Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Francis Schonken (talk | contribs) at 04:22, 25 August 2015 (→Talk:United States#Reiteration). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Index 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 300 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

• WP:ANRFC
• WP:AN/RFC

The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Misplaced Pages. 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 closure is 30 days (opened on or before 11 December 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions and Misplaced Pages: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

XfD

MfD backlog

Miscellany for deletion also has a number of open discussions, going back to late July. Most are non-controversial requests to delete old userspace drafts. Please see the list at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion#Old_business. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

CfD backlog

There are currently many open discussions, including some from early April. Please see the list at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure.

Thanks to those who have closed the oldest ones from January to March in recent weeks. – Fayenatic London 08:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• It's a nearly a month after the previous message and the backlog has only increased in the past month. Please help!! Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Another few weeks and April is at least cleared. The May backlog has piled up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

RfD backlog

I'd like to request a close on the following RfDs. There are more, but I'm limiting this list to those initiated in July. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 18#The Boy Bands Have Won, and All the Copyists and the Tribute Bands and the TV Talent Show Producers Have Won, If We Allow Our Culture to Be Shaped by Mimicry, Whether from Lack of Ideas or from Exaggerated Respect. You Should Never Try to Freeze Culture. – (Initiated 3470 days ago on 12 July 2015)
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 30#Acidobacterium – (Initiated 3469 days ago on 13 July 2015)
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 24#List of Pokemon Orange Islands Gym Leaders – (Initiated 3468 days ago on 14 July 2015)
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 24#Richard Parker (footballer) – (Initiated 3467 days ago on 15 July 2015)
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 18#Stage Races – (Initiated 3465 days ago on 17 July 2015)
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 31#Summary of trojan war – (Initiated 3460 days ago on 22 July 2015)
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 1#Northeastern Australia – (Initiated 3458 days ago on 24 July 2015)
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 11#Template:Rfs – (Initiated 3454 days ago on 28 July 2015)
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 28#Template:1stpartysources – (Initiated 3454 days ago on 28 July 2015)
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 11#Pokémon locations (Kanto) – (Initiated 3454 days ago on 28 July 2015)
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 31#Turkishmenistan – (Initiated 3451 days ago on 31 July 2015)
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 31#Male issue – (Initiated 3451 days ago on 31 July 2015)

AfD Requests

First of all, apologies if this is not the correct venue, but it seems to be the most logical place to request this. The 2015 Arras attack article was nominated for deletion yesterday in good faith. I have no issue with said nomination, or the nominator for doing so. It was also listed at WP:ITN/C yesterday. Obviously, a current AfD discussion precludes an appearance on ITN. The significance of the event has become more apparent overnight. The article has been improved and updated. Consensus seems to have formed that the article should be kept, although this is not unanimous (Disclosure, I !voted "keep"). Therefore, I hereby request that the nomination be closed as keep, without prejudice to a renomination on or after 1 September. Such a closure would allow the article to appear at ITN should sufficient consensus be gained for it to do so. If there is a failure to appear at ITN, this request should not be seen as an attempt to subvert the AfD process, but more in the spirit of WP:IAR as an attempt to remove a perceived barrier to the article appearing at ITN. Mjroots (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Administrative

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Final closure of RHB100 - GPS

• We'd need an uninvolved administrator to close the case at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure of RHB100 - GPS, please. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• It seems the involved editors came to an agreement; we'd still need an uninvolved admin for formal closure (for protection against future incidents), please: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#RHB100_time_too_valuable_for_Wikipedia_GPS_article. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Just a friendly reminder that we still need formal closure from an uninvolved admin, please: WP:ANB#Final closure of RHB100 - GPS. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Still waiting for formal closure on WP:ANB#Final closure of RHB100 - GPS -- would you please check, it's easier than it seems. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Lebanese Insurgency detailed map#Controversial edit by LightandDark2000 - color of Hezbollah

• An uninvolved administrator is requested to close discussion concerning belligerent colors in Lebanese insurgency map. It seems all involved parties expressed their opinions, but there is no agreement for implementation - administrator ruling to close this would really help to avoid further disputes.GreyShark (dibra) 06:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Other

• The virtually unanimous consensus a week or two ago to deprecate the huge banner version of the ENGVAR templates (see Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167#Proposal to deprecate Template:English variant notice) is being forum-shopped in an "RFC" that is not actually an RFC, at WP:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Should Template:English variant notice be deprecated? (and WP:VPPRO wouldn't even be the right venue for such a discussion anyway; it would be WP:VPPOL, since this is not a proposal, but is an out-of-process attempt to override consensus at a WP:POLICY (i.e. policy or guideline) in favor of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS nebulously hovering around some template talk pages, of templates for which there was never a consensus to begin with at MOS for "enforcing" MOS:ENGVAR in the heavy-handed manner these banner templates do plastered across the tops of article talk pages and in article and talk page editnotices, so that any editor there is constantly brow-beaten with them; many of the ENGVAR assertions in question have not been subject to a consensus discussion at all, and do not have strong national ties, thus these banners are a WP:OWN problem; these are only some of the reasons they were deprecated).

