Wikipedia:Move review
 |
| Formal review processes |
|---|
|
|
|
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: |
| Administrators' noticeboard |
| In bot-related matters: |
|
|
| Discussion about closes prior to closing: |
Move review is a process to formally discuss and evaluate a contested close of Wikipedia page move discussions, including requested moves (RM), categories for discussion discussions (CfD), and redirects for discussion discussions (RfD), to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.
Prior to submitting a review of a page move's close, please attempt to resolve any issues on the closer's talk page. See step one below.
While the page move close is under review, any involved editor is free to revert any undiscussed moves of a nominated page without those actions being considered a violation of Wikipedia:No wheel warring.
What this process is not
[edit]This review process should be focused on the move discussion and the subsequent results of the move discussion, not on the person who closed the discussion. If you have ongoing concerns about a closer, please consult with the closer or post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Move review requests which cast aspersions or otherwise attack other editors may be speedily closed.
Do not request a move review if someone has boldly moved a page and you disagree. Instead, attempt to discuss it with the editor, and if the matter continues to be unresolved, start a formal WP:RM discussion on the article's talk page.
Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a page move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion.
Disagreements with Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions (WP:RMCI), WP:Article titles, the Manual of Style, a naming convention or the community norm of consensus should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page.
CfDs[1] and RfDs can only be reviewed here if the relevant discussion was limited in scope to renaming; CfDs or RfDs[2] involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review.
Instructions
[edit]Initiating move reviews
[edit]Editors desiring to initiate a move review should follow the steps listed below. In the reason parameter, editors should limit their requests to one or both of the following reasons:
- [Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because [explain rationale here] in closing this requested move discussion.
- [Closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: [identify information here] and the discussion should be reopened and relisted.
Editors initiating a move review discussion should be familiar with the closing instructions provided in WP:RMCI.
Steps to list a new review request
[edit]| 1. |
Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page. Move review is a process that takes several days, sometimes weeks, to close. On the closer's talk page, you can probably resolve the matter much more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full, formal move review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, and you decide to request a review of the closure, please note in the review that you did first try discussing the matter with the closer. To clarify: You absolutely MUST attempt to discuss the matter with the closer FIRST, and give them a few days to respond. |
| 2. |
Follow this link to this month's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the contested move page, rm_page with the name of the move discussion page if needed, rm_section if needed, closer and closer_section with the post-move discussion information, and reason with the reason why the page move should be reviewed. For example: Copy this template skeleton for most pages:
{{subst:move review list
|page=
|rm_page= <!--Not needed if the move discussion is on the talk page of the page-->
|rm_section= <!--Name of the section with the move request-->
|closer= <!--User name of editor who closed the move request-->
|closer_section= <!--Name of the section of closer's talk page where discussion took place-->
|reason=
}} ~~~~
If either the
are correctly filled in, the result will include a "Discussion with closer" link to that discussion. If the |
| 3. |
If you have not done so already, inform the closer of the Move review discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
| 4. |
Leave notice of the move review in the same section as, but outside of and above the closed original move discussion. Use the following template: |
| 5. |
If the current month discussions are not already included in the discussion section below. Add the new log page to the top of the active discussions section.
|
| 6. |
The discussion with closer and notices required above are sufficient notification; you are not required to individually notify participants in the prior move discussion of the move review. However, if you individually notify any of them, you must individually notify all of them by posting a message about the move review on each participant's respective user talk page. |
Commenting in a move review
[edit]In general, commenters should prefix their comments with either Endorse or Overturn (optionally stating an alternative close) followed by their reasoning. Generally, the rationale should be an analysis of whether the closer properly followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, whether it was within closer's discretion and reasonably interpreted consensus in the discussion, while keeping in mind the spirit of Wikipedia policy, precedent and project goal. Commenters should be familiar with WP:RMCI, which sets forth community norms for closers of page move discussions.
If the close is considered premature because of on-going discussion or if significant relevant information was not considered during the discussion, commenters should suggest Relist followed by their rationale.
Commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review.
The closer of the page move under discussion should feel free to provide additional rationale as to why they closed the RM in the manner they did and why they believe the close followed the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI.
Remember that move review is not an opportunity to rehash, expand upon or first offer your opinion on the proper title of the page in question – move review is not a do-over of the WP:RM discussion but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process (in the absence of significant new information). Thus, the action specified should be the editor's analysis of whether the close of the discussion was reasonable or unreasonable based on the debate and applicable policy and guidelines. Providing evidence such as page views, ghits, ngrams, challenging sourcing and naming conventions, etc. to defend a specific title choice is not within the purview of a move review. Evidence should be limited to demonstrating that the RM closer did or did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing the page move discussion.
