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.

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 and RfDs can only be reviewed here if the relevant discussion was limited in scope to renaming; CfDs or RfDs involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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.

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=
}}  ~~~~

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.

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}}.

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.

Denali (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

The closer's claim of "no consensus" after the bare minimum 7 days rests on a false premise. They claimed that "quite a lot" of input was not based on policy or guideline, which is just plain wrong. Many, many arguments cite project guides and rules. Surprisingly many actually, in an RM that is tangentially connected to the current president, where heated opinions often bubble. The closer then used this discarding of votes to whittle down the vast leaning towards oppose (2/3rds to 1/3rd) and declare a "No Consensus." All this does is punt the discussion to the future, which is literally ("Once things have settled down, another RM should be made...") what the closer wants. Overall, bad close, please relist or close as "Not Moved." Zaathras (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Endorse of the close of No Consensus - My machine count of the !votes is 76 Support, 105 Oppose, and No Consensus is a valid judgment by the closer of consensus. After 181 !votes, a Relist would be stupid. The appellant states correctly that what the close does is to punt the discussion to the future, which is exactly what should be done, to allow time for public opinion and the opinions of editors to stabilize. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Machine counts never work on these type of discussions because people use the keywords in their rationales. I used the manual counting method twice, and got 50-86 (37%-63%), which is definitely in Oppose territory. Black Kite (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-Open Even if the end result would be the same, this was a very active discussion that was closed a week after it opened. That was way too soon. Usually when we see closures after a week it's because there were five or six editors discussing the RM and it had slowed to a crawl. I expected two-three weeks or when we saw participation slow to a crawl. Procedurally, it can be closed in seven days, but we are also supposed to look at the polling situation and use some good judgement. I'm not convinced that was done here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-open per the above. The RfC was still gaining comments, and as mentioned elsewhere I am unconvinced that No Consensus was the right call anyway, given the heavy preponderance of Oppose !votes and the weakness of a number of Support rationales. Black Kite (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. < uninvolved > This a rare instance when there is a long discussion, a preponderance of opposition, and the abundant unliklihood that a consensus to move would be achieved any time soon. Editors are asked to go with the flow on this one and allow some time, at least three months, study this RM with an eye toward improving supportive arguments, and then open a fresh move request. Good, strong rebuttals to the present opposition rationales are badly needed if editors want to be successful. On the other hand, if editors want to fruitlessly debate this issue for several weeks, then by all means relist it. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  11:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? I clearly said on my talk page that I was willing to reconsider the closure. Rather than respond further and try to convince me, you've gone straight to the nuclear option?

That said, I lean to endorsing my own closure. This was already a long discussion, and relisting for an entire second week would lean to one of those unpleasant situations where a long and controversial discussion is longer than it needs to be. More importantly, the key here is that we need to wait and evaluate the sources. If the sources are changing while we're discussing, we have !votes on day 3 based on some sources and !votes on day 12 based on others that the day-3ers didn't even know about... this is manageable when it's a small discussion, but on this scale it just becomes a giant mess that can be avoided by closing the discussion on schedule.

I also respectfully don't buy the argument that it should have been relisted because discussion was ongoing. The point of a relist is to clarify consensus, and often to get more participation. As noted on my talk page: WP:RMCI tells us: Relisting is an option when a discussion cannot otherwise be closed, usually due to lack of consensus. Editors are under no obligation to wait to close a move request after it is relisted. Once a move request has been open for the full seven days, it may be closed at any time by an uninvolved editor. There is no consensus here, true (that's why I closed it that way), but relisting for seven days is unlikely to help things, as Paine Ellsworth says. There's more than enough participation already.

Regarding questioning of my "no consensus" close itself: as I said in my closing statement, there's simply no consensus about the applicability of WP:NAMECHANGES. We cannot agree on a WP:COMMONNAME, probably because the rename happened only a week ago. If anything here was premature, it was the launching of this RM – basically the same day as the change happened. The RM should not have been started so early because it was difficult to properly evaluate the sources. Cremastra (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And that is a reasonable conclusion. I wish that had happened in 2015. But we have big discussions going on about the word Century that has been open since January 3. It's now late in closing but that's what we usually see. This seemed like a rush. Had you closed this with "Because details are still coming in and the !votes reflect that changing dynamic, lets wait 30-60 days and try again" perhaps many would have calmed down or not been upset with the close. I actually think it was started so soon because the same was done in 2015 when the official change simply won out in consensus. So this RM was started when someone assumed the same thing would happen. Obviously not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You say, Had you closed this with "Because details are still coming in and the !votes reflect that changing dynamic, lets wait 30-60 days and try again" perhaps many would have calmed down or not been upset with the close.

For the record, by my understanding that's pretty much what the close did say. Sources seem to be in a bit of disarray as to what to call the mountain, and this discussion reflects that: things are still changeing, and there no consensus as to whether or not a new WP:COMMONNAME has been established to meet WP:NAMECHANGES. Once things have settled down, another RM should be made, and sources should be evaluated.

