Wikipedia:Closure requests

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 182 days are automatically archived by .

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where the consensus is obvious.

In discussions where consensus is entirely clear to everyone involved, there is no need for a formal close: just go ahead and implement the decision! Discussions should only be posted here when an uninvolved closer is actually needed to resolve the matter.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result. Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. This will set appropriate categories and trigger ClueBot III to archive the request. To revert a closure, please remove |done=yes and wrap your {{Done}} with strike through.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead, follow the advice at Wikipedia:Closing discussions § Challenging a closure.

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 December 18#Template:List with serial comma

(Initiated 33 days ago on 18 December 2025)
voorts (talk/contributions) 01:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#RFC: Amount of coverage in reliable primary news sources

Done - (Initiated 123 days ago on 18 September 2025)
Coming up on 30 days and discussion has slowed, so listing now. This discussion obviously covers several CTOPs. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... Iseult^Δxtalk to me 04:30, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to carry out this close owing to concerns over whether many of the participants are engaging with the primary part of the question and how it might then interact with the policy WP:PRIMARY, but will leave my notes below for whatever unfortunate soul does pick this up. The !vote-count is 22-8-3; 13/22 !votes for option 1 are clear that reliable primary source coverage should by no means be the sole consideration. There's then, considering only !votes, consensus for option 1, weighing other considerations heavily. More broadly, there's concern everywhere over WP:NOTNEWS and applicability of option 1 to current events and crimes. Some other concerns raised included the possibility of harm to people named, the relative unreliability of early reporting, and the general rush to edit Wikipedia when an event of note occurs. Iseult^Δxtalk to me 05:07, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~~Then, I'll take on this one. It needs doing, and I don't really mind doing the closes that will take some heat. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC)~~[reply]

I was mentioned during the discussion, so it would be inappropriate for me to close it. I will leave this for someone else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some RfCs don't need to be closed, and imo, this is one of them. Some1 (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why?? This was a major controversy that the RFC was supposed to settle. -- Beland (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An incorrect reading or closure of "#RFC: Amount of coverage in reliable primary news sources" will just add more confusion to the already vague BLPCRIME policy. And I think the community is doing a great job so far deciding on a case-by-case, page-by-page basis on whether the suspects' names should be included in the article. See Talk:2025 Bondi Beach shooting/Archive 3#Request for Comment - Naming of alleged perpetrators for example, where the consensus was swift and clear. Some1 (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Some1: you are heavily involved in these disputes. A significant group of editors disagrees with your view of things and their concerns should be weighed based on PAGs to determine this question. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are also heavily involved in these disputes, and if Iseult's vote count is accurate, 22-8 is not at all "a significant group" who "disagrees with my views". Either way, the RfC has been opened for four months now and I don't think it needs a formal close. If others disagree, that's fine, too. We'll just wait for an admin who's willing to close this. Some1 (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Some1, @Voorts, @Beland; Any objections to my closing it? MWFwiki (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to involved editors to object to the closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, given the seeming contentiousness, just wanted to ensure there were no on-the-face objections. I'll close it. MWFwiki (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... MWFwiki (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done MWFwiki (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! -- Beland (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Recall check-in#Recall check-in

(Initiated 91 days ago on 21 October 2025)
Rescinded previous close, someone else should take a look at this. Dr vulpes (Talk) 09:43, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is a parrelel/related RfC at Admin recall petition signature threshold & length that was initiated based on this close. CNC (talk) 11:28, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I already did some counting and analysis in that followup RFC, I wrote my analysis up in more detail at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Recall check-in#Some attempted analysis. Note I !voted in the check-in and my analysis there should not be taken as an attempt at a close; I just hope it might be helpful for whoever does decide to take it on. Anomie ⚔ 15:07, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian, just letting you know about this incase you didn't see it. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:30, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr vulpes Thanks for the ping! GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 20:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to mop this up if someone mops up the BLP coverage RFC above. -- Beland (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beland, I asked if there is any objection to a no-consensus close. I draw your attention to it so that any replies might inform your next steps. Dw31415 (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Imo, this RfC doesn't need a formal closure, especially now that we have Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Recall petition signature threshold and length. Some1 (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 502#RFC: Olympedia

(Initiated 62 days ago on 18 November 2025)
Has been a month. CNC (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has been archived to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 502#RFC: Olympedia. Please restore from the archive if you close the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC about inclusion of 186,000 death toll estimate in infobox