  I don't know what the intent/motivation is (not being a mind-reader), though I note that I announced a day or two ago that I was working on the WP:TFD for these and a categorization merger plan (the banner templates at issue do not categorize quite the same way as the unobtrusive mainspace equivalents of the banner versions). This pseudo-RFC, pseudo-proposal does not appear to have understood anything in the previous discussion, but is an odd "we need ENGVAR templates!" overreaction. The proper next venue is WP:TFD, at which seen entries in the next day or two (there are some complications to work out, even two of the template are not ENGVAR templates at all, but usurping them for non-MOS purposes to assert a form of "specialized style"; so some proposals for what to do with their underlying intent will need to be worked in).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  14:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  PS: The poster of this not-RfC has given out 30 or so "notices" about the VPPRO discussion, to (according to its wording) anyone who has "had some involvement with" the metatemplate in question (i.e. people who have edited it, i.e. people who are likely to be in favor of it, but who may have not paid attention to it in years much less participated in the recent consensus discussion). WT:MOS was not notified. This appears to be WP:CANVASSING.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  14:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond to this at length at the moment, but I can give a quick statement. I only notified people already "involved" to a certain extent. I notified people that participated in the last deletion discussion (which is part of what the proposal suggests, and basically what it does in essence even if it isn't deleted) Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 7#Varieties of English templates, I notified everyone that participated in the Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167#Sub-national varieties of English? first discussion, those currently in the Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 9#Template:AmericanEnglish discussion where the issue was raised, and a handful of people to recently edit the templates in question. I also posted at the location of the first discussion WT:MOS#Request for comment: Deprecation of the Template:English variant notice, and the talk page of the metatemplate in question. I was not aware of the discussion when it took place on the MoS talk page and I don't call the 4 supports in that archive a proper consensus for any issue this big; it was also never formally closed/evaluated. Both this RfC and the Notices I sent out were neutral, and I feel that I was within Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#WP:APPNOTE. My goal is to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.—Godsy_CONT) 18:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the accusation of canvassing is merited. The poster of the second RfC sent out notices even to people who voted for deprecation in the first RfC, including SMcCandlish, who is known to be a vocal and energetic defender of his views. Seems like reasonably balanced publicization to me.

The issue boils down to this: "We didn't have consensus because I didn't know about the discussion" is not a valid reason to rerun an RfC, but "We didn't have consensus because not enough people knew about the discussion" is. Did enough people know about the first discussion? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course they did. MOS is one of the most watchlisted pages on the entire system and it is the obvious, normal venue for MoS-related discussions, including MOS:ENGVAR ones. The discussion for what to do about the templates, since deprecation, like how to merge their categorization functions, is a WP:TFD matter, and the TfD was already announced (in multiple places, including this very page) as in-preparation. A move that would simultaneously overturn the perfectly valid consensus discussion at WT:MOS, and thwart the upcoming TfD, is out-of-process "panic" about the deprecation notice. It should be hatted with {{Discussion top}}, and normal TfD process should proceed. If someone wants to object to the merging and eventual deletion of the banner version of these templates, they can do so at the TfD, per standard operating procedure.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  02:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Four supports in a subsection of a discussion on a different issue is a valid consensus for the deprecation of templates that appear on 10,000+ pages? Notification about the the discussion was not even posted at the talk page of the metatemplate in question (let alone those of all the templates affected). If it was simply the deletion in question, TFD would be the appropriate forum. It isn't. Deprecation (while close to deletion in some senses) is the concern of the RfC. The only reason I can think of to be opposed to a larger discussion, with the appropriate parts of the community more properly notified, is that the proper consensus might be different.—Godsy_CONT) 04:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

