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

This page has archives. Sections older than 300 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.

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 21 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

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 3295 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:Village pump (policy)/Archive 123#Revisiting MOS:IDENTITY in articles about transgender individuals and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Clarifying MOS:IDENTITY in articles in which transgender individuals are mentioned in passing

Admin closure requested. These two RfCs went up on October 11. They address Wikipedia's policy toward transgender individuals, specifically which pronouns and names to use when discussing parts of their lives before their gender transition. The first addresses whether Wikipedia's current policy on biographical articles, MOS:IDENTITY, should be changed and if so to what. The second addresses whether MOS:IDENTITY should be amended to include a rule about how to refer to trans individuals in articles of which they are not the principal subject. It's been a few days since our last new comment. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both were (Initiated 112 days' time on 11 October 2024). AlbinoFerret 14:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussions are still ongoing. This should be left open until they peter out. The issue comes up again and again, so this should run its course until exhausted, so we can be certain the discussion is as thorough as it practically can be this time. I'd advocate giving it at least a few more days, if not a week. It's more important to get a solid consensus this time than an expedient one. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It had been a couple days since our last new comment when I first posted this request and it has once again been a couple days since our last comment. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Last post was 20 Nov., so it appears to have finally wound down. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, at the time I wrote that request, the last post had been on November 13. I'd add that even though a few people have commented since (one of them to ask when the thread would be closed), the threads have been open long enough to get a statistically significant group of contributors. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest closing as no consensus for now. There are too many alternatives proposed and no clear consensus. We're still waiting for societal norms to settle. The American Society of Copy Editors is struggling with this, and there may be guidance in the next edition of the Associated Press Style Guide. John Nagle (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB: in the first RFC, option 4 was on a different question and possibly shouldn't have been rolled into the RFC; if anyone plans to judge it, note that the format of the RFC was geared to expressing support for the option you preferred, not expressing opposition to other options (though a handful of people did express opposition to things, either in boldface or not, the latter being how I expressed wariness of option 4); only a minority of voters supported option 4. -sche (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which was why we didn't include it in any of the original drafts. Also, note that option 3 is just a placeholder. We're really dealing with three options, 1, 2, and 5 for the first proposal, and in the second, no one gave OTTHER(2) the time of day. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all who have posted to this section:

@Darkfrog24: @AlbinoFerret: @SMcCandlish: @Nagle: @-sche:
It has been a full month since closure (by an administrator) of these two RfC's was requested. Since that time the RfC's have drawn only two or three more comments. I believe it is unlikely that there will be many (if any) additional comments posted to them. And, because of how long they've been listed for administrator closure with no result, I believe it is unlikely that we will get an administrator to perform the closures. Because of the importance of the subject matter of these RfC's, I believe they should not be allowed to linger undecided indefinitely. Therefore I propose that, if no administrator has acted by the middle of this month (Dec. 15, 2015), the closure request be changed to request closure by any experienced and uninvolved editor.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as this comes up, the Washington Post editor who maintains their style guide has issued an update. [1]. The Washington Post will henceforth use the singular "they" in situations where gender is ambiguous. John Nagle (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Is it OK for Wikipedia to choose its own pronunciation symbols?

This discussion is happening on three pages at once (NORNB, Help talk:IPA for English where it actually belongs, plus another at MOS:PRONUNCIATION). This NORNB tine of the fork has turned into another couple-of-editors-textwalling-against-each-other thing, and is actually in the wrong venue. WP:NOR pertains to the information content, not how WP presentationally wraps it. I.e., the actual content that is subject to core content policies is what the pronunciation(s) is/are. WP has multiple pronunciation transcription markup systems, and like our citation styles, this is WP-original metadata, not subject to WP:CORE. One of them is based on (mostly American) dictionary-style pronunciation keys: [pro-NUN-see-ay-shun]; the other loosely based on IPA. Both are synthetic and are internal matters, and not subject to WP:NOR / WP:V. As long as the pronunciation that emerges in the reader's mind is verifiable, it does not matter what markup wrapper we convey it with. Both of our extant pronunciation guide systems could be replaced tomorrow with something entirely different and even more arbitrary (even one consisting of entirely WP-invented orthography, though that would not of course be practical). While I agree that OP has a point – it's not wise for us to use a WP-modified version of IPA that conflicts with IPA norms that a linguist would expect – that's not an NOR matter, but a matter for consensus discussion at the IPA for English talk page. The discussion there should remain open until naturally resolved or a closure request is made, while the one at NORNB should be closed as no consensus / off topic. (Initiated 3159 days ago on 27 October 2015) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now both sides of the dispute have conceded that this won't be resolved as a WP:NOR issue, so this fork of the discussion has no reason to stay open at WP:NORNB, and can be centralized, finally, at Help talk:IPA for English, which is collectively trying to actually resolve it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once