Closing reviews
[edit]A nominated page should remain on move review for at least seven days. After seven days, an uninvolved editor will determine whether a consensus exists to either endorse the close or overturn the close. If that consensus is to Overturn Close, the MRV closer should take the appropriate actions to revert any title changes resulting from the RM close. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at Wikipedia:Requested moves, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, or Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If the consensus is to Endorse Close, no further action is required on the article title. If the MRV closer finds that there is no consensus in the move review, then in most cases this has the same effect as Endorse Close and no action is required on the article title. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; MRV closers may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.
Use {{subst:move review top}} and {{subst:move review bottom}} to close such discussions.
Also, add a result to the {{move review talk}} template on the talk page where the original discussion took place, e.g. {{move review talk|date=April 24 2015|result=Closure endorsed}}.
Typical move review decision options
[edit]The following set of options represent the typical results of a move review decision, although complex page move discussions involving multiple title changes may require a combination of these options based on the specific details of the RM and MRV discussions.
| MRV closer's decision | RM closer's decision | Move review closed as | Status of RM after MRV close |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Endorse | Moved / Not moved | No action required | Closed |
| 2. Overturn | Not moved | Option 1: (If RM consensus is unclear or significantly divided) Reopen and relist RM | Open |
| Option 2: (If consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RM | Closed | ||
| Moved | Move title back to pre-RM title, and reopen and relist RM if appropriate | Open | |
| 3. Relist | Moved / Not moved | Reopen and relist RM and if moved, move title back to pre-RM title | Open |
Notes
[edit]- ^ Those that involve renames (Template:Cfr), for all other types of CFDs use deletion review.
- ^ Generally for those that don't involve any proposed or suggested deletion, where only the redirect's target was being discussed or if the redirect should be a disambiguation page, for other (even those that were retargeted where deletion was proposed or considered) use deletion review.
Active discussions
[edit]Another situation basically identical to Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 November#Carousel (film), where the same editor closed a discussion with no consensus either way as "not moved" when that wasn't the consensus. And they're insisting I shouldn't challenge the closure because I didn't participate, which is not how that works at all Overturn to no consensus or relist for the same reason that was overturned. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Relist There was not enough discussion to identify consensus. Furthermore, the !voters' rationale is faulty: WP:PFILM and WP:INCDAB are both guidelines, so they share the same level of consensus. This is not a WikiProject page or an essay, and INCDAB is not a policy. Furthermore, WP:PRECISION, which is a policy, clearly states that subject-specific naming conventions that exempt from the general guidelines are permissible. Hence, PFILM takes precedence over INCDAB in this matter. This should be an uncontroversial move. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- (uninvolved) I suppose the right answer continues to be relist per my reasoning in the last MRV (WP:PFILM specifically carves out an exception from WP:INCDAB, which is allowed), but I have the sneaking suspicion we're dealing with a WP:LOCALCON here: until there's a widely attended RfC at a neutral forum (like WP:VPP), we're just going to keep seeing this conversation repeat itself. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Or we could just enforce the guidelines as written. SportingFlyer T·C 03:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Regardless of the level of consensus the guideline had when it was added a decade ago (that's how most guidelines were written in the early days anyway), numerous RMs and discussions over the year have made consensus pretty clear. We have many high-profile examples such as Titanic (1997 film), Avatar (2009 film), and Parasite (2019 film). InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- On the other hand there are 12 entries at WP:Partially disambiguated page names#(film), and another 26 (film) entries at WP:Partially disambiguated page names#Partially disambiguated article titles detected but not yet studied. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I've been saying for years those should be moved. But some of them don't even belong on the list, such as the foreign-language films and ones with subtitles that are only partial title matches and already have sufficiently distinct (i.e. naturally disambiguated) titles. But that list is merely an information page maintained by a handful of editors, so they can choose whatever inclusion criteria they see fit. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- On the other hand there are 12 entries at WP:Partially disambiguated page names#(film), and another 26 (film) entries at WP:Partially disambiguated page names#Partially disambiguated article titles detected but not yet studied. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- I hadn't noticed that this is the same closer as before (as Pppery did mention). That's more of a problem—evidently the message from the previous MRV didn't sink in. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Relist I don't edit in the film world, but this should be a crystal clear move based on our site-wide policies and guidelines. I'll grill some trout for the "didn't even participate in the discussion" as well. SportingFlyer T·C 03:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Relist (uninvolved) - seems to be a pretty clear cut premature call of consensus from a NAC. If it was closed no consensus that probably would have been okay, but since they asserted consensus when there was none, a relist would best resolve this matter. TiggerJay (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- As per my comments on the Carousel MR while I don't expect the outcome to be any different (eg the title will not likely move) it is important to preserve the integrity of the NAC process by clarifying that a move was contentious and closed without consensus. When a NAC performs a close of a contentious discussion we expect due care to be provided, and often it is highly advisable to address any opposing views that you're discounting for whatever reason. I do objected to the idea that the results are the same between the two (no-consensus vs not-moved) because if the situation was revered, say they closed it "moved per consensus", then people would be very much concerned about them not addressing the lack of consensus issues -- why should it only matter if it results in a page move? TiggerJay (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Relist (uninvolved) per Tiggerjay. Only the nominator and three responders commented, equally split 2–2 between support and opposition, with relevant guidelines supported on both sides. No consensus was evident on this contentious matter. The declaration of a consensus appears to be a supervote. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Relist (uninvolved) for the reasons given above. I am concerned that the closer appears to have remade the same mistake that was discussed in Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 November#Carousel (film) without changing or adapting their closing process or given extra attention to this issue. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strong endorse (the closer): Well well, let's just clear up how this closure came to be. Firstly, pppery's claim,
