. I suppose we can continue the disagreements/exchanges even in the event of a closed RfC. Should we actually reach an agreement then it will probably be accepted by all others, if not, then no harm done. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs usually run for 30 days. 7 days is too little a time to close them, unless there is overwhelming consensus. Kingsindian ♝♚ 03:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LavaBaron's comment does not represent the truth, it is not true that the votes are 5 vs 5 (in my counting neither were on June, 26). The current votes are 6 votes on Sovereign state, 4 votes on Disputed Territory and Partial Recognition, and 3 votes on all options together Sovereign state, Disputed Territory and Partial Recognition. Whilst the majority of editors so far (9/13) indicated that they would like sovereignty being placed in the lede sentence, the current lede does not contain it. In addition, I would like to point out that the actual lede is not a result of any previous consensus, but as a result of unilateral updates by the editors of the "so-far" minor side of the RfC. To conclude, I would be glad if any involved admin thoroughly reads the outcome of the RfC unbiased by the comments here (including mine). Regards 95.90.184.96 (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is obvious sockpuppet, and should not comment here. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 00:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To the involved admin: i) i am not a sock-puppet, ii) unfortunately such personal insults are not new with the latest editor (e.g. Talk:Kosovo), and iii) he is engaged in an edit war against the will of most editors in terms of introducing the sovereignty term (history at Kosovo). P.s.: Sad to have to respond to this level of underbelly aggression, instead of contributing to the topic. 95.90.184.138 (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FTR. 13 contributors. Six chose "sovereignty" only on first line, seven chose "partially recognised" and "disputed territory" on the first line. Of those seven, there is an additional 4/3 split over whether "sovereign" should appear before "state" (because something has to be said after "partially recognised"), but nothing to warrant the absence of partially recognised and disputed territory. So clearly the consensus is to have all three listings. Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FTR. In terms of combinations (the RfC question asked concrete combinations) the most voted option is sovereignty alone with 6 votes, then next is 4 votes for partially recognized and disputed territory jointly. If one would decompose the explicit combinations and count the implicit singular elements in them, then sovereignty is the most voted element with 9 votes, then partial recognition with 7 votes and disputed territory with 7 votes. Unfortunately, the current article's lede sentence not only does not start with the (most voted) sovereignty term, but sovereign does not even exist in the article at all. Therefore, the RfC so far is a major breakaway from the current article formulation, which I believe needs to be rewritten. Sure, my intention is to not ignore the opinion of the minority of editors and I think that partial recognition and territorial disputes should be naturally mentioned. E.g. it can be "Kosovo is a sovereign state (9 votes) with partial international recognition (7 votes), whose territory is disputed (7 votes) by Serbia". Nevertheless, such formulations look too heavy to me and I prefer different sentences per element: first sentence-sovereignty, second sentence-partial recognition, third sentence-territorial dispute. 95.90.184.138 (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should go back to your account (if its not blocked or banned). Its not ok to spam this many pages here on wiki per Wikipedia:SHOPPING. Go back to Kosovo talk page, and go back to your account, so we can solve this chaos you made. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 11:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Watch your words and allow the others to have a civilized discussion, who do you think you are to order editors what to do? 95.90.184.138 (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or an easier way is "Kosovo is a disputed territory and partially-recognised sovereign state". Everything said, fewest keystrokes. And of course, "sovereign" here is added which should should no doubt please the real minority (for whom only six wanted 'sovereignty' to feature on its own) because Kosovo would be the only breakaway state in the world to feature this word in its opening sentence. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Respecting the RfC votes so far, the "disputed territory" (a minor voted element) should not be located before "sovereign state" (the most voted element). Secondly, partial/full recognition is not a mandatory criteria of a sovereign state (recognition by one UN state is sufficient for sovereignty), therefore the recognition status it is not a categorizing adjective for the word sovereignty. For this sake, I find it less logical to say "partially-recognized sovereign state", than saying "sovereign state with partial international recognition". Consequently, partial recognition is a characteristics of the Republic of Kosovo, it is not a characteristics of its sovereignty status, therefore positioning the recognition trait afterwords eliminates the ambiguity. 95.90.184.138 (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seven disagree with that formula and with those principles. Let's not discuss the logistics in this space, we can do that without restriction at Talk:Kosovo. I intend to use this space merely to offer our final positions so that it can be left to admins from that point, my next post here should do that once I have established what everybody wants. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement over !vote

OppositeGradient and I are at odds over how to handle the outcome of the votes. This section is for admins to discern which of the two proposals below is most appropriate and upon that choice, may he please make the necessary changes if required (or leave a note if none is required). Note that this is not an extension of the debate that has taken place these past weeks, and that no new evidence or material is being submitted here. The conversation on the matter between OppositeGradient and me may yet continue indefinitely on Talk:Kosovo.