"Closure by admin requested for WP:BLPN discussion BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once". (Initiated 3156 days ago on 30 October 2015) Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When this is closed it definitely needs to be closed in tandem with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_16#Category:Climate_Change_deniers. I've read through a lot this morning and have no idea what to do; there's no strong consensus to do anything (i.e. there is zero agreement on what wording to actually use) but there is pretty strong consensus that the current situation is not sufficient for BLP. There are a lot of other factors at play here too; like how some BLP's are badly categorised anyway (which the rename may have compounded). My feeling is that we're I to close this I'd do a no-consensu o what to call the category, delete the cat under WP:BLPCAT and open a neutral RFC incorporating all of the main suggestions for category naming and inclusion criteria, to resolve this in detail. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning that parallel discussion. In addition to the immediate issue, there was also a procedural disagreement about whether WP:BLPCAT claims should be decided as a BLP Incident or as a Category for Discussion. I don't know if there is an answer to that jurisdictional question but it may matter since the the two conversations had starkly different consensuses. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, policy-based decisions trump "content decisions" and suggest that the CfD was the latter, and the BLP/N decision the former. Collect (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A bot changed the heading and text of this closure request to point to Archive231. That is the wrong URL. In fact the discussion is currently the first item at WP:BLPN. This confusion is my fault. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the links. It looks like someone de-archived it... although it's also in the archive. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting specifically admin closure on this contentious discussion, given the range of BLP articles involved (E.g.; Václav Klaus, Bill O'Reilly William Kininmonth, Pat Sajak). The last post was 9 days ago. (Initiated 3156 days ago on 30 October 2015) μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd be happy to close this having taken several goes at reading through - but actually I'd prefer another admin or two to be involved & help discuss the close. As far as I can see there is consensus that there is a problem but no actual viable solution agreed on (even the status quo). My close would be simply to remove the category to reset us back to zero and to draft/open a neutrally worded RFC at a sensible location to resolve this once and for all. Whatever it is closed as this will be contentious, and a major task, so I'd prefer assisstance. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bill Cosby#Mention of allegations in lead sentence?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bill Cosby#Mention of allegations in lead sentence? (Initiated 3160 days ago on 26 October 2015)? See the subsection Talk:Bill Cosby#Which version to use?. Please consider the closed RfC Talk:Bill Cosby/Archive 3#RfC: Should the allegations of sexual assault be mentioned in the lede? in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now archived at Talk:Bill Cosby/Archive 3#Mention of allegations in lead sentence? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 55#Owen 'Alik Shahadah

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 55#Owen 'Alik Shahadah (Initiated 3183 days ago on 3 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain#RfC - Character reception before release

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain#RfC - Character reception before release (Initiated 3190 days ago on 26 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Campus sexual assault#RfC on recent AAU campus climate survey

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Campus sexual assault#RfC on recent AAU campus climate survey (Initiated 3181 days ago on 5 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC was reposted Nov 17th. AlbinoFerret 23:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Continued Anti-Semitic concern trolling by User:Mrandrewnohome at the Reference Desks

Would an ~~experienced editor~~ admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Continued Anti-Semitic concern trolling by User:Mrandrewnohome at the Reference Desks (Initiated 3150 days ago on 5 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is on an admin board, shouldn’t an admin close it? AlbinoFerret 18:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AlbinoFerret, you are correct. I have fixed my post, thank you. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Community discussion regarding disruptive edits to Heathenry-themed articles

Would an administrator assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Community discussion regarding disruptive edits to Heathenry-themed articles (Initiated 3144 days ago on 11 November 2015) and administer news of a topic ban to the user in question if that is what consensus calls for? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive276#Community discussion regarding disruptive edits to Heathenry-themed articles (Initiated 3144 days ago on 11 November 2015)? See the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive276#Proposed topic ban. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Images of victims and/or perps on crime pages

Uninvolved administrator needed. (Initiated 3162 days ago on 24 October 2015) --George Ho (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almost no definite opinions have been offered, and George Ho relisted this on December 2, so closing this is very premature. --GRuban (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 3146 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]

Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items#Removal proposal: Sprint Cup Series

Uninvolved administrator needed, though recent Sprint Cup was featured in the News. (Initiated 3137 days ago on 18 November 2015) George Ho (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 8#Category:Blue-eyed soul singers

(Initiated 3147 days ago on 8 November 2015)

(edit conflict) Discussion has been open since 8 November 2015. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Electronic cigarette#RFC Are these sources the same?