The main difference I see is that the close provided reached a conclusion on the content of the discussion (which is what a close should be doing), and did not imply that a move was the preferred outcome (as let's try again potentially would have done). Kahastok talk 21:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mine also had an exact date range. Often editors complain that a new rm/rfc is opened way too soon after a closing, and they shut it down. With an exact timeframe editors could re-evaluate based on that. But I do expect the same result by consensus in the future regardless of where the common name is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh. The whole page is a mess. There are Wikipedians making reasonable arguemnts from both perspectives, and also a lot of poorly-informed drive-by comments from barely-used ot long-inactive accounts. I stopped closely following any of the discussions days ago because they are all congested with unhelpful commentary and bickering. This is a CTOP page now and a timely close is exactly what it needed. I do think it was leaning more to the oppose side, but this is one of those cases where somebody would have brought this here regardless of the close. As much as this does upset me as an Alaskan it is hardly the main issue in the sweeping sea of executive actions we've seen in the last few weeks, and once the outrage machine moves on to something else and sources have had time to do real reporting on the mountain and not just reaction pieces, we may find it easier to find a clear consensus arrived at through policy-based arguments. Beeblebrox 21:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Open a new RM with a clean slate – I have to agree that this move request was tainted due to the “I like it” and “I don’t like it” arguments. Now I will say that it was open for at least a week; but I think the appropriate thing should have been to relist because it still seemed split. So, based on the fact that it was closed too fast, and many of the !votes were based on things other than policy; I think that we should just restart the whole RM, clean slate; that way we don’t have !votes that are tainted by “I (don’t) like it” arguments. Involvement note: I did vote “weak support” in the RM. Hurricane Clyde 🌀 22:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not entirely sure how a new RM at this stage would be anything different from the current one. You'd have the same suite of users making the same arguments (based in policy or otherwise) using the same evidence base, and would likely reach the exact same outcome. A new RM down the line would give time for the dust to settle. Turnagra (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse closure as is; do not reopen: Incredibly clear that there was not going to be a consensus in favour to move, no matter how long you kept the RM open. Whether it's closed as "no consensus" or "not moved" is academic, really. Sceptre (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure as is as there is no rush, this is not a WP:BLP issue, and no non-renaming stories involving the mountain have occured in the last week or two. Per WP:THREEOUTCOMES "Successful move re-requests generally, though not always, take place at least three months after the previous one" and I would strongly urge that no move requests be allowed under three months after the close of this one. Calwatch (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Elephant Man (film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• (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)[reply]

  Or we could just enforce the guidelines as written. SportingFlyer T·C 03:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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 comment you 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)[reply]

  @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:

  1. If you see a difference between "no consensus" closures versus a consensus decision such as "not move"?
  2. 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)[reply]

  I will also address to InfiniteNexus that adding one's own points to a closed discussion isn't how move review works.

  WP:RMCIDC states: 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  COMMONSENSE can't overrule an established guideline, though - you'd need an RfC. SportingFlyer T·C 00:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There was an RfC, a few years ago I think, that established WP-wide consensus. That's how WP:INCDAB got into the guideline. Station1 (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ... which doesn't override another guideline that is subject-specific. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP-wide consensus does override local consensus. Station1 (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not local consensus, it's a guideline. Guidelines have community consensus in order to hold guideline status, and thus these are both sitewide guidelines of equal prominence. For example, Wikipedia:Notability (television) is not a guideline because it has not attained enough consensus from the community. Again, if you or others take issue with the guideline, the appropriate step is to discuss the guideline on its talk page, not seek to undermine it via an RM. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The point is that NCF does not have community consensus with regard to the specific issue of disambiguating partially disambiguated article titles. There has already been a discussion - the RfC - that has already overruled NCF on that particular point. Local consensus on the NCF talk page cannot change that. Station1 (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Then start a discussion to repeal it, not push for an outlier via an RM. It's clear our interpretations of policy differ; if you are not amendable, then it is not productive to continue this back-and-forth. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Certainly we're not going to convince each other, but my purpose commenting here was solely to point out that the discussion - the RfC - has already occurred. Station1 (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As a reminder the MR process is not an opportunity to rehash, expand upon or first offer your opinion on the proper title […] but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process. Let’s try to stay focused on the closing process itself. TiggerJay (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, WP:RMCIDC states that RMs should not be closed in favor of a clear policy or guideline breach, regardless of how many editors !vote in one way. This is relevant to MR as the closer failed to see that (in addition to the absence of consensus). InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist or Overturn to No Consensus - There was no consensus, and a relist is even better than an overturn. I concur with Pppery that this appears to be almost the same as the Corousel MR, and that the closer was unnecessarily dismissive of Pppery, who was completely right. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. (Uninvolved) Consensus to not move, albeit from a weak proposal. The nomination and support were weak, and the oppose arguments were overwhelmingly better. Apply the standard 6 month moratorium, and urge nominators to write better nominations so as to not waste volunteer time. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. < uninvolved > I do see consensus to not move per the RM closer. So this RM closure was both a reasonable interpretation of consensus and within the confines of the guide. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  13:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Search Move review archives Wikipedia:Move review

• Category:Pages at move review
• Category:Closed move reviews
• Wikipedia:Deletion review
• Subpages of this page