|
![]() Archives |
---|
Threads older than 90 days may be archived by ClueBot III. |
The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia. Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications.
Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here.
Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days (opened on or before 10 February 2016); 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.
Contents
- 1 Requests for closure
- 1.1 Requests for comment
- 1.1.1 MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr
- 1.1.2 Talk:David L. Jones#RFC: Inclusion of draft sections
- 1.1.3 Talk:Muhammad#What should be included for information regarding Aishas' marriage to Muhammad on the Muhammad article?
- 1.1.4 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 65#RfC: Anime films and production companies
- 1.1.5 Talk:Political correctness#Generally or primarily or something else
- 1.1.6 Talk:Séralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality
- 1.1.7 Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML
- 1.1.8 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker#RfC: Does the use of self-published sources in snooker articles violate BLPSPS and SPS?
- 1.1.9 Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50)#Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50): RfC on lede passage
- 1.1.10 Super-easy close: Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_179#.22winningest.22_in_sports_articles (Initiated 57 days ago on 14 January 2016)
- 1.1.11 Two RFC's need closing
- 1.1.12 Wikipedia:Village_pump (policy)/Archive 125#Two edit filter RfCs: Modifying existing filters and enabling the block function
- 1.1.13 Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel
- 1.1.14 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size
- 1.1.15 Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Seeking clarification
- 1.1.16 Talk:Mohamed Hadid#Request for comment
- 1.1.17 Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#RFC
- 1.1.18 Talk:List of oldest living people#RfC: How should we word the lede?
- 1.1.19 Talk:List of oldest living people#RfC: "List of Verified Oldest Living People" as title instead of "List of Oldest Living People"
- 1.1.20 Talk:Bernie Sanders#Democrat/Independent
- 1.1.21 Talk:Eminem#Should info about deaths of Proof and Dawn Scott be added and if yes, then what in form? (RfC)
- 1.1.22 Talk:ExxonMobil#RfC: Should the article have a heading about support for climate change denialism?
- 1.1.23 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#RfC: Proposal to fix a long term structural problem in Palestine Israel conflict articles
- 1.1.24 Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Line for Elizabeth II
- 1.1.25 Template talk:Infobox medical condition#Request for comments: Should the infobox medical condition contain a list of synonyms?
- 1.1.26 Talk:Gun laws in Illinois#RfC: Magazine capacity and state preemption
- 1.1.27 Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 125#RfC on Wikipedia:Authority Control
- 1.1.28 Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#RFC_for_multiple_letter_capitalisations_in_the_MoS
- 1.1.29 Talk:Child abuse#RfC: Should the lead sentence use a broader definition of child abuse?
- 1.1.30 Talk:FlightGear#RfC: substantial article trimming
- 1.1.31 Talk:Bernie Sanders#Request for comments -- religion in infobox
- 1.1.32 Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Request_for_comment:_Identification_of_train_or_railway_stations_in_the_lead
- 1.1.33 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History/RfC on Third Reich-only military units using Germany or Nazi Germany in infoboxes
- 1.1.34 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Who is Australia's Head of state?
- 1.1.35 Talk:Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge#Size_split_of_article
- 1.1.36 Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel
- 1.2 Backlogs
- 1.3 XfD
- 1.4 Administrative
- 1.5 Requested moves
- 1.1 Requests for comment
Requests for closure
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 90 days ago on 12 December 2015)? —Godsy(TALKCONT) 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 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 91 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:Muhammad#What should be included for information regarding Aishas' marriage to Muhammad on the Muhammad article?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Muhammad#What should be included for information regarding Aishas' marriage to Muhammad on the Muhammad article? (Initiated 98 days ago on 4 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Closing of this RFC is past due, and the lack of a close has caused contention in dispute resolution. However, closure by a non-Muslim editor would be likely to result in further contention. Request closure by an uninvolved experienced Muslim editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that we should be specifying the religion of the closer, though I understand the pragmatic motivation. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC).
- I'm not sure that we should be specifying the religion of the closer, though I understand the pragmatic motivation. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC).
Done --GRuban (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 65#RfC: Anime films and production companies
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 65#RfC: Anime films and production companies (Initiated 85 days ago on 17 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 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)
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 88 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?
