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 comment is 30 days (opened on or before 16 May 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.

Wikipedia:Non-free content review

This discussion forum has an extensive backlog where the oldest active entry was started on 10 June 2015 ({{Initiated|10 June 2015}}), and at the time if me posting this request, the page has 163 discussions that have yet to be closed, several started over a month ago. Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please update {{Initiated}} below as the backlog is (slowly) taken care of.--Aervanath (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 3290 days ago on 13 June 2015)

About 155 discussions still to be closed.

Since this discussion board is now deprecated, and there will be no new discussions opened there, I would appreciate some help clearing the backlog.--Aervanath (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I just "did" about 3 of them. For the ones where I believe could really use more discussion, I've been relisting them on WP:FFD (but not in huge droves as that would overwhelm the daily subpages over there.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• We're getting close to having all these discussions closed. NFCR is now down to 100 open discussions. Also, in November, NFCR was shut down to new requests, directing new requests to WP:FFD; when all of the discussions are closed from NFCR, the noticeboard will be closed and marked as historical. Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 November#Kim Davis (county clerk)

(Initiated 3141 days ago on 9 November 2015) - review of a move originally proposed 21 October 2015. Experience closing contentious discussions needed, and apologies in advance for the wall of text. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has waned past the point of productivity. Calidum T|C 01:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Total discussion stopped December 2, so it is stable and ready for closure. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original close was voluntarily withdrawn. Listed for a new Admin close. (non-admin closure) Alsee (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the closer of the move, it was NOT withdrawn. Where are you reading that? Tiggerjay (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I misread one of the comments there. All my error. I'm sorry for the confusion I caused. I self-reverted my edits. Except for the the comments here, everything should be back to the original state. Alsee (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia#Juraj Sklenár's view

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia#Juraj Sklenár's view (Initiated 3155 days ago on 26 October 2015)? See the subsection Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia#RfC: Sklenár's theory.Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Certification Table Entry#Sales figures: combined vs traditional

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Certification Table Entry#Sales figures: combined vs traditional (Initiated 3149 days ago on 1 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Glyphosate#RFC: Appropriate use of NON-WP:MEDRS primary study

clearly defined question in contentious topic area, ?consensus - need closure by uninvolved admin.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that the RfC is only five days old and no one has agreed to end it early. That being said, the GMO ArbCom case should be wrapping up soon, so there's no harm in letting the RfC run it's normal time to allow the remedies can take effect in the meantime. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that there are walls of text growing since Dec 4, no new editors have chimed in, and an unreasonable repetition of the same arguments, furthering WP:FUD stifles process. No one has disagreed tothe RFC. That being said, the GMO ArbCom case has been going on and on though King wants it to be wrapped up soon as possible, as he has stated repeatedly on the arbcom page, there's no harm in closing the RfC to stop the hemorraging of glyphosate so that small remedies can take effect in the meantime. --Wuerzele (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC) This RFC is only the first in 3 whole sale deletions by the same editor group, anticipating more RFC's to come.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CANVASS by User:Green_Cardamom

Requesting a closure of this old ANI discussion. The nominator is accused of systemic targeting a user (me) and nominating his articles at AFD. There was a boomerang, in fact. The discussion is old but not closed. (Initiated 3368 days ago on 27 March 2015) Mhhossein (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:NQ Mobile#Stock crash and lawsuit#What the company does#(Copied here from Talk:Nagle)#Whitewashing, NPOV and potential COI

Requesting closure on these old discussions as the only relevant discussion is that the article is out of date which I started and has now been lost. The company recently announced a new Showself entertainment brand and some divestitures ^[1] which I'd intended on working on. Rgeurts (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for closure on Phaedrus (dialogue) which has had thirty-days and in ready to be closed

Could someone visit this Talk page at Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue) and do a close on this short RfC during the holidays. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for closure of Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_29#Category:Latter-day_Saints_portal

Please close the discussion and rename the category. Thanks.--Broter (talk) 11:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You now have to only close the discussion and delete the old category.--Broter (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Norman Milliken#RfC: Should the article state that Milliken, Ontario is named after Norman Milliken?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Norman Milliken#RfC: Should the article state that Milliken, Ontario is named after Norman Milliken? (Initiated 3142 days ago on 8 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Battle of Karbala#RFC for notability

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Karbala#RFC for notability (Initiated 3126 days ago on 24 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jude Wanniski#RFC on description of the Laffer curve

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jude Wanniski#RFC on description of the Laffer curve (Initiated 3133 days ago on 17 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Portal talk:Current events/2015 November 17#APEC Philippines 2015 "Concentration camps"

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Portal talk:Current events/2015 November 17#APEC Philippines 2015 "Concentration camps" (Initiated 3127 days ago on 23 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:German evacuation from East-Central Europe near the end of World War II#RFC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:German evacuation from East-Central Europe near the end of World War II#RFC (Initiated 3130 days ago on 20 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue)#RfC: Two contradictory sections in current Phaedrus (dialogue) article are self-contradictory and should be repaired

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue)#RfC: Two contradictory sections in current Phaedrus (dialogue) article are self-contradictory and should be repaired (Initiated 3130 days ago on 20 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg (Initiated 3124 days ago on 26 November 2015)? Please consider the related discussion Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting#Photo of Harper-Mercer in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Contemporary worship music#Request for comment: Length and content of article lede

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Contemporary worship music#Request for comment: Length and content of article lede (Initiated 3143 days ago on 7 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 119#The current "indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed" requirement: retain or abandon?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 119#The current "indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed" requirement: retain or abandon? (Initiated 3158 days ago on 23 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for closure: Wikipedia talk:List of Power Rangers Dino Charge characters

Would an experienced editor assess the discussion on the RfC at Talk:List_of_Power_Rangers_Dino_Charge_characters#RfC:_Appropriate_detail_of_plot_summary_information and close as appropriate.