A discussion open long enough to be archived because there was no further interest in commenting on it, on one of the most-watchlisted pages on the entire system, that is actually the correct venue for ENGVAR-related matters, and clearly labeled that it was a proposal to deprecate this stuff, yes, that is sufficient. Anyone working on ENGVAR templates should be following the MOS (i.e. ENGVAR) page (how do they even know what they're implementing if they're not?), and this was a WP:POLICY discussion about whether ENGVAR should be "enforced" in a manner anything like this, not about template coding matters. It is headed next to TfD ("D" stands for "discussion" not "deletion") where everyone watching the template will get notification of the template-specific TfD discussion. The outcome of that discussion could be any number of things, including to rescope and redocument, to delete, to overturn the MOS discussion (maybe to come up with a narrower solution to the issues raised), to merge the other way around, or no consensus, or whatever. A "help save a template I like" WP:PARENT exercise at VP is just heat, not light. All you've done is whipped up a few panicky "huh?" opposes who clearly did not digest and understand the deprecation discussion. They're objections will be factored into the TfD discussion, so I guess I should thank you in a roundabout way. This will go to TfD discussion where it belongs shortly enough. The fact that this heavy-handed banner is used on so many pages without any consensus being found at more than a tiny handful of those articles' talk pages, has a lot to do with why this template was deprecated. That it has no consensus to be used in the majority of places it has been used is easily demonstrated by removing it from a bunch of talk pages, editnotices, etc., to which it has been added without a discussion indicating consensus to do so, and see how many times you get reverted (for me so far: zero). In the process of deprecation-tagging the templates, no one has responded other than you, days after the fact. Clearly the community totally WP:DGAFs about these darned things.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  21:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Competence and civility issues with Koala15

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Competence and civility issues with Koala15 (Initiated 3470 days ago on 12 July 2015)? A close is requested in the subsection Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Closure requested .... Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ideloctober refuses to read or learn about Misplaced Pages Policy over on the Frankfurt School talk page.

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ideloctober refuses to read or learn about Misplaced Pages Policy over on the Frankfurt School talk page. (Initiated 3444 days ago on 7 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested moves

Requested moves backlog

Anyone have a mop? Some of the discussions there are backed up all the way from early February. Erpert 08:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: situation is much improved, but there's still a six-week backlog of move requests. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

As of late July 2015, the backlog is still about one month (and some of the ones in the backlog should actually be easy closes; others?... not so much). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Revision control#Requested move 13 July 2015

Would anyone like to take a shot at closing Talk:Revision control#Requested move 13 July 2015? It's been open for over a month now. Some level of knowledge about computer science/software(?) might be useful. Jenks24 (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Palestine#Requested move 18 August 2015

Procedural closure due to ongoing existing request at Talk:State of Palestine#Requested move 5 August 2015 which involves the same move request. Should be resubmitted after that request has been concluded. Rob984 (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Done by Jenks24. Rob984 (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Bot requests#RfC: Remove persondata practical steps

Removal of wikipedia:persondata by bot: the RfC ran for 30 days, not sure what can be concluded at the end of it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3507 days ago on 5 June 2015)

Talk:Microsoft Surface#Surface ≠ Surface RT

The whole discussion has turned into a trench warfare. TheHoax (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3502 days ago on 10 June 2015)

This discussion was archive boxed on July 14 after an RfC was opened seeking more input on the topic, though that hasn't had any new input in about 4 days and so probably could be closed. PaleAqua (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3469 days ago on 13 July 2015)

Ping. It has been quite a while now without new discussion. A close by an uninvolved editor would be appreciated. PaleAqua (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Borodino#RfC: Should the article infobox contain the result "French Pyrrhic Victory" and Talk:Battle of Borodino#RFC redux; alternative proposal

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Borodino#RfC: Should the article infobox contain the result "French Pyrrhic Victory" and Talk:Battle of Borodino#RFC redux; alternative proposal (Initiated 3484 days ago on 28 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Eliot Higgins#RfC: Is MIT Professor and former UN weapons inspector's opinion on Higgins' weapons analysis admissible?

Would an uninvolved editor please assess Talk:Eliot Higgins#RfC: Is MIT Professor and former UN weapons inspector's opinion on Higgins' weapons analysis admissible? There has been no further debate for 9 days and the editors appear unable to reach an agreement. (Initiated 3462 days ago on 20 July 2015)? Thanks, Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

RfCs usually run for 30 days, for outside editors to weigh in, not just regulars to the page. So, wait a bit and hope others will see the RfC and respond. As a matter of fact, I will add my opinion sometime today. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment The requester seems to have listed the date they requested closure as initiated date instead of the date the discussion started. I've fixed it. Tvx1 17:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Sport season articles and flag use for club nationality

Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Sport season articles and flag use for club nationality? Thanks, Tvx1 11:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3477 days ago on 5 July 2015)

Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films/Archive 4#RfC: How should we classify Baahubali

We need a close. People keep reverting all attempts to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.122.101 (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3456 days ago on 26 July 2015)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers/Archive_152#Binary_prefixes_again

Should be easy, despite the length. This is covered (generally) at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/FAQ#Specialized and is a perennial dispute at MOS, as shown by Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive index binary prefixes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  03:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3487 days ago on 25 June 2015)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification

Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification. (Initiated 3510 days ago on 2 June 2015) —Godsy_CONT) 04:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Not done – MOS:IDENTITY (and related guidance like Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines#How to write about transgender, non-binary, and intersex people) was updated after the initiation of the RfC, with enough support by the participants in that VPP discussion, making a formal closure to the original VPP discussion a superfluous exercise, leave alone whether it would still be possible to provide an adequate closure with many early comments in that discussion referring to the former wording of the MOS guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree, I think a close is warranted, and MOS:IDENTITY should be updated to reflect the consensus (if it is determined that there is one) at the RfC.—Godsy_CONT) 18:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I also think a close is warranted owing to the extensive discussion. The consensus in the discussion should be recorded by an RfC close and the guideline updated if it differs from the consensus at the RfC. Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
• I concur a close is needed, and this would be significant enough it would need an admin closure, preferably by a panel. Francis Schonken is not an admin and his "Not done" is just an expression of what he's not doing. Tweaks to MOS:IDENTITY while that huge RfC was open about MOS:IDENTITY cannot (except by curious accident) represent consensus, but were out-of-process. Commenters at the RfC would have been taking such moves into consideration while commenting anyway (I know I was). It cannot be that an RfC can be WP:GAMEd and mooted by rushing to change the wording one-sidedly while that very wording is under discussion, or we'd simply scrap the whole RfC system as useless.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  04:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:United States#Reiteration

Would an uninvolved administrator please close these discussions:

• Influence of the wealthy / RFC outcome: unanimous support for this RFC outcome;
• Phrasing for inequality RFC segment. No consensus to reverse the RFC outcome; and
• Continued attempts to contravene the RFC outcome.

EllenCT (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Those aren't neutral descriptions. The RFC did not have anything close to "unanimous support" (and indeed the same material had been totally rejected in at least two previous discussions on the same talk page that each involved more editors than your one, finally successful attempt did: , ), though everyone accepted its outcome, and no one has attempted to "reverse" it. The RFC closer only stated that the material could be included "in some form", and it has been. The dispute has been the exact wording of the text inclusion, whether it should be your preferred wording stating the unattributed conclusions of your sources in expanded detail as fact in Misplaced Pages's voice or whether it should be neutrally worded to reflect the expert disagreement on the controversial, inherently subjective matter and broadened to a detail level appropriate for a country summary article. Also, there should probably be a direct link to this section with the scholarly sources I provided disputing your sources' conclusions (and pointing out that even your own sources concede they don't represent the expert consensus, meaning your wording doesn't even accurately reflect them). Since I posted those additional sources no editor has supported your wording, and the only other editor to bother participating in the discussion has opposed it. Clearly your wording does not currently enjoy consensus (or source) support. To admin - if this post is inappropriate here I apologize. I'm not trying to start a content debate on this page, but I wasn't sure how else to respond to the slanted characterizations above. VictorD7 (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Update - If anyone does examine this, he/she should also take into count these RFCs: , , . EllenCT has been launching overlapping RFCs every couple of weeks trying to include specific factoids on the "inequality" theme. The first one was rejected, the closing consensus being that the proposal was too overly detailed and convoluted in a niche topic for a broad summary country article. The second one hasn't yet been closed, but only has 3 supports and at least 10 clear opposes (with 1 criticizing the RFC as "confusing") for essentially the same reasons. The third one is still relatively new but so far has no support and 5 opposes. This is pertinent here because a strong consensus has emerged against including the type of cherry-picked, niche inequality detail EllenCT has been pushing. In deciding whether or not to allow her to expand the segment primarily in question here, especially while purging and disregarding the disputing source material, these more recent talk page sentiment developments should be taken into account. VictorD7 (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Done, i.e. I closed Talk:United States#Reiteration. Recombined summaries of discussions that have taken place elsewhere can not be closed with an actionable outcome. Please list discussions you want to see closed one at the time, i.e. on this page one section header per RfC or self-contained discussion. Link to the section header where a discussion or RfC starts, not the nth subsection that gives some overview of some related or unrelated discussions as you would like to see it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Transhumanist politics#RfC: How should the Transhumanist Party be described?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Transhumanist politics#RfC: How should the Transhumanist Party be described? (Initiated 3474 days ago on 8 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators/RfC for binding administrator recall

Would anybody close this RfC? The proposer has signaled here that he is no longer interested in discussing this. Thanks. Kraxler (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3446 days ago on 5 August 2015)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive896#Subtropical-man

Would an uninvolved admin please assess this? It has been open since 10 August 2015. Erpert 03:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)(Initiated 3441 days ago on 10 August 2015)

Talk:I'm Coming Out#Infobox image

Assessment is needed. --George Ho (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#RfC: infobox country?

Could an uninvolved admin please assess and close this (Initiated 3459 days ago on 23 July 2015)? It should have been submitted a week ago when it became obvious that new community opinions weren't forthcoming. Legobot removed the template, but I've restored it. As everyone would be aware, it's a highly problematic article and edit warring has broken out over interpretations of the consensus. No one involved would dare close it, and it in desperate need being closed. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

 Closed Mdann52 (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Administrative backlog