- 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)
- I disagree with not closing the RfC. I think it is helpful to answer these two questions:
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 89 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)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker#RfC: Does the use of self-published sources in snooker articles violate BLPSPS and SPS?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker#RfC: Does the use of self-published sources in snooker articles violate BLPSPS and SPS? (Initiated 65 days ago on 6 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50)#Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50): RfC on lede passage
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50)#Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50): RfC on lede passage (Initiated 73 days ago on 29 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Super-easy close: Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_179#.22winningest.22_in_sports_articles (Initiated 57 days ago on 14 January 2016)
We actually drafted and !voted on a 5-point consensus (with notes than need not be part of the close), at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Can we wrap this up?. While this could be allowed to just expired into the archives, it would be convenient to have a formal close, because the thread, and its derailed sub-thread about clarifying MoS's meaning with regard to formal/encyclopedic language, is holding up re-opening a "clean" discussion on the latter point, unpolluted by "winningest"-related bickering. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- This RFC has been archived. It has been marked as closed, but it has not been closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Done. --GRuban (talk) 02:24, 9 March 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)
Wikipedia:Village_pump (policy)/Archive 125#Two edit filter RfCs: Modifying existing filters and enabling the block function
A two part expired RfC, should be a fairly easy close. Sam Walton (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel
(Initiated 29 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)
- @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: 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: 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)
- @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)
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 273 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)
Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Seeking clarification
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive_39#Seeking clarification (Initiated 72 days ago on 30 December 2015)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive_39#Clarification question on the policy, where the opening editor wrote, "Does the WP:BLPSOURCES ban on tabloid journalism mean that no BLP material can be sourced to a Tabloid Journal?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Mohamed Hadid#Request for comment
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mohamed Hadid#Request for comment (Initiated 60 days ago on 11 January 2016)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the article include "(now Israel)" next to mentions of Mandatory Palestine, the name of the place at the time the subject was born?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#RFC
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#RFC (Initiated 53 days ago on 18 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Talk:List of oldest living people#RfC: How should we word the lede?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of oldest living people#RfC: How should we word the lede? (Initiated 54 days ago on 17 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Talk:List of oldest living people#RfC: "List of Verified Oldest Living People" as title instead of "List of Oldest Living People"
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of oldest living people#RfC: "List of Verified Oldest Living People" as title instead of "List of Oldest Living People" (Initiated 52 days ago on 19 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Bernie Sanders#Democrat/Independent
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Bernie Sanders#Democrat/Independent (Initiated 50 days ago on 21 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I had to dig to find the discussion in Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 6 (that page is already up to Archive 11!) – a bot archived the discussion on February 25. I believe the question is what to show for political party affiliations in the infobox. The most recent change to that appears to have been made at 14:12, 9 February 2016, so that piece of the infobox has been stable for a month now, and I endorse it as a reasonable reflection of the consensus.
-
- Note that this began as a 01:56, 21 January 2016 semi-protected edit request by 24.229.229.102 which was answered as not done on 02:55, 21 January 2016 by a non-administrator.
- A request for comment was filed by E.M.Gregory with this 12:08, 21 January 2016 edit.
- Complicating matters, a second semi-protected edit request was filed at 05:39, 22 January 2016 by 144.59.38.41, just below the open RfC.
- The second edit request, after some parallel discussion, was also answered as not done, at 19:32, 22 January 2016, by the same non-administrator.
- Parallel discussion forks continued in both edit-request sections. The title of the first edit-request section was changed from Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2016 to Democrat/Independent, with this 19:59, 26 January 2016 edit.
- As also linked above, Legobot closed that RfC as "expired" at 13:01, 20 February 2016. The default duration of an RfC is 30 days because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. The RfC bot will automatically remove any RfC from the active RfC list after 30 days, measured from the first timestamp within the RfC section on the talk page. RfC may be extended beyond 30 days or re-listed by changing the first timestamp to a more recent date. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- The second edit-request was archived to Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 5 § Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2016 at 01:28, 20 February 2016. I did not consider this discussion fork in my earlier determination of consensus, but, now that I've seen it, my endorsement of the current infobox as a reasonable reflection of the consensus still stands. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Eminem#Should info about deaths of Proof and Dawn Scott be added and if yes, then what in form? (RfC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eminem#Should info about deaths of Proof and Dawn Scott be added and if yes, then what in form? (RfC) (Initiated 49 days ago on 22 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Talk:ExxonMobil#RfC: Should the article have a heading about support for climate change denialism?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:ExxonMobil#RfC: Should the article have a heading about support for climate change denialism? (Initiated 60 days ago on 11 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#RfC: Proposal to fix a long term structural problem in Palestine Israel conflict articles
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#RfC: Proposal to fix a long term structural problem in Palestine Israel conflict articles (Initiated 57 days ago on 14 January 2016)? 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 51 days ago on 20 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 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 62 days ago on 9 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 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 40 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 46 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_.22one-letter_lowercase_prefix.22_rule_to_multiple-letter_prefixes and Talk:TVOS. Thanks, Tom29739 [talk] 17:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC). (Initiated 40 days ago on 31 January 2016)
Talk:Child abuse#RfC: Should the lead sentence use a broader definition of child abuse?
