Noticeboards Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. General Administrators main incidents Bot owners Bureaucrats Closure Education main incidents Importing pages Main Page errors Open proxies OTRS Oversight User permissions Articles and content Biographies of living persons Copyrights questions on media problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Reliable sources Resource requests Spam blacklist whitelist Titleblacklist Translation Page handling History merges Mergers Moves Protection XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion User conduct Long-term abuse Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring & 3RR Sanctions Personal sanctions General sanctions New pages patrollers Paid editing Sockpuppets Usernames Vandalism Other Arbitration Committee noticeboard requests enforcement Edit filters Mediation New contributors Teahouse Questions Editor assistance Help desk Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump ideas policy proposals technical miscellaneous Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Archives
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
Threads older than 90 days may be archived by ClueBot III.

Shortcuts: WP:ANRFC WP:AN/RFC

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 comment is 30 days (opened on or before 9 March 2016); 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.

Requests for closure[edit]

Requests for comment[edit]

Talk:List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#Use_of_national_flag_icons_on_each_launch_payload[edit]

Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Talk:List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#Use_of_national_flag_icons_on_each_launch_payload Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr[edit]

Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr (Initiated 118 days ago on 12 December 2015)? —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

This was going to be no consensus or consensus against, but discussion has renewed for a solution that will satisfy the opposition, so this should not be closed yet.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Done Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:David L. Jones#RFC: Inclusion of draft sections[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David L. Jones#RFC: Inclusion of draft sections (Initiated 119 days ago on 11 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

On hold There is an open sock investigation of one of the RFC participants for voting irregularities relating to this article. It it results in a block then I believe it may be appropriate to strike their !votes before evaluating a close. Alsee (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Alsee: please provide status update or follow up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, it looks like SPI is probably backlogged. See the sock investigation link I gave. It's still listed as open, with no response yet from any admin, clerk, or checkuser. Once it's resolved anyone can remove the "On Hold" and close it. Alsee (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Political correctness#Generally or primarily or something else[edit]

It was redated once and it's been ongoing for 54 days now, but discussion has pretty much died down. All of the monitors of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics voted for a third option, "often": 1, 2, 3 and 4. Current article lead hasn't existed for very long so nothing is yet "stable". --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Done, discussion is closed. no result. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for not explaining well enough but the point was to finally assess concensus as either or, not just closing it. I'll undo the closure in await for someone to actually decide either or. If there is no result it shall just be redated and reopened and the discussion and RfC continued because that is the proper procedure if there is no result yet, not closure. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed done tag so this will not be automatically archived by the bot. Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Political correctness#Generally or primarily or something else (Initiated 70 days ago on 29 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Correction: It was actually initiated on 28 November 2015, but redated a few times for the RfC bot. I'd also like to specify that this request was asked for to finally get an "either or" result, and not just "no decision". There was a request for closure of this discussion already above, but because of the discussion at the talk of this very project page I'll briefly mention this here for now and if the one above is returned I'll remove this bit. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm merging these two comments from a duplicate section I created below. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• This discussion was closed by User:Guy on 18 March. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Done Yep, it's done. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Séralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Séralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality (Initiated 116 days ago on 14 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

not done as further edits seem to have overtaken the last participation in the RfC so as to make formal assessment unnecessary unless a participant requires. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with not closing the RfC. I think it is helpful to answer these two questions:

1. Should we include the mention that Seralini's papers have been published in the peer-reviewed literature?

2. Should we include the studies which are discussed - or within the actual scope, of this article?

The discussion seems contentious which is why I'm not closing it myself. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree, its a hotly contested article in the GMO area that was part of a recent Arbcom case, and should be closed. I cant close it because of my involvement in that case, but even if I could I wouldnt as a NAC. AlbinoFerret 23:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that Ncmvocalist is correct. Nobody seems to be edit-warring over those two questions, a lot has changed since then (more than 200 edits and work by User:SlimVirgin and User:Tryptofish, both of whom are skilled with this sort of problem), a practical compromise seems to be in place, and the person who started the RFC retired weeks ago and requested that his account be blocked. The likely outcome is only to enshrine, as The Eternal Consensus™, the results of a single discussion about whether the words "peer-review" should appear in the article (current, stable state: yes, but maybe not as many times as some anti-GMO POV pushers would like) and whether the articles should be used as primary sources (current, stable state: the re-published one is cited as a source to say that it was re-published, and both versions are prominently linked as ==External links==, which is probably more than some pro-GMO POV pushers would like). It would probably be better to leave this alone, and let editors use their best judgment over time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML (Initiated 117 days ago on 13 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• This should run for another week or two, as it was not properly advertized and got insufficient attention. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Not done - discussion has recently picked up again with a drive for more participants. Sam Walton (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Removed not done template so the bot won't prematurely advertise it. I agree with waiting more time before closing it. Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Done by JzG. Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size (Initiated 73 days ago on 26 January 2016)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I've fixed your initiation date to be the actual date for the RFC.

It's not clear to me whether this actually needs an official closing statement. The disputants seem to have moved on to other subjects, and that particular line of text in the guideline seems to be stable now. It might be better to have people spend time on discussions that need help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, it needs official closing to settle this dispute. If this dispute comes up again, and it likely will, it will be good to point to the recent consensus on the matter...one with an official close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you realistically expect it to come up again during the next three to six months? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

With what I've seen there from two editors in particular, it is very likely to come up again within the next three to six months. Either way, even a year later is too soon for me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Done Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gun laws in Illinois#RfC: Magazine capacity and state preemption[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gun laws in Illinois#RfC: Magazine capacity and state preemption (Initiated 68 days ago on 31 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Done Drmies (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 125#RfC on Wikipedia:Authority Control[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 125#RfC on Wikipedia:Authority Control (Initiated 74 days ago on 25 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

This discussion was archived, and there is relatively little firm consensus. As an alternative to un-archiving it solely for the sake of saying "many good comments, but not much consensus for specific actions here" – something that ought to be perfectly obvious to the experienced editors who participated in that discussion – I'm marking this request done and leaving it in the archive. WhatamIdoing (talk)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment: Identification of train or railway stations in the lead[edit]

We need an experienced editor to assess the discussion in the above link. The difference of opinion lies in whether an article about a train station, or railway station, should begin with simply the name of the station (for example, "Culver City") or whether it should begin with the title of the article, like "Culver City station." Discussion has tapered off; recent remarks have simply repeated the arguments made earlier. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 46 days ago on 22 February 2016)

BeenAroundAWhile, it's obvious that editors prefer option #1, but your RFC, despite being on the talk page for a guideline, never included any sort of proposal to change the words in the guideline. I'm therefore uncertain what you're looking for: Someone to officially decree that editors prefer to begin articles about train stations with "Gotham train station is..." instead of "Gotham is..." at a rate of approximately 10:1? That seems pointless to me, but it could be done. Did you want someone to add a "rule" in MOS:LEAD about the One True Wording™ for the first sentence of articles about transit stations? There is no sensible place to do that. MOS:LEAD is for all the articles, not for one subject area (or even two or three subject areas). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: This is a good point. It would seem like possibly the place to put this result would be WP:STATIONS (after adding a 'Lead' section there actually, it looks like the new addition would go in the 'Structure' section there, which already discusses the lead). But I agree with BeenAroundAWhile that the consensus on this one is clear, and the result of this RfC needs to be "codified" somewhere... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiProjects pages are a bit like user pages; we can't demand that a particular group of editors declare that they recommend what other people have decided. However, if it had been me, I would have started the discussion there. (Also, I would have split their limited advice on to a subpage and tagged it with {{WikiProject style advice}}.)

I do not see the point of "codifying" anything here. The English Wikipedia explicitly, by policy, does not have legal codes. The point of closing a discussion is to help people figure out what the result of that one-time discussion was – assuming that they need any help, which in this case I seriously doubt – not to declare that this is the rule and that consensus can't change (or at least can't change without a huge fight). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This strikes me as a kind of WP:BURO response – because this RfC didn't get posted to exactly the "right place", and in exactly the "right way", it doesn't count for anything?... It was held in what could be argued is the right place – MOS:LEAD. It was even advertised at WT:STATIONS. So the idea that it carries no "weight" there strikes me as an odd claim... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I've explained myself clearly. It is indeed a WP:NOTBURO response: IMO there is no need to jump through bureaucratic hoops like "have an uninvolved editor write a formal closing statement" or "codify the result in a guideline". Use the results of the discussion, but don't be all bureaucratic about it.

My point about STATIONS is only that some volunteers (e.g., non-members who were involved in the discussion) can't force other volunteers (e.g., members of that WikiProject) to promote this view as if it were their own advice. That group can volunteer to include it, but we can't force them to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Russell Wilson#Should the language addressing Wilson's ethnicity be changed?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Russell Wilson#Should the language addressing Wilson's ethnicity be changed? (Initiated 63 days ago on 5 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Should resting place include cremation[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Should resting place include cremation (Initiated 58 days ago on 10 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Mitsubishi Magna#RfC: Is referenced comparative material false/unfit for article?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mitsubishi Magna#RfC: Is referenced comparative material false/unfit for article? (Initiated 73 days ago on 26 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi#RFC for sourcing[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi#RFC for sourcing (Initiated 74 days ago on 25 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Maya civilization#RfC: Maya Calendar: How many piktuns in a kalabtun?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Maya civilization#RfC: Maya Calendar: How many piktuns in a kalabtun? (Initiated 60 days ago on 8 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#RFC: Update of Background section per BBC 2011[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#RFC: Update of Background section per BBC 2011 (Initiated 66 days ago on 2 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Planet Nine#RfC: Images used for Planet Nine[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Planet Nine#RfC: Images used for Planet Nine (Initiated 64 days ago on 4 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Proscenium#RfC: the relevance of the Teatro Olimpico to this article[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Proscenium#RfC: the relevance of the Teatro Olimpico to this article (Initiated 59 days ago on 9 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams)#RfC on "including predecessor teams"[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams)#RfC on "including predecessor teams" (Initiated 75 days ago on 24 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13 Drafts[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13 Drafts (Initiated 75 days ago on 24 January 2016)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#The word "like"[edit]

This needs an accurate analysis before a closing rationale. George Ho (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 58 days ago on 10 February 2016)

Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed? (Initiated 53 days ago on 15 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Note that one of the editors in the discussion has requested admin closure, by someone who is familiar with MFD [1]. Sunrise (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Request for comment: How to deal with this article[edit]

IMHO, this Rfc's options have been unintentionally worded in a non-neutral style & therefore, the Rfc should be closed. Note I've opened up a new Rfc, which presents the same options, but rather in a neutral style. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 53 days ago on 15 February 2016)

• Comment: This RfC should not be closed in isolation - there is also an associated merge discussion ongoing, and the two are closely related. (For example, a couple of votes in the merge discussion are apparently based on reasons presented in the previous RfC.) In my opinion, the new RfC simply adds to the considerable unnecessary verbiage on the page. StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: The first Rfc has expired as no consensus for any of the 3 options. Furthermore, I've closed the second Rfc (that I had opened), per StAnselm's point, about "unnecessary verbiage".:) GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Further comment: The original RfC was closed as no consensus by the originator a few days ago, and this close has not been contested. It would be helpful if someone could close the merge discussion, though. StAnselm (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Notifying Jack Upland, as he's the merge nominator. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm puzzled about where this page is heading...--Jack Upland (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

My first choice is for the page to be deleted. My second choice is to split it up & merge its parts into the 2 articles you nominated to merge with. Most of all, let's hope the article-in-question won't be used as a vehicle for promoting the We don't know argument, across Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but your desire for deletion is fairly irrelevant given that you admitted that you couldn't be bothered figuring out how to nominate it for AfD. StAnselm (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not impossible for me to re-learn how. Deletion is an option, I haven't put aside. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the events be removed?[edit]

I'm requesting an admin or an experienced user to assess the consensus at the mentioned page. (Initiated 49 days ago on 19 February 2016) Mhhossein (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Time Person of the Year#Rfc: Elizabeth II[edit]

This Rfc has reached its 30th day. We need an administrator to close it & make his/her own interpretation of the results. GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Close down Possibly Unfree Files[edit]

Consensus is fairly obvious to close down PUF and merge it with WP:FFD. The closure should be uncontentious, but the enacting of the results will require some work. Posting this here so if anyone wants to go through the grunt work of closing down and marking "historical" the PUF process and then redirecting users in the relevant documentation to WP:FFD, they can get started on that. Also, someone will have to move the backlog of cases from PUF (or clear them) as well. Thanks for any help! --Jayron32 18:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Jayron32: The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 7#Discussion regarding updating FFD to accommodate the NFCR merge could potentially be referenced for most necessary steps that need to be taken for this merge. The only major differences between the referenced section and the PUF to FFD merge are that no venue is getting renamed and the changes that will need to be made to AnomieBOT's function are slightly different (the bot will have to stop making daily subpages for PUF after the merge has been finalized.) I made some attempt to work out the NFCR to FFD merge, so feel free to ping me with any questions. Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#RfC: War faction or country infobox?[edit]

