Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

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 31 May 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.

Requests for closure

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

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 21#The word "like"

This needs an accurate analysis before a closing rationale. George Ho (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 141 days ago on 10 February 2016)

This is now located in an archive at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 21. Someone willing to dig into one of the lamest contentious discussions of all time should assess whether it's worth dragging out of an archive or not. ~ Rob^Talk 13:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Since numerous editors considered the discussion worth discussion, and since George Ho wants an accurate summary of the discussion, I agree with George Ho's request for closure. That some editors consider it "lame" does not detract from other editors' considering it important and worthy of closure (evidenced by the extensive, passionate discussion).

Because the discussion has been archived, there are two methods to implement the close: (i) Move the discussion back to the talk page and close it and (ii) Close the discussion, keeping it in the talk page archive, and announce the result on the talk page. Cunard (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

How about method 2? Or another method: click "edit" button at the Archive page and write the rationale. --George Ho (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't need a close, being effectively moot. RM has continued to follow MOS on this, and despite a few voices in support of sweeping change to treatment of short prepositions on Wikipedia (even having a magically special variant rule for songs), nothing like a consensus arose for this, the matter was sourced into the ground (both as to what different genres of sources do, and why WP uses the rule it does, in keeping with the centrist, non-extreme treatment in RS), and whatever stress and productivity drain was involved in the discussion, the qualify of the relevant RM discussions has improved, with actual examination of whether something's a preposition or not, instead of rants along the lines of "since Rolling Stone writes it this way, WP must also". There really is nothing to do. Not every discussion needs a formal closure, and a conclusion of "there isn't a clear consensus to change anything" certainly doesn't need one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination I hope a fresher discussion should be more constructive than this one. It was less managed and disorganized. George Ho (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:YouTube#RfC: Lists of countries using YouTube and of media encoding options

An uninvolved but competent editor is needed. George Ho (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:YouTube#RfC: Lists of countries using YouTube and of media encoding options (Initiated 99 days ago on 23 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Disambiguation and inherently ambiguous titles

Please close this RfC, which has run its course, and which I've just had to save from bot archival. RGloucester — ☎ 18:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: (Initiated 97 days ago on 25 March 2016). It's not all that long, as these things go. The consensus, on a policy, evidence, and reasoned-argument basis, is pretty easy to determine despite the lack of a snowball in either direction.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Please, please, please! Close this ancient RfC. RGloucester — ☎ 05:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Chrysler/Archive 4#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction

There's currently an edit war between the RfC participants over whether to close or extend the RfC beyond 30 days. Can a non-involved, preferably Admin, editor intervene and resolve one way or the other? At the moment it's "closed" because I have not reverted the last revert, but I expect it will get re-opened, then re-closed, again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Formal closure by a neutral, uninvolved administrator under WP:CLOSE is respectfully requested, as neutrality is at issue, and the discussion has at times been contentious. We may expect the closing statement to be closely scrutinized. RfC launched 23 March 2016, most recent comment 1 May 2016. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Pokémon Sun and Moon#Japanese Titles Added

Requesting a formal closure to this discussion so the consensus can be enforced. czar 14:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:MDMA#RfC: How big should the "note" be after the first sentence?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:MDMA#RfC: How big should the "note" be after the first sentence? (Initiated 89 days ago on 2 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Multiple issues#Request to add talksection parameter

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Multiple issues#Request to add talksection parameter (Initiated 96 days ago on 26 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1 metre#Request for comment

Would an editor please assess the consensus at this RfC at Talk:1_metre (Initiated 105 days ago on 17 March 2016)? It is not extremely contentious but there is no large support for a single action. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:David Jolly#RFC: Appropriate language for Wikipedia reference

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David Jolly#RFC: Appropriate language for Wikipedia reference (Initiated 81 days ago on 10 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:John Carter (film)#RfC: Which figure should go in the budget field in the infobox?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:John Carter (film)#RfC: Which figure should go in the budget field in the infobox? (Initiated 78 days ago on 13 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jerusalem#Is Jerusalem in Israel or Palestine

Please formally close this Rfc I opened, because it is about a contentious area. (Initiated 37 days ago on 24 May 2016) Debresser (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:European Graduate School#RFC to update accreditation section

I make a formal request for closure of this RfC. I believe there is consensus around the proposal made by Special:Contributions/87.162.74.84 (Initiated 36 days ago on 25 May 2016). 79.64.199.8 (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

That "consensus" was suddenly established in a later section to make an edit that basically runs against the RfC proposed (and majority-supported) version looks very dubious to me, to say the least. It is unclear if you request the close of the RfC that really runs (Initiated 58 days ago on 3 May 2016) or of a section that is not a proper WP:RFC. I smell something fishy with that close request. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

It appears to me that the later section is part of the original RfC. See [1]. 79.64.199.8 (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Black supremacy#RfC: Racist

