Wikipedia:Closure requests

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 1 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.

Requests for closure

See also: Wikipedia:Requested moves § Backlog, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion § Old discussions, Wikipedia:Files for discussion § Old discussions, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files § Holding cell, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion § Old business

Requests for comment

MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr

Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr (Initiated 3093 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)

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 3094 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)

Talk:Political correctness#Generally or primarily or something else

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)

 Undone 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 3045 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)

Talk:Séralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Séralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality (Initiated 3091 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)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML (Initiated 3092 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)

Two RFC's need closing

One is snow close Talk:Muhammad#Remove 'founder of islam' reference. The other needs a cool headed admin(preferably knowledgeable in Islam) who is willing to read the entire RFC and is able to deal with the fall out later on. Talk:Muhammad#RFC for opening sentence in the lede. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel

(Initiated 3032 days ago on 11 February 2016)

We need an experienced editor/admin to look at this RfC. The initial question concerns the way in which Palestine is listed on this page, though the question also has implications for other leaders of unrecognised or partially recognized states, and for leaders of sub-national entities (constituent countries of the Netherlands and so forth). It also impacts on related pages (List of state leaders in 2015, etc...). I should note that a couple of editors have questioned the phrasing of the RfC itself. Appreciate that this is a complex one but a careful eye is needed to suggest how to proceed! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - Discussion still ongoing.--Aervanath (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aervanath: The discussion is over and the result is zero consensus for change, per the lack of prior discussion to the Rfc & the misleading and biased nature of the Rfc question.--Neve–selbert 17:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The only reason to close this RFC would be that it is misleadingly and non-neutrally worded, in which case it can be closed as incapable of producing consensus. Otherwise it can be left open for 30 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: As of this writing the most recent contribution to the RFC is only 30 seconds old. Convention is to let RFCs run for at least 30 days or as long as it takes to reach consensus, whichever is longer. The discussion is only 11 days old at this point. I skimmed the discussion; while the initial RFC could have been better-worded, my impression is that the majority of contributors are not biased by the wording of the RFC. I don't see anything there to convince me to close it early. There is no rush.--Aervanath (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aervanath: The contributors to the survey are simply unaware that they are opposing the status quo, they believe that they are opposing a change to the status quo instead. This is the fundamental flaw & another reason as to why the Rfc should be closed ASAP.--Neve–selbert 20:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: Like I said, in my skimming of the discussion, the contributors seem perfectly aware of the implications of their statements. I see no need to close early, I see no fundamental flaw. Let the RFC run out its normal course, please.--Aervanath (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aervanath: Would the result be binding? This is totally confusing, there are overwhelming flaws with the Rfc. The contributors are supporting keeping the status quo while at the same time supporting changing the status quo and vice versa (whichever way you look at it). Surely, that is a cause for concern.--Neve–selbert 22:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: The result would be binding if there was consensus for any particular result. That's how consensus works. I (or whatever other admin eventually closes the RfC) will not look at whether people are for or against the "status quo", but will look at what people think the article should look like going forward. If there is a consensus for what the article should look like, then it doesn't matter what the status quo was.--Aervanath (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size (Initiated 3276 days ago on 12 June 2015)? 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)

Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Line for Elizabeth II

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Line for Elizabeth II (Initiated 3054 days ago on 20 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Done by Brustopher. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox medical condition#Request for comments: Should the infobox medical condition contain a list of synonyms?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox medical condition#Request for comments: Should the infobox medical condition contain a list of synonyms? (Initiated 3065 days ago on 9 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Guy (Help!) 08:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gun laws in Illinois#RfC: Magazine capacity and state preemption (Initiated 3043 days ago on 31 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 125#RfC on Wikipedia:Authority Control (Initiated 3049 days ago on 25 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RFC for multiple letter capitalisations in the MoS

Can someone assess the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RFC for multiple letter capitalisations in the MoS. There are multiple options and there seems to be mixed opinion on all of them. There is also discussion about the same issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 20#Extending the "one-letter lowercase prefix" rule to multiple-letter prefixes and Talk:TVOS. Thanks, Tom29739 ^[talk] 17:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC). (Initiated 3043 days ago on 31 January 2016)

 Done --GRuban (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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 3021 days ago on 22 February 2016)

Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel

Would an administrator please review & close this Rfc? It's been 30 days, now. GoodDay (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 3032 days ago on 11 February 2016)

•  Done. That won't be controversial at all, oh no. Guy (Help!) 08:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad#RFC for opening sentence in the lede

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Muhammad#RFC for opening sentence in the lede (Initiated 3060 days ago on 14 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes and WP:WEIGHT

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes and WP:WEIGHT (Initiated 3041 days ago on 2 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Russell Wilson#Should the language addressing Wilson's ethnicity be changed? (Initiated 3038 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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Should resting place include cremation (Initiated 3033 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?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mitsubishi Magna#RfC: Is referenced comparative material false/unfit for article? (Initiated 3048 days ago on 26 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:China#Flag

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:China#Flag (Initiated 3048 days ago on 26 January 2016)? The opening poster wrote: "Should we adopt or restore or (replace file) this flag with 7 February 2011 version of the flag". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC) {{Done} - No Consensus - need new RFC with better publicity. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Prices#RfC: why no prices at all?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Prices#RfC: why no prices at all? (Initiated 3044 days ago on 30 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Dollar Shave Club#Arbitration clause RFC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dollar Shave Club#Arbitration clause RFC (Initiated 3041 days ago on 2 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Comedy of the commons#RfC Should this article be about the phrase or concept of 'Comedy of the Commons'