This RfC expired a week ago, but was never closed. A formal closure is needed, as involved editors are starting to make a bit of a mess. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Sea Mither#Simple[edit]

Per WP:SNOW, but the primary editors of the article refuse to acknowledge consensus. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Not done for now. The discussion, as it stands, is only one day old. In addition, I am not seeing any attempt at consensus-building or civility there (it's full of PA), so unless both parties (primarily the editor who filed this request) start a constructive discussion without resorting to verbal artillery, I'm afraid that this discussion will go nowhere. Esquivalience ^t 22:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Debbie Does Dallas#RfC: Placement of video[edit]

This RfC has been open since 14 February has seen no activity for about 10 days. Since this deals with a contentious issue that is certain to come up again, it would be helpful if this was closed by a previously uninvolved admin (or possibly more than one). before closing this RfC, it would be useful to read through the discussion below and to have a thorough understanding of how embedding files works on Wikipedia. Right Hand Drive (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Salvation Army#RfC: Should the language of this British organisation be in British English[edit]

Could an admin take the appropriate closure action here and change the page notice on the article? A decision to force AmEng on the article last year was done so on a false statement on the original variant of English used, and the current consensus reflects the truth of the matter. – SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Being an admin not required. --GRuban (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Not done: can an admin change the page notice (seen when opening to edit the page), which still expressly states that the page is in AmEng. Thanks – SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Edit notice updated. Fences&Windows 22:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Apologies; I updated a comment opening the page, but clearly that was not the notice meant. Guess being an admin was necessary after all. Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:English Democrats#RfC: Far right[edit]

Expired RfC does not appear to let the actual article remain on a consensus version without official closure. I think it is possible to determine consensus and close it, so I am requesting it here. LjL (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Hindu_philosophy#Requested_move_21_March_2016[edit]

Would an experienced user or Admin, assess the consensus and move the page if deemed so?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Avoiding_dangerous_climate_change#Originally_about_2005_conference[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Avoiding_dangerous_climate_change#Originally_about_2005_conference (Initiated 41 days ago on 27 February 2016)? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Done This was really resolved by the time I got there, but I rubberstamped the decision. Fences&Windows 22:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach#RfC:_Emphasize_benchmark_dates_in_Bach_Legacy_time_line_instead_of_using_arbitrary_century_markers_like_1800.2C_1900.2C_2000_etc.[edit]

Really need an administrator to close this one, because this was the third RfC on the same subject in 80 days, and a lot of unorthodox behavior is involved. Softlavender (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Which version to go with?[edit]

This RfC recently expired. Would be good to get an official close on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jeremy Corbyn[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#RfC: Place of birth in Infobox (initiated on 17 February 2016)? The original RfC (initiated on 13 January 2016) was closed improperly and overturned here. The subsequent RfC was bot-removed as expired on 18 March 2016. Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Daicaregos. We need closure. GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters#Proposed merge with Big the Cat[edit]

• Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters#Proposed merge with Big the Cat needs formal closure czar 04:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Not done I closed, then reverted my close when I saw it was initiated 03:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC). No need for controversy of someone possibly complaining about an early non-admin close. Alsee (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Lindsay Lohan#Proposed merge with Lindsay Lohan discography[edit]