Some requests have been made at this RfC to have an experienced editor read over, and close the discussion. Thanks in advance. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 50 days ago on 11 May 2016)

no real need to weigh the rfc as has become moot at this point..there was an afd that resulted in keep but led to the article being hugely altered to the point that the discussion is now irrelevant..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Stanley Milgram#Request for Comment: Should the parameter "Religion: Jewish" be included in this article?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Stanley Milgram#Request for Comment: Should the parameter "Religion: Jewish" be included in this article? (Initiated 59 days ago on 2 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Joseph Conrad#Rfc: Joseph Conrad's Nationality

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joseph Conrad#Rfc: Joseph Conrad's Nationality (Initiated 58 days ago on 3 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Internet fraud#RfC: Do articles like this contribute to fraud? (poll)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Internet fraud#RfC: Do articles like this contribute to fraud? (poll) (Initiated 58 days ago on 3 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Multi-sport event#RfC: Can an acceptable definition be written for Category:Sports festivals?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Multi-sport event#RfC: Can an acceptable definition be written for Category:Sports festivals? (Initiated 57 days ago on 4 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Armenian Genocide#RfC for Medz Yeghern as an alternative name

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Armenian Genocide#RfC for Medz Yeghern as an alternative name (Initiated 65 days ago on 26 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal#RfC: Should the source comparing Mein Kampf to Art of the Deal be included?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal#RfC: Should the source comparing Mein Kampf to Art of the Deal be included? (Initiated 60 days ago on 1 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles#RfC: Which romanization system should be used for pre-division Korean topics?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles#RfC: Which romanization system should be used for pre-division Korean topics? (Initiated 58 days ago on 3 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Potato chip#RfC: Should the history of potato chips use a WP:RS tabloid broadsheet newspaper article as reliable source

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Potato chip#RfC: Should the history of potato chips use a WP:RS tabloid broadsheet newspaper article as reliable source (Initiated 56 days ago on 5 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Time (Electric Light Orchestra album)#RfC: Should Wiki-voice view Time as a story? Keep "Storyline"?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Time (Electric Light Orchestra album)#RfC: Should Wiki-voice view Time as a story? Keep "Storyline"? (Initiated 62 days ago on 29 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of youngest birth mothers#RfC Teenage category

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of youngest birth mothers#RfC Teenage category (Initiated 65 days ago on 26 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of world snooker champions#RfC: Should player highlighting indicate whether a player has "competed" or is "active"?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of world snooker champions#RfC: Should player highlighting indicate whether a player has "competed" or is "active"? (Initiated 58 days ago on 3 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Anarchism sidebar#RfC: Anarcho-capitalism and its place in this template

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Anarchism sidebar#RfC: Anarcho-capitalism and its place in this template (Initiated 62 days ago on 29 April 2016)? There is a clear consensus to include anarcho-capitalism in the template, but the consensus is not as clear on where it should be placed in the template. Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RfC: Is it time to relax a bit on WP:NOSHARE?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RfC: Is it time to relax a bit on WP:NOSHARE? (Initiated 62 days ago on 29 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#RfC on Appeal of RevDel usage

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#RfC on Appeal of RevDel usage (Initiated 58 days ago on 3 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Striking !votes

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Striking !votes (Initiated 38 days ago on 23 May 2016)? See also Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#RFC: when is striking !votes in RFAs OK?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#RFC: Suggestion: Visual Editor Version

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#RFC: Suggestion: Visual Editor Version (Initiated 56 days ago on 5 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive922#Clarification please: DrChrissy and human anatomy edits

I am requesting a non-involved, experienced administrator to close this clarification request because it has potentially wiki-wide (or at least very broad) implications. It was opened 30 days ago and has received no further comment for the last 24 days. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Copying my comment from here. I think this is a reasonable request for closure. I read the ANI discussion and found that several admins and editors believe that edits to articles on human anatomy with no health or medical aspects are not covered by the topic ban. Based on the heated and accusatory comments by several of the involved editors in the discussion, it is clear that to avoid conflict and doubt DrChrissy should get a clear ruling from an uninvolved admin as to whether he can edit those articles.

WP:ANRFC is the correct place to request closure. A request at WP:AN or WP:ANI will be archived without action if an admin does not act on it in time. That no timely action has been taken does not mean DrChrissy should not get closure. Cunard (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed draftspace deletion RFC

Would someone (not necessarily an admin) close the RFC about a proposed draftspace deletion? (archive 128) (Initiated 41 days ago on 20 May 2016) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics#Request for Comment: Quotes and italics

Someone familiar with comic books might be best for this, but that might not be necessary: After five contentious weeks, an overwhelming majority of experienced, veteran WikiProject Comics editors all agree on one side, and only one person, who has rejected two offers of compromise, remains arguing the other side. It's getting a little rancorous, with the same arguments being repeated, so hopefully someone can close it. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I humbly ask that someone please close this quickly, as, after more than five weeks, it has become increasingly rancorous, with verbal attacks and name-calling. For the good of WikiProject Comics, please close it soon.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

(Initiated 50 days ago on 11 May 2016)?