Would an experienced editor close this one. It should be easy and quick. (Initiated 3156 days ago on 30 October 2015). There is a second RFC on the same topic started the same day, but split off 4 days later that adds questions Talk:Electronic cigarette#Questions added after the start of the RfC above. It was started by a now topic banned editor.(Initiated 3152 days ago on 3 November 2015) This should be another easy quick close. AlbinoFerret 13:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Allie X Topic Ban Proposal

Consensus seems clear and discussion has halted, so an administrator is needed to review and close three topic bans, and possibly enforce the topic bans at the following incident report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Allie X Topic Ban Proposal. I can help however I can. Thank you. (Initiated 3136 days ago on 19 November 2015) SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 15:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Allie X Topic Ban Proposal (Initiated 3136 days ago on 19 November 2015)? See the subsections Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic-Ban for WordSeventeen and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban for SanctuaryX. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a subsection for Zpeopleheart as well at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic-Ban_for_Zpeopleheart Please resolve this quickly because there are still ongoing issues that need to be resolved ASAP. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 14:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In all actuality there are new comments and discussion points have been added since the last archiving for lack of discussion, so discussion may continue. So any admin or other proper person please unarchive the whole deal so we make discuss greely to make it gair for all parties. Thanks. WordSeventeen (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have unarchived the discussion. Cunard (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only continued "discussion" was you opposing your own ban after removing your comments from my talk page. The discussion is very much stalled, with a pretty clear consensus for all three cases; it can still be closed regardless of whether it is archived or not. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 21:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sanx, I do note this comment that you placed here. You are though quite incorrect on the policies and protocol at wikipedia. Please do have a fantastic day©! WordSeventeen (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Zombie#2015_merge_discussion_-_with_Zombie_.28folklore.29

This has been open since January. Strikes me as an obvious close but best be someone uninvolved to keep it all above board as somewhat controversial. (Initiated 3119 days ago on 6 December 2015)Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Rephrase_suggestion_to_WP:UP.23POLEMIC

Seeking a close of this RFC. With the canvassing that has taken place it's impossible to determine the consensus. There's no need in further wasting the communities time or the members who have signed up to the Request for feedback service.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 3143 days ago on 12 November 2015) AlbinoFerret 03:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was opened on November 12 but it should have been closed on November the 14th when it became clear that editors where being sent email correspondence to advertise the RFC [2][3]. In addition to this type of inappropriate canvassing they also advertised to the Wikiproject France in the aftermath of the Paris attacks seeking to manipulate any emotional sympathies for the France that it members may have [4]. Both types of Canvassing that were employed have poisoned the well. The consensus making process has been compromised and it should be closed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gary Cooper#recent edits

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Gary Cooper#recent edits (Initiated 3169 days ago on 17 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose#RfC: Should the article mention that the firearm used in the shooting is a SIG Sauer P320?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose#RfC: Should the article mention that the firearm used in the shooting is a SIG Sauer P320? (Initiated 3166 days ago on 20 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genesis P-Orridge#RFC: is the idiosyncratic use of s/he and h/er acceptable in this article? (Initiated 3152 days ago on 3 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Malala Yousafzai#RFC for Forking

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Malala Yousafzai#RFC for Forking (Initiated 3151 days ago on 4 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kuwait Airways#RFC: Should a threat of legal action by the Secretary of Transportation against the airline be included in the article?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kuwait Airways#RFC: Should a threat of legal action by the Secretary of Transportation against the airline be included in the article? (Initiated 3142 days ago on 13 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia#Juraj Sklenár's view (Initiated 3160 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]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Political correctness#Definition of political correctness (Initiated 3149 days ago on 6 November 2015)? See Talk:Political correctness#Closing this RfC. The opening poster wrote: "Is political correctness a concept of not offending — especially the marginalized — in a community or is it primarily pejorative?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#RfC: What claims are governed by WP:MEDRS?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#RfC: What claims are governed by WP:MEDRS? (Initiated 3156 days ago on 30 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Template just list a select number of caliphates (of which there are 7 as can be seen on the template) or should it include every caliphate as can be seen in the article Caliphate (of which there are ~10 as can be seen in history).

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New York Public Library#RFC: Should the further reading section of this article be trimmed? (Initiated 3170 days ago on 16 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jedediah Smith#Request for Comment

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jedediah Smith#Request for Comment (Initiated 3154 days ago on 1 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#RfC about WP:NOTHERE

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#RfC about WP:NOTHERE (Initiated 3153 days ago on 2 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Frogman#RfC: Should this page be substantial reduced, stubbed, or deleted due to lack of inline references and other problems?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Frogman#RfC: Should this page be substantial reduced, stubbed, or deleted due to lack of inline references and other problems? (Initiated 3169 days ago on 17 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (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