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, such as when the discussion is about creating, abolishing or changing a policy or guideline.

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 17 September 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 a discussion opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

On average, it takes two or three weeks after the discussion ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.

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

Please ensure that your request for closure is brief and neutrally worded, and also ensure that a link to the discussion itself is included as well. Be prepared to wait for someone to act on your request and do not use this board to continue the discussion in question.

If you disagree with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. Please discuss matters on the closer's talk page instead, and, if necessary, request a closure review at the administrators' noticeboard. Include links to the closure being challenged and the discussion on the closer's talk page, and also include a policy-based rationale supporting your request for the closure to 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.

To reduce editing conflicts and an undesirable duplication of effort when closing a discussion listed on this page, please append {{Closing}} or {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry here. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note. A request where a close is deemed unnecessary can be marked with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Close}}, {{Done}}, and {{Not done}}.

Requests for closure

See also: Wikipedia:Requested moves § Elapsed listings, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion § Old discussions, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion § Old business

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Termination of IBAN

(Initiated 1679 days ago on 13 March 2020) Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Termination of IBAN? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

RfCs

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 31#RfC: Should episode article titles default to the broadcaster's official title?

(Initiated 1739 days ago on 13 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#RfC: Should episode article titles default to the broadcaster's official title?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a tricky one because there is a clear consensus to go against the policy at WP:AT, and the discussion is being carried out at a WikiProject level, so its closure could have far-ranging implications. My gut instinct is that this calls for an amendment to AT and/or an addition to WP:NCTV (which currently does not have any advice on official vs colloquial names), but it's possible that the appropriate call at this time is to start a new discussion at WT:AT. I'd appreciate input from editors that have made similar closures before. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I think some kind of discussion would be needed at WP:AT since it is policy whereas the RfC at WP:TV would likely be added to MOS:TV which is a guideline. Policies supersede guidelines. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I have unarchived the discussion ([1]) and left a note reminding folks there that if they wish to use official titles rather than commonly used titles, they should get broader consensus at Wikipedia talk:Article titles. SilkTork (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: New Village Pump Page

(Initiated 1722 days ago on 29 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: New Village Pump Page? Assuming a positive result, you can just ping me in the closure or in the edit summary and I can implement the result. Thanks, Alsee (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Note: archived without consensus at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_166#Proposal:_New_Village_Pump_Page. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

   Note: I brought it back out of the archive. Alsee (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Robot is a robot. It will archive the discussion again. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Alsee, I have closed the discussion as a clear consensus to proceed. Good luck with it! SilkTork (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Hospitalized cases in the vaping lung illness outbreak#Inclusion criteria RFC

(Initiated 1717 days ago on 3 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hospitalized cases in the vaping lung illness outbreak#Inclusion criteria RFC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has been been resolved in practice, but a formal and exceptionally clear closing statement would still be helpful.  Otherwise, when one of the editors gets unblocked, we may be back here again.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Is The Green Papers a generally reliable source for reporting election-related information?

(Initiated 1714 days ago on 6 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Is The Green Papers a generally reliable source for reporting election-related information?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of the verified oldest people#RfC on sourcing

(Initiated 1710 days ago on 10 February 2020) Please assess consensus at Talk:List of the verified oldest people#RfC on sourcing. — JFG ^talk 10:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of the verified oldest people#RfC on sourcing? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Conversion of non-Islamic places of worship into mosques#RfC: Scope

(Initiated 1709 days ago on 11 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Conversion of non-Islamic places of worship into mosques#RfC: Scope? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses#RfC about change proposal for infobox for caucus results

(Initiated 1707 days ago on 13 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses#RfC about change proposal for infobox for caucus results? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Juan Guaidó#RfC on Acting President

(Initiated 1706 days ago on 14 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Juan Guaidó#RfC on Acting President? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Template talk:Football squad player#Redesign RfC

(Initiated 1705 days ago on 15 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Football squad player#Redesign RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Religion in Israel#RfC: Pie chart

(Initiated 1704 days ago on 16 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Religion in Israel#RfC: Pie chart? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Deprecation and blacklisting process