Talk:The Matrix#RfC: How should the directors of this film be presented in the lead?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Matrix#RfC: How should the directors of this film be presented in the lead? (Initiated 51 days ago on 10 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Emma Watson#Emma Watson and the Panama Papers

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Emma Watson#Emma Watson and the Panama Papers (Initiated 50 days ago on 11 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Confirm on save when adding links to disambiguation pages

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Confirm on save when adding links to disambiguation pages (Initiated 50 days ago on 11 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gary Cooper#RfC: Adding mention of Anderson Lawler

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gary Cooper#RfC: Adding mention of Anderson Lawler (Initiated 45 days ago on 16 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury#Request for comment made

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury#Request for comment made (Initiated 49 days ago on 12 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Potato chip#RFC: Should the caption include "crisps" as well as "chips"?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Potato chip#RFC: Should the caption include "crisps" as well as "chips"? (Initiated 48 days ago on 13 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Price of medications

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Price of medications (Initiated 46 days ago on 15 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:NHL 15#Should New Features be included on NHL articles

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:NHL 15#Should New Features be included on NHL articles (Initiated 43 days ago on 18 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016#RfC: Should information on the John Miller incident be included in the article?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016#RfC: Should information on the John Miller incident be included in the article? (Initiated 43 days ago on 18 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Confirm on save when adding links to disambiguation pages

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Confirm on save when adding links to disambiguation pages (Initiated 50 days ago on 11 May 2016)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 4

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 4 (Initiated 44 days ago on 17 May 2016)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal#RFC: Criteria for the recent deaths section of the main page In the news section

Some people want this closed as soon as possible, but I believe that an uninvolved but skilled person must determine the consensus. --George Ho (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, now is not the time to close it, but I'll leave the request open, just in case. George Ho (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of templating: (Initiated 19 days ago on 11 June 2016). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

This has now been open for almost three weeks, we're getting a drip-feed of perhaps one or two comments per day after the initial 15 or 20 comments per day, could we now please assess this for closure. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting#RfC: Should the article include statements from government officials, politicians, and others not directly involved?

I thought about requesting closure of three in one section, but I am not confident about one person reviewing all three. The topic of the discussion is a little more complex. --George Ho (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of templating: (Initiated 18 days ago on 12 June 2016). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting#RfC: List of victims

I thought about requesting closure of three in one section, but I am not confident about one person reviewing all three. The topic of the discussion is kinda simplistic, yet integrity is involved. --George Ho (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of templating: (Initiated 18 days ago on 12 June 2016). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting#RfC: Should the mass shooting be called a "terrorist attack" in the first sentence?

I thought about requesting closure of three in one section, but I am not confident about one person reviewing all three. The topic of the discussion is some sort of classification in prose. --George Ho (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of templating: (Initiated 15 days ago on 15 June 2016). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:European migrant crisis#Images and graphs in this article

This needs a conclusion. George Ho (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of templating: (Initiated 26 days ago on 4 June 2016). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Redirects_for_discussion#RfC: Allow non-admins to close RfD discussions to "delete"?

The 30 days runs in about 24 hours. I'm asking for 3 closers, until we get 3 or until a week goes by. If we get 3, great. If we get 1 or 2, I'll probably ask them a couple of questions. If we get 2, I'll probably offer to join them. - Dank (push to talk) 17:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of templating: (Initiated 36 days ago on 25 May 2016). Dank, your request for multiple closers sounds weird (how are they going to coordinate, if the point is precisely that they are relatively independent from each other?) but well, whatever works. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Replying in the same-named section at AN. - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Group of Eight#Merge request 6 June 2016

Would an uninvolved editor please take at look at a merge discussion at Talk:Group of Eight#Merge request 6 June 2016 (Initiated 36 days ago on 25 May 2016) and judge if consensus has been achieved. If consensus is Yes then please close the discussion and I will merge. If consensus is No then I won't! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion

This discussion forum has a small backlog with approximately 6 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from 21 May 2016. (16:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Files for discussion#Old discussions

There's 100+ open discussions, some well over two months old. The vast majority of these are easy closures. Would appreciate it if an admin could spend an hour or so clearing these out. Thanks! -FASTILY 08:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Discussions_awaiting_closure

There are approximately 50 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from April 25, 2016. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

30/500 discussion at ANI

This discussion needs an experienced closer quickly; it involves the application of a new protection level to address an ongoing issue of disruption. ~ Rob^Talk 03:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)