they're insisting I shouldn't challenge the closure because I didn't participate
isn't what I said at all; pppery could have misinterpreted my commentyou did not even participate
which I did not use as a rebuttal (so I'll decline that trout, sports flyer). Secondly, I provided the reasoning in my talk, which pperpy hasn't addressed, nor has he given his own reasoning for challenging the closure; ppery isn't even doing that here, instead directing to "this user closed a discussion wrong and must have done that again here too." And even after I explained my reasoning, I advised ppery to talk about my closure with the participants of the discussion, and he didn't do that, so I'll ping. @Tbhotch @Erik @Station1 @Amakuru, your input would be appreciated here. I will also address to InfiniteNexus that adding one's own points to a closed discussion isn't how move review works. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 21:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)- @Yovt, because you point to the reasoning given on your talk page "Overall, this discussion was rightfully closed as Not Moved because it just wasn't moved" (emphasis yours) can you clarify:
- If you see a difference between "no consensus" closures versus a consensus decision such as "not move"?
- How you interept the previous move review and its closure at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 November#Carousel (film) and if you feel it should or should not have any bearing on this discssion at all?
- Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:RMCIDC states:I will also address to InfiniteNexus that adding one's own points to a closed discussion isn't how move review works.
Any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it.
This RM is in direct violation of a naming-convention guideline, WP:PFILM, which the policies WP:PRECISION and WP:ATEC say overrides WP:INCDAB. Furthermore, any claims that PFILM should be ignored even though it has the same level of authority as INCDAB should be discarded, as they have no grounds. IAR isn't a free pass to protest consensus-established guidelines by selectively enforcing them. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)- I really don't know how else to interpret
Pppery, with all due respect, you did not even participate in the Elephant Man RM you mention. Neither of the participants there have reached out to me regarding the closure.
SportingFlyer T·C 00:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- I really don't know how else to interpret
- @Yovt, because you point to the reasoning given on your talk page "Overall, this discussion was rightfully closed as Not Moved because it just wasn't moved" (emphasis yours) can you clarify:
- Endorse (involved). As I said in the discussion, there's no reason why films should be an exception to the sitewide WP:INCDAB guideline. Sure, there's another guideline at WP:NCF that tells us not to do it, but as Station1 mentioned at the talk page there is no logical reason why that should be the case. Or at least none that I've seen. Most of the objections seem to be objections that would apply to any partial dab primary topic and we know that such objections have already been rejected by the community in its decision to allow WP:INCDABs. So according to the principle of WP:COMMONSENSE, and putting readers first, there is absolutely no reason why this article should have been moved and the closer correctly determined that there wasn't a consensus to move. (It's possible it could have been declared "no consensus" instead of "consensus against", but that's really a cosmetic difference and not something that anyone should be getting in a twist over; either way the article stays where it is. — Amakuru (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- COMMONSENSE can't overrule an established guideline, though - you'd need an RfC. SportingFlyer T·C 00:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Gulf of Mexico (closed)
[edit]| The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This RM was closed after less than an hour being open, when there had only been three comments, with no reasoning or explanation provided behind the early closure. This is on a talk page which has had numerous edit requests asking to change the title, so it is clearly not a foregone conclusion. The closer also participated in a related RfC further up the talk page so isn't an uninvolved editor. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 22:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it. |
Great Tri-State Tornado (closed)
[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
There are eight participants in the discussion including the nom. At face value, six participants appear to support the move. However, two participants actually "support" retaining the original title and another two give qualified support. Two participants support an alternative which should also be read as opposing the move to Great Tri-State Tornado. The nom's case is largely one of personal preference - that they don't like the year being in the former title (1925 Tri-State tornado). The alternative proposal is argued with reference to the prevailing P&G (particularly that at WP:AT). The remaining votes save one make no explicit reference to prevailing P&G. That one states:
|
| The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it. |
Matthew Shepard (closed)
[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Closing editor has been active for less than a week and has fewer than 100 edits. While I don't personally have issues with their rationale per se, when I asked other editors about this, a few others also expressed concerns. Given the closer's response to my attempt to discuss with them, I feel an admin's involvement with this is warranted. DonIago (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it. |
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2024 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2023 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2022 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2021 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2020 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2019 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2018 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2017 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2016 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2015 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2014 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2013 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2012 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
 | Search Move review archives
| |