• Brief outline. We discussed how Kosovo should be treated on the first line, the options presented by the RfC nominator were 1) Sovereign state, 2) Partially recognised state, 3) Disputed territory. We were given the choice of mixing and matching, and combining so there was no "interrogation factor" (i.e. "you will choose 1, 2, or 3 only"). Fourteen editors participated, six believed in Option 1, seven combined options 2 and 3, and one more in option 3 alone; of the seven to select 2+3, three went for the full list of items (i.e. disputed territory and partially recognised sovereign state).

• View of Oranges Juicy. I treated each item on account of how many persons chose the term. The term "sovereign" was opposed by 4/14. Nine out of the remaining ten were split between six choosing it to stand on its own, totally unqualified, whilst three agreed that it should strictly be mentioned in relation to being partially recognised and a disputed territory. The tenth stood by "partially recognised state" per se. The terms "disputed territory" (noun phrase) and "partially recognised" (adjective phrase to qualify "sovereign state" or "state") were both selected by 7/14. On this premise, I believe disputed territory and partially recognised sovereign state (or vice versa) best reflects neutrality per the comments of the participants.
  

I have struck out text above with this very post for two reasons. 1) The concersation is ongoing and new editors have spoken, 2) I mistakenly assumed !vote to mean just that, only later did I discover WP:NOTAVOTE. These details have overtaken the tone of the above post. Regards --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• View of OppositeGradient. This editor observes that with regards the single figure system of the votes, a plurality has chosen "sovereign state" to stand alone on the first line. He admits that "partially recognised" and "disputed territory" were agreed by half (7/14) - with 8/14 in favour of "partially recognised state" - but notes that the internal disagreement amongst the seven (three agreeing on use of adjective "sovereign", and four disagreeing) is sufficient to omit "partially recognised" and "disputed territory" from the first line (despite these terms being agreed by the seven). As such, his belief on the strength of the plurality choosing Option 1 is that "sovereign state" is all that should appear in the first line, and that other items should start from the following sentence. - check after this post.

As discussion continues, I believe there will be no agreement between us on how the vote should be interpreted and thereby request that an administrator intervene to help resolve the matter. Many thanks.

Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My view and final stance is actually slightly different to the summary of OrangesJuicy. In my view, we can have either a multiple sentence introduction, or a single liner. I propose to respect the outcome of the RfC as follows:
  • 1): If we agree on multiple sentences: Sentence 1 - sovereignty (9 votes), sentence 2 - partial recognition (7 votes), and sentence 3 - territorial dispute (7 votes)
  • 2): If we get stuck with a single sentence: "Kosovo is a sovereign state (9 votes) with partial international recognition (7 votes), whose territory is disputed (7 votes) by Serbia".OppositeGradient (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC just expired. Close will need to be thoughtful and will take some reading as there were extended comments. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the complexity and contentiousness of the RfC, I'd suggest that a 3-person panel would be a good idea for this. (I'm involved, so I can't volunteer.) Sunrise (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Admins. Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC asked editors to review 18 sources to answer the question: do these sources support <this> statement. I can't imagine how this request could have resulted in anything but an extended discussion. petrarchan47คุก 23:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Zeitgeist (film_series)#RFC: One or Two Articles? Should film series and movement be split?? (Initiated 3338 days ago on 31 May 2015) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the contentiousness of this article and of recent disruptive editing, an administrative close may be preferred. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)#RFC: Lead of Zeitgeist (film series)? (Initiated 3338 days ago on 31 May 2015) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

(Initiated 3312 days ago on 26 June 2015) AlbinoFerret 19:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strange as it might seem, the more you post and show there is a heated controversy, the less likely you will find takers after only 9 days. AlbinoFerret 04:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: - where do you get "only 9 days" from? The discussion began at Talk:Hillary Clinton#Infobox and image captions on June 12, which is 23 days ago. It specifically says in the survey section that this is a continuation of the two previous discussions over the past month. bd2412 T 22:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While discussions on the topic preceded the RFC, the RFC started on June 26th [1][2]. AlbinoFerret 12:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: - I am troubled by the implication that any editor can basically make any discussion drag on without end by merely creating a new section and rephrasing the question under discussion there as a new RfC. bd2412 T 20:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

There's the problem with "undocumented" conventions in a nutshell. We have a status quo ante, and a rule that absent consensus for a change, the status quo ante should continue. We have a lengthy move discussion preceding the current dispute that argues all the points of Wikipedia:Article titles, but makes not one single mention of a change to the substance of the article. We have a roughly even split in the opinions expressed on the matter, with reasonable arguments being raised on both sides, and an absence of policy mandating a specific outcome. bd2412 T 20:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem with undocumented conventions? Do we really have to document every convention? Are some conventions so obvious that no documentation is necessary? Isn't this one of them? I daresay this might be the first time it has ever even been challenged. The problem isn't the undocumented convention. The problem is the stubborn refusal of some to acknowledge it. --В²C ☎ 21:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An undocumented, unacknowledged convention with many counter-examples isn't much of a convention. Jonathunder (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With 5 million articles even .01% counter-examples are going to be "many", so having "many" counter-examples is not persuasive evidence against a convention. What you need to do is hit WP:RANDOM at least 10 times and see how often you do or don't get matching titles and info box headings (not including disambiguation and redoing hits without infoboxes). Here we go.

• Skomarje Y
• Bill Wallace (American football) Y (disambiguated title, plain heading)
• Abdul Aziz Mirza Y
• Loubens, Ariège Y (disambiguated title, plain heading)
• Narasin Y
• Edir Macedo Y
• Bhiloda Y
• Kevin Callan Y
• Make It Big Y
• Aura (Miles Davis album) Y (disambiguated title, plain heading)

That's about as good as convention gets on Wikipedia. --В²C ☎ 22:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Born2cycle: - since you are of the opinion that a policy-based consensus has already been established, would you agree that it would be appropriate for an admin to close the discussion at this time? There is not going to be any great shift in participation, and the argument has already become circular and repetitive on both sides. bd2412 T 23:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although I believe that that is the correct way to read consensus, in practice many don't seem to do that. Besides, the discussion is ongoing and I don't favor closing ongoing discussions. The normal time for an rfc is often a month, isn't it? --В²C ☎ 01:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The RM that led to the current dispute was opened on April 26 and closed on May 8, a total of 12 days. I can't imagine why it would take longer to settle the name in the infobox than the name in the article title. bd2412 T 02:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at this RfC – including whether there should be a follow-up RfC (and what should be discussed). (Initiated 3335 days ago on 3 June 2015) - Evad37 [talk] 02:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has been open since March 2014 and was revived in May 2015; no new comments in over a month. Chase (talk | contributions) 16:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chasewc91: I'm not sure a formal close would do much good here - mainly because a new option was proposed right at the end of the discussion and received limited comments, and apart from that consensus is basically crystal clear. Mdann52 (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole discussion has turned into a trench warfare. TheHoax (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3328 days ago on 10 June 2015)[reply]

This discussion was archive boxed on July 14 after an RfC was opened seeking more input on the topic, though that hasn't had any new input in about 4 days and so probably could be closed. PaleAqua (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3295 days ago on 13 July 2015)[reply]

There might be a consensus. If not, perhaps I should start the RM. The RFC should be an RM or a predecessor to RM. You decide. George Ho away from home (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Military dates, round 2 (Initiated 3346 days ago on 23 May 2015)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC: What does DATETIES mean for articles on US military personnel?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Symbol for astronomical units (again) (Initiated 3325 days ago on 13 June 2015)? See the subsections Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal proposing not proposing and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal to add "AU" to the MoS. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Charleston church shooting/Archive 2#RfC: Should remarks made by presidential candidates be included in the article? (Initiated 3316 days ago on 22 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Leo Frank#Request for Comment -- Inbalance in the article lede (Initiated 3342 days ago on 27 May 2015)? Please consider Talk:Leo Frank#RFC Vote on "researchers believe Leo Frank was wrongfully convicted" in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald#RfC: Do you support or oppose the inclusion of the following passage? (Initiated 3336 days ago on 2 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald#RfC: Do you support or oppose keeping all current material in the article, and allowing the editing process to take its its normal course without mass deletions of current material? (Initiated 3336 days ago on 2 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Pedro Nava (politician)#Notability? (Initiated 3336 days ago on 2 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ian Watkins (Lostprophets)#RfC: should he be described as a paedophile? (Initiated 3336 days ago on 2 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein#RfC:Should the infobox include a cause of death? (Initiated 3331 days ago on 7 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 40#Small lede change suggestion(s) (Initiated 3319 days ago on 19 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox person#Spouse parameter and surnames (Initiated 3376 days ago on 23 April 2015)? See the subsection Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Spouse parameter. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bill Cosby#RfC: Should the allegations of sexual assault be mentioned in the lede? (Initiated 3324 days ago on 14 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Herbert Hope Risley#Rfc: Proposed revisions for the lead section due to OR (Initiated 3323 days ago on 15 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ask.com#RFC (Initiated 3336 days ago on 2 June 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the lead paragraph include that IAC / Ask.com is a distributor of malware?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:March Against Monsanto#RfC Is including a quotation which describes GM food as 'poison' acceptable (Initiated 3329 days ago on 9 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Upstate New York#RfC: How should this article "define" Upstate New York? (Initiated 3343 days ago on 26 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Newfound River#RFC: Which should be the primary article? (Initiated 3317 days ago on 21 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bergen County, New Jersey#RfC: Should the photos be stacked in the municipalities section? (Initiated 3341 days ago on 28 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Palestine grid#RfC - Should the Palestine grid, obsolete system, be used in infobox? (Initiated 3338 days ago on 31 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:French colonial empire#RfC: When did the French colonial empire end? (Initiated 3330 days ago on 8 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Miroslav Filipović#Request for comment (Initiated 3324 days ago on 14 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War#RfC (Initiated 3324 days ago on 14 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bijeljina massacre#Merge of Capture of Bijeljina into this article (Initiated 3328 days ago on 10 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Derry#RfC: Renaming the Derry article (Initiated 3323 days ago on 15 June 2015)? Please consider the closed RfC Talk:Derry#RfC: Renaming the Derry and County Londonderry articles (closed 30 June 2015). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:H:IPA#Request for comment: "foot" as an English example of the IPA symbol "ʊ". (Initiated 3343 days ago on 26 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Ruby RfC June 2015 (Initiated 3315 days ago on 23 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New Mexican English#RfC: Edit warring? (Initiated 3338 days ago on 31 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genetically modified food#RfC: Should the "Safety Consensus" discussion be moved out of the Controversy section? (Initiated 3320 days ago on 18 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ramadan#Health section (Initiated 3318 days ago on 20 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:E-meter#(revised) RFC: The best way to keep this article in compliance with WP:Due/ Undue (Initiated 3331 days ago on 7 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kill 'Em All#RfC: Should we separate the songs in "Music and lyrics"? (Initiated 3324 days ago on 14 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)/Archive 8#RfC for video section (Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol) (Initiated 3310 days ago on 28 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jimi Hendrix#RfC: Adding acid rock as a genre in the article's infobox (second discussion) (Initiated 3330 days ago on 8 June 2015)? Please consider the closed RfC Talk:Jimi Hendrix/Archive 8#RfC: Adding acid rock as a genre in the article's infobox (closed 31 May 2015). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC for web/internet/streaming series naming conventions (Initiated 3326 days ago on 12 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#Deprecating the "In popular culture" heading (Initiated 3324 days ago on 14 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Handling trivia#Proposal to develop a content guideline on encyclopedic relevance (Initiated 3324 days ago on 14 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox television#RfC: The addition of fields for late-night talk show related articles (Initiated 3321 days ago on 17 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Aboriginal communities in Western Australia#Rfc: Should the article include a statement about the number of communities and the number of residents? (Initiated 3336 days ago on 2 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Aboriginal communities in Western Australia#Rfc: Should the article include a statement to the effect that 99% of the population of the communities are in remote areas? (Initiated 3336 days ago on 2 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Succession to the Throne Act, 2013#RFC: Quote - which version? (Initiated 3335 days ago on 3 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Same-sex marriage in the Pitcairn Islands#RfC: Should this article be re-directed to the UK article?? (Initiated 3312 days ago on 26 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Copyfraud#Off-topic image (Initiated 3321 days ago on 17 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Military of ISIL#Renaming (Initiated 3327 days ago on 11 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#Preferred disambiguator: "actor/actress" or "pornographic actor/actress"? (Initiated 3426 days ago on 4 March 2015)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#RfC: Should a person who has appeared in exclusively pornographic films be described as "(actor/-tress)" or "(pornographic actor/-tress)"?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Camel toe#RFC Male equivalent (Initiated 3342 days ago on 27 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Female copulatory vocalizations#RFC genderneutral section (Initiated 3342 days ago on 27 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167#Sub-national varieties of English? (Initiated 3327 days ago on 11 June 2015)? See the subsection, an RfC, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167#Proposal to deprecate Template:English variant notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:No original research#RfC: Should "news articles" be added to WP:PRIMARY? (Initiated 3320 days ago on 18 June 2015)? Please consider Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272#RFC closure challenge in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)#RFC: Link the word “production” in NFF (Initiated 3332 days ago on 6 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#RfC: Proposal to allow non-admin "delete" closures at TfD (Initiated 3329 days ago on 9 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (publishing)#Should this become a guideline? (Initiated 3300 days ago on 8 July 2015)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (history)#Should this become a guideline? (Initiated 3298 days ago on 10 July 2015)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Categorizing WikiProjects and their categories (Initiated 3330 days ago on 8 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations (Initiated 3321 days ago on 17 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 125#Proposal for slight expansion of existing suppression criterion (Initiated 3319 days ago on 19 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 116#RFC: Changing the newness requirement for DYK from 7 days to 30 days (Initiated 3320 days ago on 18 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 116#RFC: Add a requirement for reviewers to copy edit the article (Initiated 3320 days ago on 18 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mukti Bahini#RfC: Should the revelations/admission by Prime Minister Modi be included in the article? (Initiated 3329 days ago on 9 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]