(Initiated 1699 days ago on 21 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Deprecation and blacklisting process? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players#RfC on Honours section

(Initiated 1699 days ago on 21 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players#RfC on Honours section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Locality categorization by historical subdivisions

(Initiated 1699 days ago on 21 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Locality categorization by historical subdivisions? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Big City Greens#RFC about writers in the infobox

(Initiated 1698 days ago on 22 February 2020) Lots of tensions have run high in this discussion. The editors involved (myself inclueded) have seemed to say everything they have to say. Would love to just have a definitive conclusion to this debate already. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:North Macedonia#Listing "Macedonia" as a common form in English

(Initiated 1698 days ago on 22 February 2020) The RfC was closed by one of the participants on March 13th. However, a new discussion (not an RfC) was opened below the RfC 3 days after the RfC was opened (Talk:North Macedonia#Options for including "Macedonia"). That discussion is still ongoing, but two editors that support one side are claiming consensus, when clearly it is not the case. Please advise. Khirurg (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Indigenous Aryans#Request for comment: IA/OoI is a fringe theory

(Initiated 1697 days ago on 23 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Indigenous Aryans#Request for comment: IA/OoI is a fringe theory? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Stanley Kubrick#lede photo

(Initiated 1696 days ago on 25 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Stanley Kubrick#lede photo? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes AND Rfc regarding the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries infobox template

(Initiated 1695 days ago on 26 February 2020) & (Initiated 1687 days ago on 4 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at these related RfCs here & here. This may be a difficult close, as the conversation has had a tenancy to spill over into other talk page sections and overlaps with other RfCs.  Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Note to closer: A participant discussion is taking place here with the hope of resolving or partly resolving the first of these RfCs without the need for a formal close.  With any luck, that discussion may resolve or narrow the issues of the first RfC.  I do not believe its creator, Davemoth, intended it to resolve the issues raised in the second RfC however.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Vita#Request for Comment

(Initiated 1693 days ago on 27 February 2020) Requesting an administrator to please close the RfC and ensuing discussions there, since there is already a consensus not to add Josephus' Vita to the Vita Disambiguation page.Davidbena (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders#RfC: AOC comment about Politico

(Initiated 1693 days ago on 27 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders#RfC: AOC comment about Politico? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Art Nouveau#Request for comment on Stile Liberty in Italy

(Initiated 1691 days ago on 29 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Art Nouveau#Request for comment on Stile Liberty in Italy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Mottainai#RFC on Yuriko Sato citation

(Initiated 1688 days ago on 3 March 2020) RFC has been open for 15 days, but has seen no new participation in 11 days. An administrative close will likely be needed, and sooner seems better than later. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#RfC on linking to template namespace

(Initiated 1688 days ago on 3 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#RfC on linking to template namespace? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of Steven Universe episodes#RfC on Steven Universe Future hatnote

(Initiated 1686 days ago on 5 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Steven Universe episodes#RfC on Steven Universe Future hatnote? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Ronald Reagan#RfC

(Initiated 1685 days ago on 6 March 2020) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Ronald Reagan#RfC? As it is a two-part question, special care should be taken to abide by WP:NOTVOTE. Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC on removal of MOS:JOBTITLES

(Initiated 1685 days ago on 6 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC on removal of MOS:JOBTITLES? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (video games)#RfC: "(gamer)" or "(video game player)"?

(Initiated 1685 days ago on 7 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (video games)#RfC: "(gamer)" or "(video game player)"? Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC on race and intelligence

(Initiated 1675 days ago on 16 March 2020)

It is requested that an uninvolved administrator, or perhaps a team of administrators, assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC on race and intelligence. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads The consensus was a three admin close and also what SilkTork suggested.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The outcome of the current discussion at RSN is highly relevant to outcome of this RFC, because the source being discussed there is the source that most directly addresses the question that the RFC is raising. At this stage, I suggest allowing the RSN discussion to conclude before closing the FTN discussion. Ideally, both discussions should be closed by the same team of admins, to ensure that the conclusions of the two discussions are consistent with one another. 2600:1004:B12C:16E5:BDFF:3E49:E5B:E995 (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. There was never a consensus about a closing panel being necessary, and the RSN thread doesn't have to be closed first (it's just forum shopping). This RFC shouldn't be NAC'd but otherwise it's a normal RFC like any other, and should be closed like any other. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's going to be difficult to find the right closer let alone multiple right closers. Having someone who can put together a close that will be respected, even if not agreed with, by all participants is important given the contentiousness of the issue (and our general collectively brittle state as we all isolate to varying degrees or otherwise deal with the effects of the pandemic). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• An IP editor has been canvassing specific admins with non-neutral requests for input or closure. Transparency from any admins who have been solicited this way would be appreciated. –dlthewave ☎ 16:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  Dlthewave, I'm guessing you're talking about me. I would not characterize that the message that the IP left me as a non-neutral request for closure. I understand why someone might characterize their request to Silk Tork as non-neutral but effectively you're saying that a person who'd you otherwise would trust to be a closer suddenly because of one comment is no longer someone you would trust. That's too bad because I think Silk Tork, and perhaps others I'm not aware of, would have been a superb closer for this issue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, this is why I have my panties in a bunch about this. If you ask an admin to close and they say yes, then people will object because the admin was canvassed. (Doesn't matter who the admin is.) If you ask an admin to close, and they say no because they don't want to be canvassed, then we've knocked a potential closer out of the pool. And that's just as big of a problem! My ABF interpretation (and I admit it's ABF) is that the IP is trying to knock admin out of the pool of potential closers by asking them to close, knowing full well others will object and the admin will demur, as happened with SilkTork.

  The IP has, on multiple occasions, expressed the need to have a "blue ribbon panel" of admins, specifically selected to be "free of bias". They've explicitly said that we can't just have any "random" admin close this, because of purported bias concerns. This has a chilling effect. As you said, it's going to be really hard to find a closer.

  Additionally, is there anything that makes this RFC more important than any of the other RFCs waiting for closure? Why should one RFC take up so many admin's time with this select-a-closer nonsense, all coming from one IP?

  This is on top of an RSN being opened at the tail end of the RFC and purporting to affect the outcome of the RFC. This was done by a "no" advocate in the RFC, and now the IP is canvassing admin to close both, which I see as trying to "force" a close on a half-baked RSN thread (wherein there is obviously no consensus in that thread, because the question was malformed, and it's just yet another forum for the same "yes" and "no" !voters [myself included] to argue the same issues as in the RFC).

  Do you agree with this: the participants in a discussion do not select the closer of that discussion. It's antithetical to the principle of having an "uninvolved" closer. Therefore, it doesn't matter if the canvassing message is neutrally-worded or not; it's inappropriate to ask a specific admin to close a specific thread. (In the same way that it's inappropriate to ask a specific admin to sanction a specific editor.) We have noticeboards specifically for these purposes.

  I think either SilkTork or you would make great choices for closers, individually or as part of a panel. And I also think there are literally hundreds of other admin who would also make a great choice. Having an editor push this hard to recruit hand-selected admin to close is inappropriate (even if I agree with the particular selections), and more importantly, really harmful, because it chases potential closers away, while also sucking up limited resources that are needed elsewhere. And a dynamic IP on top of it, so we can't even be sure how many admin were solicited or who they were. Ugh, I categorize this as civil-POV-pushing-gaming-of-consensus. Sure, they're being polite and that's great, but what they're doing is breaking our system for making decisions. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, you do not seriously expect the discussion here to produce an admin willing to close, do you? Do you really think that, at this stage, any admin who hasn't been directly asked is going to voluntarily subject themselves to the inevitable drama that will result? At this stage there are two choices:

1: The discussion(s) can be closed by Barkeep49, or some other admin (or group of admins) who have been directly asked, and who therefore have a reason to subject themselves to this difficulty.

2: The discussion(s) can remain open indefinitely, possibly for months, until they're eventually moved into the noticeboard archives without a formal closure, and then the same dispute continues on the article's talk page where it had been before.

I want to avoid option "2". This dispute has been churning for the past four months, and I don't want it to continue for another four months. Somehow it will need to be resolved, and there are a limited number of ways that's possible, especially now that my request for dispute resolution has been rejected. The only other option anyone has proposed for how to resolve it is opening an ArbCom case. If someone would rather do that instead, that would be fine with me also. 2600:1004:B14C:5FEB:A5C7:A31D:F041:4AE2 (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Gosh, I could not disagree with you more. Literally, I think the opposite of what you wrote, on every single point.

1. This RFC should not be closed right now at all, because new editors are still joining the discussion almost daily. We had new !votes come in today (Apr 9), and Apr 8, Apr 7, Apr 5, Apr 1, Mar 31, etc. This discussion isn't done yet.

2. Yes, I think that by listing the discussion here, it will be closed. Eventually. There are a lot of RFCs listed here, some much older than this one. I don't think this is the most-pressing RFC on this board right now, but eventually, someone will close it.

3. Asking an admin doesn't give them "a reason to subject themselves to this difficulty". I'm not sure how many times I can say that, at least in my firmly-held opinion, asking a specific admin to close a specific discussion is inappropriate. Giving an admin "a reason" is inappropriate. They're volunteers. They shouldn't feel obligated, they shouldn't be put into an awkward position, they shouldn't be subjected to canvassing. If an admin was going to close an RFC anyway, and then is asked to close it, it will appear that they are only closing it because they were asked, which is unfair to the admin and impinges on the perception of their impartiality. If an admin was going to close another RFC and is asked to close this one, they may feel obligated to close this one instead of the other one. That robs the other RFC of a closer, which isn't fair to those participants. It also "tells" the admin where to volunteer their time, which isn't fair to the admin. If an admin was going to close an RFC anyway, and is asked to close it, and declines to close it so as to avoid the appearance of canvassing, that robs the RFC of a closer. That's also unfair, to the participants and to the admin. An admin who wasn't going to close anything may feel obligated upon being asked, or may be put in the uncomfortable position of either having to say "no" or having to close an RFC they didn't want to close. That's unfair to the admin and unfair to participants if it results in a closer who really isn't "into it". No matter how you cut it, asking a specific admin to close a specific discussion results in unfairness to the admin and to other editors.

4. I find it extremely offensive to suggest that some admin are qualified to close this RFC but others are not. The only admin who aren't qualified to close this RFC are the ones who !voted in it. All other admin have been vetted by the community. Any uninvolved admin is qualified to close any RFC, with very few exceptions.

5. This dispute churns because you're churning it. As are other "no" !voters. There is now: (a) the RFC, (b) an RSN, (c) this ANRFC, (d) discussion on at least three admin's talk pages, and (e) I don't know where else because I can't figure out how to check the contribs of a dynamic IP.

6. There are not two options here; there is only one, which is that all participants in the RFC stop trying to engineer a close of the RFC, and we let the natural consensus process unfold. Volunteers will volunteer, maybe alone, maybe in a group, to close this RFC when the time is right. All we participants have to do is shut up and wait patiently. WP:NORUSH, WP:VOLUNTEER, etc. Oh and since there is this whole pandemic thing going on, maybe we even give everyone a little more time than usual, eh? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It's very ironic of you to accuse me of churning the dispute, considering you're the person who attempted to rename the article to "race and intelligence myth". I'm not the person who's been blanking sections of the article, trying to delete it, trying to rename it, or trying to classify it as "fringe" (which is an obvious prelude to more removals of content, if the RFC is decided in NightHeron's favor). The reason I became involved in that article is because I oppose what the rest of you are trying to do.

You have an extremely unrealistic understanding of this situation. This isn't a normal RFC, and never really was, as it's very unusual for the person who started the RFC to so completely dominate it in an effort to ensure their point of view wins. At this stage, whichever admin closes the discussion will be required to read around 40,000 words of text, along with the secondary discussions here and at RSN. The amount of time and effort required will continue to increase as the discussion grows longer and longer. I've been told by multiple admins that it's common for RFCs to never receive a formal closure, and that outcome is looking increasingly likely for this one. After 23 days, the vote in the RFC is split with 25 votes in each direction, so it's unlikely that continuing to accumulate more votes will have much effect besides making the closing admin's task even more difficult.

One outcome that I do is acknowledge as possible is that the RFC will eventually be given a zero-effort close by an admin who did not read the entire discussion, like Spartaz's initial "delete" close in the AFD. But I think most people do not want that outcome, and I would hope you don't want it either. 2600:1004:B14C:5FEB:A5C7:A31D:F041:4AE2 (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• A single admin closing this will automatically have their decision challenged, accused of biased or more likely attacked on such a divisive article. Only a three person admin close will be accepted. Just look at the drama here where no one agrees, never mind the RfC.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Beethoven#RfC: European

(Initiated 1663 days ago on 28 March 2020) Would an editor assess and provide feedback at the discussion at Talk:Beethoven#RfC: European? Thanks, James343e (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@James343e: Presumably you mean Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven#European. This was never a formal WP:RFC, but even so, to request closure after just over twelve hours is unusual. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I made the mistake of being too precipitate. I think we are solving the discussion. I will only ask for help back if absolutely necessary. Cheers, James343e (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	0	0	0	3	3
TfD	0	0	0	11	11
MfD	0	0	5	1	6
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	0	44	44
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Copyright P backlog

There is a huge backlog at the WP:COPYPROB listings section. If there is anyone who is familiar with CRP who could alleviate this issue, it would be appreciated. 92.9.147.195 (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Middle-earth peoples#Merger proposal — Radagast

(Initiated 1886 days ago on 18 August 2019): Discussion longstanding and somewhat scattered with additional comments at Talk:Radagast#Merge and separate merge discussions of other Middle-earth articles on the talk page; there was also an AfD from 12 November 2019 resulting in Keep. I attempted close as recorded at the end of the discussion at 19:13, 12 February 2020 but this was reverted at 16:08, 18 March 2020‎, so please close. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship#Map

(Initiated 1795 days ago on 17 November 2019) Please determine the consensus (if any) at Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship#Map. Thank you,
SSSB (talk) 09:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

 Note: An RfC has just started to discuss whether there should be a map at all. Therefore this discussion may be void after the RfC closes.
SSSB (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

 Note: That RfC has finished and we still need this discussion to be closed. Thanks,
SSSB (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming#Second discussion on titles for potential move request

 Note: The discussion has been archived: Talk:Global_warming/Archive_80#Second_discussion_on_titles_for_potential_move_request

(Initiated 1780 days ago on 2 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess consensus at Talk:Global warming#Second discussion on titles for potential move request. Various topics may require assessment: A) is there consensus for/against a split/fork between 'Climate Change' and 'Global warming' B) Is there consensus to start a rename proposal for either of the two options on the table B) is there consensus to wait a period of time for more developments/research before making an official move. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Device fingerprint#Overlap with Browser fingerprint and Canvas fingerprinting

(Initiated 1730 days ago on 22 January 2020) At the time of discussion, two users voiced their skepticism about the proposed merger, but they never engaged nor conclusively opposed the merger. A month after the discussion had halted I proceeded with the merge, but now an editor has come back reverting the merge. I'm open to a new discussion with him, but on the ground that the previous discussion was closed with consensus. Thank you,--Esponenziale (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 February#Familiar

(Initiated 1703 days ago on 17 February 2020) – Please close this MRV. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 15:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Grand Mufti of India#Merge pages

(Initiated 1691 days ago on 29 February 2020): Poorly raised with various technical issues including merge templates not pointing to discussion section and seems only supported by proposer who may have a negative bias against the subject.  Limited discussion but against merge.  I do not wish to close as involved and under discretionary sanctions IPA area.  Please close.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Operation Victory#Requested move 21 March 2020

(Initiated 1670 days ago on 21 March 2020) Please could an impartial admin deliver consensus to this discussion. SmartyPants22 (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)