Consensus needs to be evaluated. --George Ho (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:David Irving#RfC: Is the last suggested version regarding David Irving's position on the Holocaust acceptable to be added ("Höfle Telegram material")[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David Irving#RfC: Is the last suggested version regarding David Irving's position on the Holocaust acceptable to be added ("Höfle Telegram material") (Initiated 52 days ago on 16 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Vladimir Putin#Rfc regarding sentence in the lede[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vladimir Putin#Rfc regarding sentence in the lede (Initiated 49 days ago on 19 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Does "died by suicide" constitute a euphemism?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Does "died by suicide" constitute a euphemism? (Initiated 47 days ago on 21 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes (Initiated 37 days ago on 2 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#RfC: Emphasize benchmark dates in Bach Legacy time line instead of using arbitrary century markers like 1800, 1900, 2000 etc.[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#RfC: Emphasize benchmark dates in Bach Legacy time line instead of using arbitrary century markers like 1800, 1900, 2000 etc. (Initiated 42 days ago on 26 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Penny#WP:ENGVAR[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Penny#WP:ENGVAR (Initiated 60 days ago on 8 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office#Rfc: How shall Elizabeth II be presented?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office#Rfc: How shall Elizabeth II be presented? (Initiated 58 days ago on 10 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Scottish & Welsh First Ministers infoboxes[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Scottish & Welsh First Ministers infoboxes (Initiated 46 days ago on 22 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Vyborg#Historical affiliations infobox[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vyborg#Historical affiliations infobox (Initiated 36 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1st century#RfC: Should the lead say "First Century" or "1st century"?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:1st century#RfC: Should the lead say "First Century" or "1st century"? (Initiated 36 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Generic gun photo[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Generic gun photo (Initiated 35 days ago on 4 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:PBB#RfC: Should template:PBB cease operating by transulating subpage onto each article[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:PBB#RfC: Should template:PBB cease operating by transulating subpage onto each article (Initiated 36 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:History of IBM CKD Controllers#RfC: Should IBM 2841 be a separate article and should it list the IBM 7320[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:History of IBM CKD Controllers#RfC: Should IBM 2841 be a separate article and should it list the IBM 7320 (Initiated 45 days ago on 23 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Stack Overflow#Criticism[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Stack Overflow#Criticism (Initiated 42 days ago on 26 February 2016)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this be included? Can Medium be considered a reliable source in this context, regardless of what WP:RS says about blogs?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Maxinquaye#Recent revision to the lead[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Maxinquaye#Recent revision to the lead (Initiated 47 days ago on 21 February 2016)? See the subsection Talk:Maxinquaye#RfC on lead. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (album)#RfC: Should the 1971 British cover be shown first rather than the original 1970 American cover?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (album)#RfC: Should the 1971 British cover be shown first rather than the original 1970 American cover? (Initiated 45 days ago on 23 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Sicario (2015 film)#Request for comment[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sicario (2015 film)#Request for comment (Initiated 36 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#Should the same language be used in the lead for Israel and for Palestine?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Israel#Should the same language be used in the lead for Israel and for Palestine? (Initiated 55 days ago on 13 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Merger proposal[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Merger proposal (Initiated 36 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 2002#Spanish response[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 2002#Spanish response (Initiated 51 days ago on 17 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Alt-right#RfC: Merge to Richard B. Spencer[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alt-right#RfC: Merge to Richard B. Spencer (Initiated 33 days ago on 6 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Campus sexual assault#RfC: Criticism subsection[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Campus sexual assault#RfC: Criticism subsection (Initiated 47 days ago on 21 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Federal Way Public Academy#RfC: Should Federal Way Public Academy be merged to Federal Way Public Schools?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Federal Way Public Academy#RfC: Should Federal Way Public Academy be merged to Federal Way Public Schools? (Initiated 40 days ago on 28 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Marco Rubio#RfC: Should Senator Rubio's portrait be replaced?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marco Rubio#RfC: Should Senator Rubio's portrait be replaced? (Initiated 39 days ago on 29 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Corporal punishment#RfC: Merge "Campaigns against corporal punishment" into "Corporal punishment"?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Corporal punishment#RfC: Merge "Campaigns against corporal punishment" into "Corporal punishment"? (Initiated 37 days ago on 2 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Shrauta#RfC: move page to Śrauta[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shrauta#RfC: move page to Śrauta (Initiated 48 days ago on 20 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Pepperdine University#RfC: Should the current "In popular culture" section be significantly modified or deleted?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pepperdine University#RfC: Should the current "In popular culture" section be significantly modified or deleted? (Initiated 55 days ago on 13 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Shannara Chronicles#RFC for Episode List Format[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Shannara Chronicles#RFC for Episode List Format (Initiated 55 days ago on 13 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:NARAL Pro-Choice America#Change "pro-choice" to "pro-abortion" per WP:NPOV[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:NARAL Pro-Choice America#Change "pro-choice" to "pro-abortion" per WP:NPOV (Initiated 39 days ago on 29 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Done Mhhossein (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Plushophilia#RfC: Should the image be kept on the page?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Plushophilia#RfC: Should the image be kept on the page? (Initiated 36 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Done Mhhossein (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Standard offer#Proposal for this to finally become a guideline[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Standard offer#Proposal for this to finally become a guideline (Initiated 37 days ago on 2 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:ANRFC transclusion[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:ANRFC transclusion (Initiated 46 days ago on 22 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2016 in American television#RfC: Should "person of color" be changed to "black woman"?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2016 in American television#RfC: Should "person of color" be changed to "black woman"? (Initiated 45 days ago on 23 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox character#Template-protected edit request on 25 February 2016[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Infobox character#Template-protected edit request on 25 February 2016 (Initiated 43 days ago on 25 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for closure re Block chain (database)[edit]

