Wikipedia:Closure requests

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
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	Archive 39

This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by .

Shortcuts

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.

Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure. Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form. The default length of an RfC is 30 days (opened on or before 9 September 2024); where consensus becomes clear before that and discussion is not ongoing, the discussion can be closed earlier, although it should not be closed if the discussion was open less than seven days ago (posted after 2 October 2024) except in the case of WP:SNOW.

Please ensure that your request here for a close is neutrally worded, and do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. If there is disagreement 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.

Notes about closing

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.

Requests for closure

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#RfC_on_pronouns_throughout_life

This RFC, triggered by the Manning controversy, has now been running for 1 month and is not receiving any new comments. Because of its sensitivity, I suggest that it is given a similar level of care to the Manning controversy itself. – Smyth\^talk 09:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A month after the original request, it seems the RfC has attracted exactly two more comments. Please could someone step up to the plate here (I participated in the discussion so cannot do so myself). Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have the votes at around 25 Keep, 33 Delete and 10 Change if we account for the second preferences of those who voted to change we have 29 Keep, 38 Delete (discounting those who didn't have a second preference which weren't many). A large number of people have suggested a possible problem with just removing it, as it leaves ambiguity in it's place. To that end, my assessment of the arguments from both sides suggests that users agree that the order of preference (for lack of a better phrase) goes in this order:

Wording as it currently stands
Subject's current personal preference (especially expressed in self-published sources or long quotations for example)
Where there are a large number of recent mainstream reliable sources using the opposite terms to the person's current self-identified gender, the terms of the gender in those reliable sources may be used in the same context (such as referring to the subject's early life).

Where the person was significantly involved in a notable, significant event they may be referred to by the gender they identified with at the time to avoid confusion (this is especially the case in articles about the event/organisation/etc rather than a biography)

Before I get close to solve it could other please weigh in and let me know what they think about that assessment? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your number 3 seems to be incomplete. And is the un-numbered bullet point supposed to be a number 4, or connected to number 3, or what?

I'd also like to see some clarity on the question of what should happen to guidelines which had consensus to be enshrined as guidelines at some point in the past, but whose support later fell to such an extent that they would not be so enshrined if they were proposed now. I gave my own opinion about that here and here (second paragraph), but perhaps others are aware of some precedents that can guide us.

Thanks for taking the trouble to help with this difficult situation! – Smyth\^talk 11:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified number 3, hopefully enough to make it clearer. I used a bullet point because I wasn't really sure if it should be included in the numbered list or be a stand-alone provision, what do you and others think? If it should be part of the list where should it go in the 'order'?

This is one of the things about people saying once a rule is there it's hard to get rid of, consensus is needed to make something a policy/guideline and consensus is needed for it not to be a policy/guideline anymore - that's my understanding, anyone else?

No worries. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've clarified number 3, it seems to be saying basically the same thing as the bullet point, so I don't think you need to keep both. – Smyth\^talk 12:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Callanecc, I don't quite understand what you mean by "the order of preference". Do you mean that 1 has the most support, followed by 2 and then 3, and therefore you it should be closed with no change to the guideline? Or do you mean that there is consensus for 2 and 3 as exceptions to 1? If the latter, I would suggest that there is a consensus for 2 but not for 3. Neljack (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I intended the latter. Having another look through the discussion, there was some discussion of using what's in current sources when that relates to past significant events. However I take your point that there probably isn't enough discussion and agreement to warrant changing the guideline to reflect it.

I'll implement the above in the next hour or so. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closed Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Callanec's closing remarks was, "Consensus from this RFC is to keep the sentence", which isn't true. There wasn't consensus to keep or delete. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had you asked me about why I said that before you reverted me, I would have told you that I said that because a number of the delete !votes stated that they were concerned that the subject's preference cannot be considered under the current wording. Hence adding that caveat to the guideline meant that there was a consensus to keep with that change. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re "a number of the delete !votes..." — What was that number? The only numbers I saw in the above discussion were "25 Keep, 33 Delete and 10 Change", and "29 Keep, 38 Delete" . --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the RFC. That was a numerical count (used to show that the !votes were close), which whilst sometimes helping to establish a consensus, when the votes are so close what each person actually says matters a lot more. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is vague, hasn't answered my question, and hasn't adequately addressed my concerns. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a quick look though and saw around 10 delete votes which mentioned the issue of the subject not getting a say and/or/therefore a possible breach of BLP policy. Combined with that the change votes (most of which mentioned this), the first preference keep/delete votes which also mention the possibility of a change and the keep/delete votes which say that the subject's preference should/could be taken into account. With no consensus to keep or delete it, the rough consensus or compromise is to keep it but to add the bit about subject preference - in hindsight that would have been a better comment to put in the closing comments. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specifically show me your revised comment here? --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure:

Closed per request on WP:ANRFC. There is no clear consensus to either keep or delete the sentence in question outright. However, there is a rough consensus that the subject's preference take precedence over referring to them using their latest expressed gender. See here for a further discussion of the result.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest removing the word "outright". Otherwise, I'm OK with your closing with that statement. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, and

done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:IDENTITY RFC: Should the text "When there is no dispute..." be deleted, kept or changed?