The RfC recently expired and needs closing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:FlightGear#RfC: substantial article trimming
It has not been 30 days yet but the only voice against restoring has been that of the editor who did the trimming, and in the meanwhile, edits to the article will progressively make it more difficult to restore the deleted content semi-automatically. LjL (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Bernie Sanders#Request for comments -- religion in infobox
One of the longest and most contentious RfCs I have ever seen. We are really going to need one or more uninvolved admins who are willing to wade through this huge pile of material, apply the 20 or so policies and guidelines that have been invoked, determine consensus, and then write a crystal clear closing summary. No matter what the closing admin does, there will be complaints, appeals, attempts to re-interpret the closing comments, refusal to accept the result, and in all likelihood accusations of antisemitism. Be prepared for a shitstorm on this one.
Related:
- Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Is Bernie Sanders Jewish or is he "Jewish"?
- Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes and WP:WEIGHT
- Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes
- Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 28#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion
--Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon:
Done. I'm expecting to see a related thread at WP:AN, and I'm OK with that. If I've missed or overlooked something important, or if there is new information that has surfaced since that discussion that would alter consensus, I'm glad to engage in that discussion and revisit my close. I, JethroBT drop me a line 09:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have a strong tendency to accept rather than challenge RfCs unless the closing admin made a glaring error, which is not the case here. Lacking infallibility, I am not so foolish as to think "I disagree with this decision" somehow equates to "the decision was wrong". That being said, I would have liked a fuller explanation as to how WP:CAT/R ("Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion.") was satisfied without any self-identification through direct speech by Bernie Sanders. Your comment that "Participants who supported the inclusion of 'Jewish' in the religion field of the infobox argued that several sources support the claim that Sanders identifies as Jewish." leads me to suspect that you believe that "I am Jewish" has has the same meaning as "I am a member of the Jewish religion". Do I understand you correctly? I am not trying to re-argue the RfC, just to understand the reasoning behind the close. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: "I am Jewish" or "I am proud to be Jewish" by itself is ambiguous. Lacking context, it cannot be reliably equated with "I am a member of the Jewish religion." I was merely summarizing that many arguments referred to this point of self-identification. However, some sources where Sanders talks about being Jewish contained sufficient context to make it clear that religion or faith was being referred to specifically, in contrast to some other definition. I, JethroBT drop me a line 10:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have a strong tendency to accept rather than challenge RfCs unless the closing admin made a glaring error, which is not the case here. Lacking infallibility, I am not so foolish as to think "I disagree with this decision" somehow equates to "the decision was wrong". That being said, I would have liked a fuller explanation as to how WP:CAT/R ("Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion.") was satisfied without any self-identification through direct speech by Bernie Sanders. Your comment that "Participants who supported the inclusion of 'Jewish' in the religion field of the infobox argued that several sources support the claim that Sanders identifies as Jewish." leads me to suspect that you believe that "I am Jewish" has has the same meaning as "I am a member of the Jewish religion". Do I understand you correctly? I am not trying to re-argue the RfC, just to understand the reasoning behind the close. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:18, 7 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)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History/RfC on Third Reich-only military units using Germany or Nazi Germany in infoboxes
We need an uninvolved admin or experienced editor to close this RfC, there are policy-based arguments on both sides, and a suggested close has been challenged. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Who is Australia's Head of state?
May we have an administrator review & close that Rfc? It's been about 30 days now. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: This RfC is closely related to another RfC (Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Request for comment: How to deal with this article) and a merge proposal (Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Merger proposal). It would be best if all three were closed together. (But the merge proposal is still being vigorously debated.) StAnselm (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge#Size_split_of_article
Please disposition this discussion which started on 17FEB2016. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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 40 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from January 25, 2016. Ricky81682 (talk) 16:41, 23 February 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)
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 100 days ago on 2 December 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:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 8#The fiftieth day
Can an admin please assess the consensus at this discussion and close it accordingly? Thanks in advance for your help. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Multiple "Donald Drumpf" XfDs
Both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald J Drumpf and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 2#Donald Drumpf are shaping up to be a WP:SNOW close to redirect to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). Can a non-involved admin look over these and make a final judgement? Thanks, Nathan2055talk - contribs 22:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Nathan2055: I'd rather these stay open at least for a day or two longer before closing. One of these discussions just started today and the other, yesterday. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for reporting this early, Nathan2055. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Administrative
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive279#BLP violations and sockpuppetry by User:Lane99
Will an administrator please assess the consensus at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive279#BLP_violations_and_sockpuppetry_by_User:Lane99, and, if appropriate, implement the ban? This thread was archived without formal closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Requested moves
Talk:Trump Entrepreneur Initiative#Requested move 28 February 2016
I'm requesting an early close (and corresponding move) of the move request of Trump Entrepreneur Initiative to Trump University. This is shaping up to be a WP:SNOW discussion and the subject is incredibly hot at the moment, with 99.9% of our traffic coming from our Trump University redirect (compare these). We are in the thick of the Republican primary election season and I'd think we want to confuse as few voters as possible. Thanks in advance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:City of St Albans#Requested move 27 February 2016
Move request City of St Albans to St Albans City and District not opposed. Now request closure by admin and move. Pelarmian (talk)