Done - (Initiated 55 days ago on 26 November 2025)
I closed the RfC on 26 December, a month after the RfC started; however, the closure received pushback. Whoever is WP:UNINVOLVED in the case and is reading this, please first decide whether you think the current closure is appropriate; if not, you have my permission to remove it as long as the rules are being followed. After doing so, please create your own closure. You can also add onto my closure if you agree with the basics of it but think it needs more information. Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is so contentious, there could also be farther discussion requested before making any changes. Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor662: I suggest you start a RfC closure review request at WP:AN. M.Bitton (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done! Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton, would you please confirm: 662 should take their own closure to AN? I would expect they should revert it or let someone else take it to AN. I would also expect that as the nom, they should revert their own close if there is pushback that the result is not obvious. Dw31415 (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for them to revert their own close. M.Bitton (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: RfC has been re-opened for now. Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done by S Marshall. CNC (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Charlie Kirk#RfC on main image

Done - (Initiated 54 days ago on 26 November 2025)
RfC has been running for a month and a half and is ready to be closed. I participated and it would be better if I did not close it myself. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... MWFwiki (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Wikieditor662 tagging for convenience — MWFwiki (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC: "Scholarly consensus there is genocide" Wikivoice in lead

(Initiated 51 days ago on 30 November 2025)
RFC template expired. Please see Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_12#RfC_on_first_sentence for previous RFC on the same topic and note the existence of a moratorium discussion at Talk:Gaza_genocide#Moratorium_proposal. TarnishedPath^talk 10:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Black_Japanese#RFC_on_edit_war

(Initiated 50 days ago on 30 November 2025)
This RfC could use a close by an experienced editor or admin. Some1 (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#Per RfC: adding ban on AI-redrawn "enhanced" images

(Initiated 47 days ago on 4 December 2025)
Technically not an RfC, but deserves a close so the result can be implemented. May require a little bartendering of the wording. Listing here so this doesn't get forgotten. Toadspike [Talk] 08:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a discussion about the use of AI to remove watermarks, signatures and other marks of ownership. I suggest that this gets specific attention from the community in order to produce a robust, clear consensus.—S Marshall T/C 09:12, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall You are welcome to advertise this more widely. In theory it only serves to implement the result of a previous RfC, but the discussion has sprawled in a way that makes this more complicated. Toadspike [Talk] 10:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reluctant to be seen to participate in the RfC by advertising it, in case the community feels it makes me involved, which would limit my ability to close RfCs about AI images in the future. I'd prefer just to suggest it here if that's OK.—S Marshall T/C 10:31, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...if anything, suggesting topics for discussion makes you far more involved than posting a neutral notification of a discussion on relevant noticeboards or talk pages (though I now see that my suggestion doesn't address your suggestion). Since you have an opinion on this, you could leave the closing to someone else – there will always be another closer. Toadspike [Talk] 11:02, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See those hundred-plus day-old closure requests up there? I'm involved. :)—S Marshall T/C 11:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists 2

Done - (Initiated 43 days ago on 7 December 2025)
-- Beland (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 02:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done voorts (talk/contributions) 03:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC on reliability of behindthename.com

(Initiated 36 days ago on 14 December 2025)
Ready to be closed -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Reform UK#RFC DeSmog wording

(Initiated 31 days ago on 19 December 2025)
One comment in past two weeks, has run it's course. CNC (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
v
t
e
V	Nov	Dec	Jan	Total
CfD	1	45	121	167
TfD	0	0	42	42
MfD	0	0	15	15
FfD	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	17	17
AfD	0	0	47	47

Small sports category discussions

Oldest (Initiated 55 days ago on 25 November 2025)
. These are all essentially the same discussion, with the same fundamental dispute, and I just don't want to deal. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_January_8#Category:Ethnic Armenian people

(Initiated 54 days ago on 26 November 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026 January 10#Category:Thai occult

Done - (Initiated 45 days ago on 6 December 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 10#Category:Thai occult. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Beland (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 31#Interim housing

Done - (Initiated 44 days ago on 6 December 2025)
voorts (talk/contributions) 05:36, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done by TechnoSquirrel69. -- Beland (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality veternarians categories

(Initiated 42 days ago on 9 December 2025)
Another messy fundamental debate over how to handle categories split over 3 discussions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025 December 10#Category:Honduran film directors

Done - (Initiated 41 days ago on 10 December 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025 December 10#Category:Arab film directors

