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 |
Click to create a log page for next month (2024 July)
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]
2024 May[edit]
1933 NFL Championship Game (closed)[edit]
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it. |
AFC Championship Game (closed)[edit]
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Note that this move review applies equally to the simultaneous close at Talk:1933 NFL Championship Game#Requested move 3 May 2024 with same non-admin closer and poor explanation. Closer's reasons, added late, are not very related to the discussion. Three main points made are not supported in the discussion:
A proper close would have mentioned and substatially downweighted the claims based only in "official" usage, and would have discounted the content-free oppose votes by O.N.R, and by Randy Kryn on the 1933 case, and would have discounted the claims of "Clear proper noun" and "Clear and obvious proper name" presented without evidence or reference to guidelines about how such things are evaluated. I could understand a "no consensus" close (and closer admits sometimes the consensus just isn't there, but given the thin participation (with 4–6 and 3–7 !votes), a relisting would have been much more sensible. I recommend overturn and relist. Also WP:RMCI says in the nutshell that "If you are not an administrator you should be cautious when closing contentious requests;" obviously admins should also be cautious, but this closer's simple unexplained (until after I asked) "not moved" was anything but cautious, and the topic is clearly contentious. Dicklyon (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2024 (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. |
Ernst August von Hannover (born 1983) (closed)[edit]
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The move discussion proved beyond any doubt that the English-language common name in reliable sources is "Prince Ernst August of Hanover". Multiple sources were provided, while no English-language sources were provided for the German name now used as the article title. The closer selected the German-language name on the basis that "a majority of reliable sources do not use the title" and that the naming convention "doesn't favor English sources". Firstly, it was not shown in the discussion that "a majority of reliable sources do not use the title". Secondly, even if it could be shown that the majority of non-English sources use the German name, the naming convention is not meant to be read as if English-language sources are less relevant than other language sources. English-language sources take precedence. The guideline states: "It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English" and "For claimants to titles which have been suppressed, follow the general article titling policy". Thirdly, even if the guideline does mean reliable sources in all languages, the article-titling policy favours English-language sources, and it takes precedence over the naming convention. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
2018–2019 Gaza border protests (closed)[edit]
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Despite around 40 very high quality sources being provided to prove that "Great March of Return" was indeed the WP:COMMONNAME, the request was closed as no consensus due to some opposition that did not provide any guideline-based counteraguments. The closer cited on their talk page that some opposers claimed that some of the sources using this name were cherrypicked; but this claim was refuted by the argument that these sources using "Great March of Return" were newer, which actually further aligns with WP:NPOVNAME that gives an exception for names "remembered or connected with a particular issue years later." Furthermore, they were only a tiny portion of the 40 RS provided. This page move fully aligns with WP guidelines and has 40 very high quality sources supporting it as the common name; there is no reason for it to be rejected. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2024 (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. |
Multiple page move of David articles (closed)[edit]
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Discussion
|
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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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
|