I would like to request that an uninvolved administrator review and close the discussion at Talk:Block_chain_(database)#Are_block_chain_designs_based_on_the_bitcoin_protocol.3F. The discussion has been open for multiple weeks, and has had the involvement of a number of editors. Thanks. N2e (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

(moved from WP:AN) — xaosflux ^Talk 03:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Close down Possibly Unfree Files[edit]

(Initiated 3 days ago on 5 April 2016)Could a trusted editor or admin please close Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Close down Possibly Unfree Files. Consensus seems clear, but need someone uninvolved. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Backlogs[edit]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Discussions awaiting closure[edit]

This discussion forum has an extensive backlog with approximately 170 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from January 2016. (23:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion[edit]

This discussion forum has an extensive backlog with approximately 95 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from January 2016. (02:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Requested moves[edit]

We currently have 89 discussions in the backlog, and it's growing every day. Several of them date to January 2016.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 February[edit]

We currently have two move review discussions waiting closer since February 2016.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 March[edit]

We currently have two move review discussions waiting closer since March 2016.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

XfD[edit]

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 2#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 2#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg (Initiated 180 days ago on 11 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Steel1943 relisted the discussion to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 24#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sargun Mehta/1[edit]

The subject GAR is open for community reassessment since October 2015. Need someone to conclude it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 8#Shenae[edit]

Listed for a month individually, and started as part of a batch on 14 February. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Done by Just Chilling. Steel1943 (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 18#File:The Testament of Sister New Devil Vol.1 Blu-Ray.jpg[edit]

Would an admin please close Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 18#File:The Testament of Sister New Devil Vol.1 Blu-Ray.jpg, or perhaps relist it if you think that is appropriate. It just seems to have been left open, and there hasn't been any new comments in over a month. Calathan (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian[edit]

Could we get a WP:SNOW close on this WP:BLP-sensitive AfD, please? Thanks, ansh666 22:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done. It does not qualify for WP:SNOW. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Administrative[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jonadabsmith engaging in harassment?[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jonadabsmith engaging in harassment? (Initiated 35 days ago on 4 March 2016)? See the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Topic Ban. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive916#User:Mhhossein and SaffV reported for harassment[edit]

I'm requesting an admin to assess the consensus at this thread. Besides multiple other uncivilities by the nominator (such as when he told me that I was "tripping on acid" or "belonged in a place where I should be taken care of on hourly basis") he did not refrain from making further attacks by saying "your "just for fun reverts" appear childish to me", "...then just use a thesaurus or ask an adult" and "the English you used was childish and quite wrong". After reporting it, he surprisingly repeated his attack on the ANI page! I have explained in detail how many times he had been warned by admins to resolve his major civility issues. Thank you. (Initiated 30 days ago on 9 March 2016) Mhhossein (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threat[edit]

Could an administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threat? This was a very contentious ANI thread, and a request for arbitration is concurrently open for the same issues. Mz7 (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. (I came here to make the same request). With all the admins that go by ANI on a regular basis, I can't believe that one, just one can't take a moment and close that train-wreck down. There is nothing that can be accomplished there. It's a huge pile of sewage now, and it's just getting bigger and smelling worse by the minute. There is a clear consensus to close it and the there already a request at ArbCom, that will almost certainly become a case as soon as the ANI is closed (they've basically said as much). So just close it already. - ^theWOLFchild 03:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Now Already done Mz7 (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed Interaction Ban between Springee and HughD[edit]

Respectfully request an uninvolved administrator please assess the proposal of uninvolved editors at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed Interaction Ban between Springee and HughD. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested moves[edit]

• Talk:See You Again (Wiz Khalifa song)#Requested move 29 February 2016; thread has been open for over a month, and RMs typically last a week. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• There's a huge backlog at RM if anyone wants to help out. I've just done around 20, but still loads left... Number 57 20:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Talk:The_Signpost_(Wikipedia)#Requested_move_3_March_2016 = been open for over one month. Would like it to be closed either way so we can move on and focus on Quality improvement of the article itself. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)