(Initiated 40 days ago on 10 December 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_December_12#Category:Typographers_and_type_designers

(Initiated 38 days ago on 12 December 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 9#ˀ

(Initiated 37 days ago on 13 December 2025)
voorts (talk/contributions) 16:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_December_25#Category:Books about the People's Republic of China

(Initiated 33 days ago on 17 December 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_December_18#Years_in_Russia_(16th_century,_including_establishments)

(Initiated 33 days ago on 18 December 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_December_19#Category:Serbs of Croatia

(Initiated 33 days ago on 18 December 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 10#Gouine

(Initiated 29 days ago on 22 December 2025)
voorts (talk/contributions) 05:16, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 11#OVNI

(Initiated 18 days ago on 1 January 2026)
voorts (talk/contributions) 06:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 January 9#English variation templates

(Initiated 11 days ago on 9 January 2026)
This appears fairly clear. Can we please get an independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 13:07, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Merge proposals

Talk:Brasileodactylus#Merge Cearadactylus or not

Done - (Initiated 207 days ago on 26 June 2025)
6 months should be enough? FaviFake (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. @FaviFake feel free to request any that are >6 months. CNC (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CommunityNotesContributor Thanks! My comment was mostly ironic :) If want to have a go at a few more, there are always a ton of these discussions in the merge proposal backlog, especially the older ones. Or else i'll just keep listing them here :) FaviFake (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:In a Perfect World (Kanye West album)#This is never coming out

(Initiated 67 days ago on 14 November 2025)
2 months without closure FaviFake (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Anti-submarine mortar#Proposed merge of Anti-submarine mortar with Anti-submarine rocket

(Initiated 46 days ago on 4 December 2025)
—Opecuted (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganized per WP:MERGE; tagged both pages appropriately. Hopefully that gets more discussion. Iseult^Δxtalk to me 21:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of cities in New Zealand#Merge various articles

(Initiated 43 days ago on 8 December 2025)
Discussion stopped, 1 month since nom. FaviFake (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Aramaic square script#Merge proposal

(Initiated 15 days ago on 4 January 2026)
The discussion has stalled. FaviFake (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning merge proposals above this line using a level 3 heading

Requested moves

Talk:Glenfiddich#Requested move 5 January 2026

(Initiated 17 days ago on 2 January 2026)
TarnishedPath^talk 04:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation#Requested move 5 January 2026

Done - (Initiated 14 days ago on 5 January 2026)
TarnishedPath^talk 04:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted by BD2412. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not closed for now. To editors TarnishedPath and BD2412: this discussion is far too active to be ready for closure. This request can be resubmitted at a later date. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 20:47, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Rocks, New South Wales#Requested move 11 January 2026

(Initiated 9 days ago on 11 January 2026)
TarnishedPath^talk 04:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RMs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Saint Valentine's Day Massacre#See also - List of organized crime killings in Illinois

(Initiated 146 days ago on 26 August 2025)
- Whether or not {{section link}} should be used in a "See also" section. -- Beland (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 21:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth Does this mean this entry can be removed? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, perhaps as said below, the closer can move it out of the archive when they close it. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. FaviFake (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have unarchived this to note that I started an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#RFC: Piped links in "See also" sections. Perhaps that will resolve the issue more clearly. -- Beland (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested close of that RFC in the above section. -- Beland (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Forspoken#Total_available_sales_data_of_Japan_release

(Initiated 65 days ago on 15 November 2025)
- The question is whether this version achieved consensus in the discussion or not. The two changes (adding most recent sales data and adjustment of unclear/WP:OR wording) have been disputed for some time. The latter is also a follow-up adjustment to the recently closed RfC, in case that is relevant to the closer. A WP:30 editor concluded that consensus was reached, but that decision is not accepted, which is why a formal closure by an uninvolved editor is needed. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gaza genocide#Moratorium proposal

Done - (Initiated 16 days ago on 3 January 2026)
This isn't an RFC, but a formal close will still be needed. It's been open for almost two weeks and discussion seems to have slowed down. Chess enjoyer (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Closure in progress. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 14:54, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 16:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

V	Nov	Dec	Jan	Total
CfD	1	45	121	167
TfD	0	0	42	42
MfD	0	0	15	15
FfD	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	17	17
AfD	0	0	47	47

V	Nov	Dec	Jan	Total
CfD	1	45	121	167
TfD	0	0	42	42
MfD	0	0	15	15
FfD	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	17	17
AfD	0	0	47	47