This follows a formal RfC initiated 29 Nov 2015, {{rfc|soc|rfcid=4B31646}}. Thanks. N2e (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Levan Songulashvili

(Initiated 3082 days ago on 7 January 2016) It would be great if we could close this discussion[1], even though it's relatively recent, so that it directs people to the AFD instead of continuing the BLP discussion. Not sure if that's appropriate or not.--Jahaza (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Militia_occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge#RfC:_Rump_Militia

This has only been open one week, however, we have an interest in resolving quickly as it's a current events situation. All of the principal parties have indicated an agreement that they would like to see rapid resolution of the RfC faster than 30 days, including me, the proposer. (User:Leitmotiv) LavaBaron (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LavaBaron: Why not leave the RfC open, but change the article now as a temporary measure to be re-evaluated after the 30-day period ends? If it helps, my evaluation at this point is that "armed group" is the most likely to eventually reach consensus. Sunrise (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Sunrise:. I'm pinging @Leitmotiv: with that advice and will defer a decision to him. LavaBaron (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/CobraNet/1

Making a community GAR was a bad choice. Although, I (suppose) consensus is clear, there's no one to close it. In fact, a huge backlog at GAR persists, help out if you can. You don't need formal closure for GARs but posting here was the last move. Also, there's a RfC on the talk page of the article, if you're willing you can participate. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 15:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr

Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr (Initiated 3108 days ago on 12 December 2015)? —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson#RfC: The statement that

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson#RfC: The statement that (Initiated 3112 days ago on 8 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David L. Jones#RFC: Inclusion of draft sections (Initiated 3109 days ago on 11 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Monarchy of Ceylon#RfC: Merge and disambiguate

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Monarchy of Ceylon#RfC: Merge and disambiguate (Initiated 3121 days ago on 29 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Muhammad#What should be included for information regarding Aishas' marriage to Muhammad on the Muhammad article?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Muhammad#What should be included for information regarding Aishas' marriage to Muhammad on the Muhammad article? (Initiated 3116 days ago on 4 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Green children of Woolpit#RFC: Uncited, original-research conflation, in the article introduction and headings, of three types of explanations into two

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Green children of Woolpit#RFC: Uncited, original-research conflation, in the article introduction and headings, of three types of explanations into two (Initiated 3114 days ago on 6 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Plovdiv#Including historical names of the city

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Plovdiv#Including historical names of the city (Initiated 3112 days ago on 8 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Glyphosate#RFC: Appropriate use of NON-WP:MEDRS primary study.

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Glyphosate#RFC: Appropriate use of NON-WP:MEDRS primary study. (Initiated 3115 days ago on 5 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:CobraNet#RfC on manufacturer list

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:CobraNet#RfC on manufacturer list (Initiated 3109 days ago on 11 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Watchdog.org#Request for comment: summarization of multiple third party assessments of degree of ideological orientation

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Watchdog.org#Request for comment: summarization of multiple third party assessments of degree of ideological orientation (Initiated 3112 days ago on 8 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2012 Sydney anti-Islam film protests#It was a protest AND a riot. It should be called that.

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:2012 Sydney anti-Islam film protests#It was a protest AND a riot. It should be called that. (Initiated 3109 days ago on 11 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#RfC: Show or hide the victims list?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#RfC: Show or hide the victims list? (Initiated 3113 days ago on 7 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Philippine presidential election, 2016#Request for comment

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Philippine presidential election, 2016#Request for comment (Initiated 3111 days ago on 9 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:PolitiFact.com#RfC: Is the Ted Cruz info relevant?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:PolitiFact.com#RfC: Is the Ted Cruz info relevant? (Initiated 3110 days ago on 10 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Islam and war#Merge discussion

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Islam and war#Merge discussion (Initiated 3117 days ago on 3 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Maronites#Attention needed

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Maronites#Attention needed (Initiated 3117 days ago on 3 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#RFC: when are community radio stations notable?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#RFC: when are community radio stations notable? (Initiated 3112 days ago on 8 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mariah Carey#RfC: Are "African American" categories supported by sources and policy?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mariah Carey#RfC: Are "African American" categories supported by sources and policy? (Initiated 3122 days ago on 28 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 65#RfC: Anime films and production companies

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 65#RfC: Anime films and production companies (Initiated 3103 days ago on 17 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#RFC: delete and redirect

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#RFC: delete and redirect (Initiated 3120 days ago on 30 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two individual subsections have been closed, but there are several more. Sunrise (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request_for_comment: Talk:ExxonMobil#Request_for_comment:_ExxonMobil_among_most_vocal_climate_change_deniers

Discussion has gone stale. Requesting assessment of consensus and closer of discussion. Thanks Springee (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 22 December RfC which is still under RfC template announcement with divided opinion. Should it wait until 22 January. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed 3 weeks was sufficient but if 1 month is standard then that is fine. Springee (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#NPOV and information pages

Perennial attempt to apply WP:CORE to projectpages. It's off-topic and out-of-scope at that noticeboard.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]