This RfC was started on September 6h. The tag for this RfC seems to have been deleted. Can an admin please close? Thanks. GabrielF (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 146#MOS:IDENTITY RFC: Should the text "When there is no dispute..." be deleted, kept or changed?. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've unarchived it so that the result of the closure will be visible to whose who watch the page, and added a comment to prevent it from being auto-archived for another few weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smyth (talk • contribs) 11:54, 16 November 2013

Talk:Main Page#Main page redesign

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Main Page#Main page redesign (initiated 14 September 2013)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now archived at Talk:Main Page/Archive 177#Main page redesign. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Badge of 723 Communication Squadron.jpg

This non-free content review needs an experienced closer. Discussion commenced on 27 June and there's been no new comments added since 19 August. Warning: Lotsa plenty of reading here. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Massacres_of_Albanians_in_the_Balkan_Wars#Merge

It seems that the content of this article has already been presented within Serbia_in_the_Balkan_Wars#Massacres. Still, this is controversial case which needs to be closed by administrator who is not involved.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List_of_unusual_deaths#RfC:_What_qualifies.3F

The discussion was closed by a non admin who is well known for holding views decidedly outside of the mainstream Wikipedia community, with a conclusion that I do not think accurately reflects the discussion and policies presented. [1] I would request a non involved Admin review. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Matthew Bryden

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Matthew Bryden (initiated 18 October 2013)? See the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban of MiddayExpress (among other proposals). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Murray Rothbard#Images in article

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Murray Rothbard#Images in article (initiated 28 September 2013; see the RfC at the subsection Talk:Murray Rothbard#Photo survey)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has not been formatted or announced as an RfC and I doubt that it has received much attention. I suggest that, if OP wishes to achieve a lasting and definitive consensus on this that it be restated and posted as appopriate in the form of an RfC. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC tag was added by Binksternet (talk · contribs) on 3 October 2013, modified by Legobot (talk · contribs) on 3 October 2013 and removed by Legobot on 1 November 2013. Although the section header does not have "RfC" in its title, this is not required for the discussion to be listed as an RfC. Cunard (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kosovo#RfC: Serbian register vs Serbo-Croatian language on Kosovo?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kosovo#RfC: Serbian register vs Serbo-Croatian language on Kosovo? (initiated 19 July 2013)? See this 22 October 2013 comment by the RfC initiator who wants to proceed with the proposal but has not done so. An assessment of the consensus by an uninvolved editor would be helpful. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Throffer#Merge with Extortion and Talk:Throffer#Carrot and Stick

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Throffer#Merge with Extortion (initiated 23 September 2013) and Talk:Throffer#Carrot and Stick (initiated 29 September 2013)? The opening poster of the first section wrote:

This so-called Good Article is really just a variant on extortion, and should be an item of minor note within that article, if it exists at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion

The opening poster of the section section wrote:

Should throffer be merged into carrot and stick?

The second merge discussion was listed as an RfC. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Conceptualization (information science)#RfC: Inclusion of a figure in the article Conceptualization (information science)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Conceptualization (information science)#RfC: Inclusion of a figure in the article Conceptualization (information science) (initiated 26 August 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ten Lost Tribes#RfC: Should block quotes be included in the lead section?

Requesting an uninvolved person to close the discussion at Talk:Ten Lost Tribes#RfC: Should block quotes be included in the lead section?. The consensus appears clear, but a formal closure may be helpful in this case. It has been almost a week since the last comment. Thank you, Bahooka (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~. Closed by~~ Jreferee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). -- Jreferee (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this closed so soon? No BLP violations so it can surely run the 30 days? Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I closed it based on Bahooka's request above and reopened per your reasoning on my talk page.[2] -- Jreferee (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with keeping the RfC open for the full 30-day default period, but I did want to explain my reasoning so there won't be any concerns about good faith. I tried to read the RfC page very carefully to make sure I did it correctly. Regarding closure, it states that "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days, because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." (emphasis added) I knew the default period had not ended, but interest in making comments had waned (a week had passed since the last one) and the consensus seemed clear. That was my rationale, but we can revisit on 11/25. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I acknowledge an editors right to request it remain open. I don't find any fault in Bahooka's close as RfC's are not required to be open for 30 days and may be closed if inactive for some time.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bahooka and Keithbob. The RfC was initiated on 25 October 2013, and Jreferee closed the RfC on 6 November 2013.