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Comedy of the commons#RfC Should this article be about the phrase or concept of 'Comedy of the Commons' (Initiated 3037 days ago on 6 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done --GRuban (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi#RFC for sourcing (Initiated 3049 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?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Maya civilization#RfC: Maya Calendar: How many piktuns in a kalabtun? (Initiated 3035 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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#RFC: Update of Background section per BBC 2011 (Initiated 3041 days ago on 2 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany#RFC: Should there be a See Also to Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany#RFC: Should there be a See Also to Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks? (Initiated 3040 days ago on 3 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Malcolm X#RfC: Which photo is best for the infobox?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Malcolm X#RfC: Which photo is best for the infobox? (Initiated 3031 days ago on 12 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RFC for multiple letter capitalisations in the MoS

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RFC for multiple letter capitalisations in the MoS (Initiated 3043 days ago on 31 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done --GRuban (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't see how the discussion is closed. Tvx1 18:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Ack! So sorry, marked the wrong discussion! Let me look at this one too, though...--GRuban (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Really done. I'm sure this time. And also marked done the other place this is listed here. --GRuban (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Child abuse#RfC: Should the lead sentence use a broader definition of child abuse?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Child abuse#RfC: Should the lead sentence use a broader definition of child abuse? (Initiated 3040 days ago on 3 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Planet Nine#RfC: Images used for Planet Nine

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Planet Nine#RfC: Images used for Planet Nine (Initiated 3039 days ago on 4 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Conventions#RfC on Motorcycling Conventions

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Conventions#RfC on Motorcycling Conventions (Initiated 3042 days ago on 1 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Mary Katharine Ham#RfC: Which photo is best for the infobox?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mary Katharine Ham#RfC: Which photo is best for the infobox? (Initiated 3036 days ago on 7 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Proscenium#RfC: the relevance of the Teatro Olimpico to this article (Initiated 3034 days ago on 9 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Communist Manifesto#Request for comments

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Communist Manifesto#Request for comments (Initiated 3049 days ago on 25 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done --GRuban (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Freedom Caucus#RFC: far-right

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Freedom Caucus#RFC: far-right (Initiated 3048 days ago on 26 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Republican Party presidential candidates, 2016#RfC: Should the candidate tables contain state maps and logos?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Republican Party presidential candidates, 2016#RfC: Should the candidate tables contain state maps and logos? (Initiated 3040 days ago on 3 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Rafik Yousef#Request for comment regarding categorisation

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rafik Yousef#Request for comment regarding categorisation (Initiated 3031 days ago on 12 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Fleshlight#Request for comment: image of fleshlight in use

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fleshlight#Request for comment: image of fleshlight in use (Initiated 3050 days ago on 24 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams)#RfC on "including predecessor teams" (Initiated 3050 days ago on 24 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Daily Stormer#Far-right or Neo-Nazism

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:The Daily Stormer#Far-right or Neo-Nazism (Initiated 3049 days ago on 25 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13 Drafts

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13 Drafts (Initiated 3050 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:What Wikipedia is not#RfC: amendment to WP:NOTREPOSITORY

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#RfC: amendment to WP:NOTREPOSITORY (Initiated 3036 days ago on 7 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

AFAICT, there are four (!) RfCs on essentially the same subject. This one and Wikipedia talk:Videos#RfC: Full-length films/videos in articles are about embedding videos in general, while Talk:A Free Ride#RfC: Replace embedded hardcore pornographic movie with link to Commons? (closed, but under appeal) and Talk:Debbie Does Dallas#RfC: Placement of video are about individual videos, both of which are pornographic. Sunrise (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

There was also this discussion which was based on a complete misunderstanding of how embedding works and what it is for. Without speculating on their motivations, several editors have gone off half-cocked and started discussions without first understanding the implications of changing the standard parctice of embedding public domain movies in articles about those movies. Even the most recent RfC does not explain how embedding works and as a result editors are voting based on assumptions about bandwidth usage or movies playing automatically. I've just about given up on this issue. Right Hand Drive (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Cold War II#RfC: Add info about China–U.S. relations?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cold War II#RfC: Add info about China–U.S. relations? (Initiated 3029 days ago on 14 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

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

This needs an accurate analysis before a closing rationale. George Ho (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 3033 days ago on 10 February 2016)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed? (Initiated 3028 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

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 3028 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)

Talk:Lady Saw#Proposed merge with Lady Saw discography

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus? (Initiated 2999 days ago on 15 March 2016) Horizonlove (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Backlogs

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Discussions awaiting closure

This discussion forum has an extensive backlog with approximately 150 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from 2015 October 15. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The backlog is about the same number but only falls back to December now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Closer to 140 but still back to early January. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion

This discussion forum has a typical backlog with approximately 35 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from January 25, 2016. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves

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:Possibly unfree files

Unclosed discussions from 2015 December 4, 2015 December 7 and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 December 29. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging @Explicit: and @TLSuda: as the most active admins in the FFD/PUF area both of which need a bit of attention.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

XfD

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

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 2#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg (Initiated 3155 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:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 10#Template:New unreviewed article

This TfD on a frequently-used Article Wizard template has been running for five days. All but one editor has !voted "keep" and the nominator has clarified that they don't actually want to delete or merge the template. --McGeddon (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Now seven days. It needs an admin or template editor closure because the template is protected. --McGeddon (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Administrative

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Administrative Actions of Nyttend

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Administrative Actions of Nyttend (Initiated 3022 days ago on 21 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jonadabsmith engaging in harassment? (Initiated 3010 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

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. Mhhossein (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested moves

Tor (anonymity network)

I was about to close Talk:Tor_(anonymity_network)#Requested_move_25_February_2016 as not moved, but I saw this subsection. I don't think I can close it because of this, if someone can close it, I'd be thankful. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)