12 days had elapsed and nearly a week had passed without further comment.

WP:SNOW was applicable: There was a clear consensus by the time Jreferee closed the RfC against the inclusion of the blockquote in the lead.

Had the discussion not been an RfC, no one would have objected to an uninvolved editor assessing the consensus earlier than 30 days. An RfC should not grant clearly opposed content the right to stay in the article for the full 30 days when the consensus is clear.

There is precedent for early RfC closes per WP:SNOW: see this close of Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson and this close of Mayors in Puerto Rico for two examples. Cunard (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 October

There are two MRVs from October where discussion has gone fairly stale, and they're likely ready for closes. I'm afraid they won't be easy closes, or someone else would've done them already! --BDD (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy#RfC: Should WP:BRIGHTLINE become policy?

I'm looking for an uninvolved admin or experienced editor to close and sum up the consensus of this RfC, which asks whether the proposal should become policy. The RfC was opened on 14 October so the end of the 30-day period is approaching. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The related proposal, Wikipedia:Paid editing policy proposal, which was opened on the same day (14 October) also needs to be closed and summed up. DavidinNJ (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCR open discussions

We need some uninvolved admin to hopped over to WP:NFCR if you have some free time, as there are many discussions over a month old that should be closed:

There are also multiple other discussion that can be safely closed as they are past the 7-day mark. Please take a moment to help out, even if it is just for one discussion when you have some time. Thanks. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Alishan Bairamian#RfC: Should publicly-available, but obscure, information be included if it compromises the subject's family's privacy?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alishan Bairamian#RfC: Should publicly-available, but obscure, information be included if it compromises the subject's family's privacy? (initiated 5 October 2013)? The opening poster wrote:

... The reason given for this change was that making Sylvia's maiden name so easy to find could compromise the family's privacy and security. However, the information exists in a public, though obscure (and not in English), source. Should this be included or excluded?

Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:San Salvador Island#RfC (initiated 6 October 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "Should San Salvador Island become a semi-protected article due to recent vandalism?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ghouta chemical attack#RFC - Primary and secondary sources for wind information

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ghouta chemical attack#RFC - Primary and secondary sources for wind information (initiated 17 October 2013)?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ghouta chemical attack#RfC: Should this Russian claim be in the Background or capabilities sections or somewhere else? (initiated 29 October 2013)? The most recent comment was 12 November 2013. Before that, there had been no comments since 1 November 2013. Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Anencephaly#RfC: Are photos of anencephalic newborns relevant to the article?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Anencephaly#RfC: Are photos of anencephalic newborns relevant to the article? (initiated 7 November 2013)? The RfC tag was removed; WP:SNOW may be applicable. Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd#RFC: POV fork issue between Miniature Australian Shepherd and Miniature American Shepherd

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd#RFC: POV fork issue between Miniature Australian Shepherd and Miniature American Shepherd (initiated 16 October 2013)? The opening poster wrote:

Do the Miniature Australian Shepherd and Miniature American Shepherd articles constitute a POV fork, should they be merged, and if they should be merged, under what breed name should they be merged - the original name (Mini Aussie) or the American Kennel Club-recognized name (Mini American)?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages#Should WP:MALPLACED include a prominent disclaimer note about its scope?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages#Should WP:MALPLACED include a prominent disclaimer note about its scope? (initiated 21 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Emergency block of an editor with which I have been previously involved (initiated 13 November 2013)? Please determine the consensus of the block review requested by the blocking admin. Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request Block Review of User:MarshalN20

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request Block Review of User:MarshalN20 (initiated 16 November 2013)? Please determine the consensus of the block review. Link to blocking admin's comments at WP:AN3. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#General sanction notices by non-admins redux

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#General sanction notices by non-admins redux (initiated 16 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Polemical use of sandboxes by thewolfchild

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Polemical use of sandboxes by thewolfchild (initiated 12 November 2013)? Please evaluate the proposals at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Indefinite block and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Stern warning to BilCat against incivility. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BLP violation in upcoming DYK

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BLP violation in upcoming DYK (initiated 13 November 2013)? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Alternative proposal: Indefinite DYK and article creation ban and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked are two subsections that could be assessed. Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#User:ProudIrishAspie and Infobox flags

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#User:ProudIrishAspie and Infobox flags (initiated 3 November 2013)? There appears to be unanimous support for a topic ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#Topic ban for ProudIrishAspie, but the discussion was archived without the consensus being assessed. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Matthew Bryden

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Matthew Bryden (initiated 18 October 2013)? See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Proposed topic ban of MiddayExpress and the request for closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Summary of proprosal to ban User:Middayexpress from editing Matthew Bryden.

Also, there are two sections titled "Matthew Bryden" at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817. I have not removed either of them because I'm unsure which one has the more up-to-date material. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT 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 Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards