Loading

  • 21 Aug, 2019

  • By, Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Move Review

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

Shortcut

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.

Instructions

Initiating move reviews

Shortcut

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

 
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 |closer= or |closer_section= parameter is omitted, the result will include "No discussion on closer's talk page". When

  • |closer= < closer's username > and
  • |closer_section= < section header on closer's talk page where there was discussion about the close >

are correctly filled in, the result will include a "Discussion with closer" link to that discussion.

If the |closer_section= link is to the section on the closer's talk page where the closer has only been notified of Move review (see step 3) and the closer has not actually discussed their close with another editor on their talk page, the result will include a "No discussion on closer's talk page" link to the Move review notice.

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:

{{subst:move review note|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
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: {{move review talk|date=25 December 2024}}. Do not tag the article.

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.

{{Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 December}}
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

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

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

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

  1. ^ Those that involve renames (Template:Cfr), for all other types of CFDs use deletion review.
  2. ^ 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

2024 December

Murder of Zvi Kogan (closed)

  • Murder of Zvi Kogan – discussion relisted. The MRV resulted in a clear consensus that the close was inadequate: editors noted that some arguments in the RM were not fully addressed by the closer, and expressed concern that the closer was imposing their own interpretation of policy rather than neutrally evaluating the RM participants' analyses. However, while the MRV participants were in agreement that the close was deficient, participants were split on which outcome would be preferable: relisting the discussion or overturning it to "Killing of Zvi Kogan". Most participants expressed support for either or both of these options, but there was relatively little discussion about why one would be preferable to the other, making it difficult to gauge consensus for a specific result. Accordingly, with a consensus not to uphold the close but no consensus to overturn to a specific result, I feel it most appropriate to default to relisting the original discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Murder of Zvi Kogan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Since there are suspects in custody, I don't think the close correctly assessed the interplay of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:DEATHS with WP:BLPCRIME as required by WP:RMCIDC. The closer said that they did not consider the five IP supporters per WP:PIA (Israel says the suspects worked for Iran). Even so, many supporters gave little to no explanation. Some of the arguments that did address BLPCRIME conflated murders where there are live suspects and ones where there are not while others rely too much on the official, non-judicial pronouncements. Given that most non-Israeli sources only use "murder" in the context of the charges or quotations from officials, it seems like we should be erring on the side of caution given the BLP concerns. This should either be overturned to move the page to Killing of Zvi Kogan per WP:DEATHS or relisted/restarted.  -- Patar knight - /contributions 01:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist or Overturn as No Consensus Overturn to Killing of Zvi Kogan or relist - I was not involved with the initial RM, but feel like this was hastily NAC by a new closer after they hastily closed another contentious RM. There is significant contention here with decent arguments on both sides. The closer did not addressed multiple suggestions for "Killing of...", add to that potential WP:PIA sensitivities/bias here -- as such, this is probably something they should have avoided with a ten foot pole. And while we don't exactly count !votes this way, it is interesting that all of the oppose come from 10+ year veteran editors, while most support for comes from much newer accounts or non-EC accounts (but not all). It is a bit concerning that all of their closures prior to this one were also brought to their attention as contentious on their talk page, which they have responded in curt, and borderline uncivil behavior. I would admonish @Feeglgeef to stick to SNOW closures for the time being. TiggerJay (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to take a break before I fully reply to this, but, to start, half of the things you say here are not true. Feeglgeef (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Feeglgeef -- I will agree that one thing I misrepresented was all prior closures, this was based on your move log, showing you only closed and moved 3 RMs, one was a large multi-page move, and two of the three had editors bring concerns to your talk page. Your actual NAC activity has a lot of closures that is not as easy to search because you actually perform very few few actual moves yourself. It seems you are closing discussions without the ability to actually perform them, and then handing them off to other editors to do the heavy listing, such as this 16 multi-page move, almost a full day ago, which you responded with "I don't have the permission necessary to do that" in reference to performing the move, and not even filing a report at RM/TR. But I do welcome you to comment on the other "half of the things" untrue things. TiggerJay (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Overturn to Killing of Zvi Kogan as per Adumbrativus. TiggerJay (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist or Overturn to no consensus This is a rare instance where I'd overturn just based on the closer's response to a clarification of their close on their talk page, which shows they were not necessarily acting as a neutral arbiter but instead interjected their own interpretation into the close. Granted this is a difficult move review to close - consensus was that COMMONNAME was murder, but those opposing clearly show that in this instance, we generally only call something a "murder" if there has been a conviction, which was correctly cited by those opposing. Weighing the arguments would lead me to a no consensus in spite of a larger numerical majority for the COMMONNAME, but as long as the result here is to vacate the close, I'm happy. SportingFlyer T·C 06:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Killing of Zvi Kogan. Participants' central dispute was about the circumstances when unqualified, Wiki-voice "murder" can be used, absent a conviction. While some circumstances exist, the baseline is that it's a judgmental and non-neutral term with significant NPOV implications. Wikipedia:Article titles#Neutrality in article titles. Participants brought forth sources which, taken together, were divided on the use of "murder" and other words. Without showing a significant majority of sources or general acceptance of the description "murder", many votes did not justify receiving full weight. I would conclude there was not a consensus to move to "Murder of". (Lastly, of course, no editors argued to keep "Death of", so there is no need for an overturn to revert all the way back.) Adumbrativus (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - I concur with SportinFlyer that the closer's response to the appellant's question is not a defense of their close so much as a statement of the position of those who supported the move, indicating that the closer is not assessing consensus but stating a position. I am also troubled by two actions by the closer that do not reflect on the close so much as on their readiness to close discussions:
      • When Tiggerjay said that questions about their closures were met with curt and borderline uncivil responses, they replied that half of TJ's statement is not true, but that they will reply later. That reply is curt and borders on incivility.
      • They deleted the closed discussion of the close, so that editors interested in the history have to root through the page history rather than viewing either the talk page or an archive of the talk page. The talk page guidelines permit deletion of old talk page messages, while also stating that archival is the best practice. Retention and archival should be either required or very strongly encouraged for editors who will be closing any sort of discussions. A discussion is not completed if it can be challenged at Move Review, Deletion Review, or some other forum.
    • I share the concern that the closer may not be ready for contentious closes.
    • It seems better to relist this Requested Move than to close it as No Consensus. A admin should close it after the relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Five days have elapsed since the closer said that they would take a break before replying fully to this Move Review. Since a Move Review is open for seven days, they are ignoring administrator accountability, which also applies to non-admins performing administrative functions such as closing discussions. Is a warning in order? Is the closer now ready to provide a better-late-than-never statement?Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Killing of Zvi Kogan - closer made reference to BLPCRIME but failed to acknowledge what consensus to ignore WP:NCDEATHS, an NPOV matter, existed. I personally don't see how a consensus to ignore it did, and hence why I support overturning. I'd also be satisfied with a relist, but this was just a bad close all around. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.

2024 November

England in the Late Middle Ages (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
England in the Late Middle Ages (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Closer appears to have weighed arguments contrary to WP:RMCI, giving equal weight to comments that are unsubstantiated opinion against those that are made with reference to prevailing P&G and evidence of usage. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak endorse (uninvolved) — Although I do concur that there was consensus to not move, the closer should have left a more comprehensive closing statement. Besides that, I do not see a problem.
𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 19:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I think "no consensus" would have been a more precise result, but this is a move review. I do believe the evidence suggests that early and late should not be capitalised in most style guides and would have supported this option myself, but this is not a situation in which the evidence is so strong that we can discount the opinions of others. I also might suggest an RfC based on the suggestion that this should be standardised across the site. SportingFlyer T·C 22:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidence of style guides was introduced by one editor. Of the six guides presented, they report one would cap, two would lowercase, one would probably lowercase and two were silent on the matter. Nonetheless, they opposed the move because they [didn't] like the CMoS approach - ie their conclusion was contradicted by the evidence presented. The evidence of usage in sources indicated by ngrams clearly shows a minority of capitalisation in both cases. The opinions of others (opposers) are personal opinions not supported by evidence and flatly contradicted by the relevant P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • SportingFlyer, unless I'm mistaken it is standardized uppercased across the project, at least in the historical or geological eras. This RM was a poke at that, and the closer came to the correct conclusion. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - There was both a numerical majority and a consistency reason for Not Moving. Maybe the numerical majority reflected the respect of the participants for the consistency in capitalization argument. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – The oppose arguments in this RM could not be lightly discarded by a closer (WP:DISCARD), as requested by the nominator. Essentially, the opposers argued that the exception in bold at the top of WP:NCCAPS applies: "...unless the title is a proper name." This argument does not "flatly contradict established policy" and was correctly not discarded by the closer. A longer closing statement might've been nice and a no-consensus close would also have been okay, but the result is no different, so I endorse the close. Toadspike [Talk] 14:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The established P&G goes on to tell us how to determine if something is a proper noun. It is not based on unsubstantiated opinion that is contradicted by evidence of usage. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.

Big Ben (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Big Ben (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Estar8806 closed the discussion based on WP:SNOW. This is the first move request since 2018, and it was closed after less than twelve hours. The closure has been treated like a vote, with the fact all comments before the closure opposed the move being used as evidence that it had no chance of succeeding. I believe that estar8806 has also misunderstood the 'support' argument.

While it is unlikely that the page would have been moved, SNOW requires certainty and I do not think this threshold was met. At the very least, leaving the discussion open for a week or so would potentially have allowed a more in-depth discussion of the possible names of the article to take place. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse That was the start of a blizzard. Reopening would be needlessly bureaucratic. SportingFlyer T·C 17:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (involved, commented but didn't !vote) I can't think this move will succeed, given that 7 people had opposed in less than 12 hours into the RM and those people clearly grounded their reasons on COMMONNAME I can't see how this would result in anything other than "not moved" or if you're very lucky "no consensus" if left open for a whole week so I'd say unless the OP really wants it to run for a whole week that closing early was fine per WP:SNOW. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (involved, opener) I would be interested to know what counts as a 'clearly grounded' reason for closure purposes, because from my perspective it seems that the oppose votes which rely on COMMONNAME have simply mentioned the policy without actually explaining why it's relevant in this case. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved). I would close it the same way. "Big Ben" is the clear common name and there is no chance that it would be moved to the less natural and recognizable (even if more precise) title "Elizabeth Tower". SilverLocust 💬 01:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved), while typically I am of the opinion that SNOWs shouldn't happen right away, a SNOW close was appropriate in this instance. Closer makes good points in their discussion about the self-realized shortcomings in this RM. Bobby Cohn (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved). Very clear case for a SNOW close. The many opposers had a clear, policy-based argument and several called for an early close, either explicitly or by writing "strong oppose". Toadspike [Talk] 10:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Continuing the RM would have been a waste of time of editors, just as this DRV is a waste of time of editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.
Carousel (film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

This was closed as not moved, without any actual consensus to not move. The opposing side was asking for consensus to make an exception to the guideline, and while that kind of consensus can sometimes be found if the numbers are lopsided enough, it can't be created out of nothing in an evenly-matched discusssion. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to no consensus or relist (uninvolved): there's no consensus here for a no move closure, per appellant; especially in the case of what—at least to me—appear to be stronger policy arguments, for the exact scenario as described above. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To address further some of the subsequent !votes, it's not that a "no consensus" result won't change the subsequent outcome of the procedure, yes it will remain in this AT. It's that the meaning of our wording does matter and we need to be precise if we are to take ourselves seriously when we discuss highfalutin principles such as consensus. There was none to be found here. It matters moreso when it's a disputed move from a longstanding title (WP:RMNCREV) or when there is subsequent RMs to be had, the hurdle for overturning the previous determination of a not moved decision is presumed to be higher, which is not fair if the previous closure was incorrect. "Not moved" and "no consensus" are different closures and we should not endorse their amalgamation at MRV. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse-ish. Overturn to moved I think "no consensus" is probably a more precise result, but for moves, I view "no consensus to move" and "not moved" as equivalent, whereas an AfD a "no consensus" is quite a bit weaker than a "keep." Also, after reviewing the policy guidelines, I am not completely convinced this is a situation where those wishing for a move have a stronger policy argument, as the guidelines are vague about this specific scenario. SportingFlyer T·C 18:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and looked at WP:PRIMARYFILM again, and I think I mis-interpreted it the first time: I believe it says if the film's name is not the primary topic, it must be disambiguated, even if it is far and away the primary topic as far as films are concerned. I'm not sure I agree, but the last discussion strongly opposed changing this. In that case there's not much room here for argument, even though the discussion itself was clearly a "no consensus." SportingFlyer T·C 06:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with those endorsing this discussion is that this is one of the areas where policy is - I wouldn't say it's necessarily clear, but it is specific per WP:PRIMARYFILM. Simply looking at the consensus without looking at whether the arguments were in line with what we traditionally do in this situation is not the correct way to approach this move review. SportingFlyer T·C 19:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the admission by the closer this was their first RM close may further demonstrate an obscure but agreed upon rule wasn't correctly applied here. SportingFlyer T·C 01:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Advise the nominator to put more rationale into the nomination statement. If you don’t, it is often a trainwreck, and a net waste of time. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding others’ !votes to overturn, I share a feeling of dissatisfaction with the result, but I dont agree there is a consensus to move evident in the discussion. It could be relisted, but I think it should wait two months for a better nomination. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Feedback noted. I should have done a better job explaining that there. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to moved <uninvolved>. Personally I disagree with WP:PRIMARYFILM, but it very specifically prohibits incomplete disambiguation even when it's otherwise allowed, and so far there's been consensus against changing that. Per the closing instructions, closers generally have to avoid a title that's "out of keeping with naming conventions...regardless of how many of the participants support it". Changes to the guideline should be made by RfC, not RM. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. < uninvolved > Agree with editor SmokeyJoe above. In this case "not moved" is synonymous with "no consensus", and the latter may or may not have been a more precise closure decision. Again, in this case the result is the same whether "no consensus" or "not moved" is used; however, that is not always the case. There have been exceptions. Open for two weeks I see no reason to relist, as it is doubtful that the outcome would be altered. I would recommend that editors strengthen their arguments to move the page, and try again in a few months to garner consensus for a rename. I think that this closure was then a reasonable end to the survey and discussion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  13:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse < uninvolved >. The nominator and proponents of the move did not make a compelling case. Maybe it should have been closed as no consensus, but that's really splitting hairs. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The primary film guideline is in conflict with the broader sitewide guideline allowing partially disambiguated titles for very clear cases. And mamy participants in this debate felt this warranted that and that the sitewide guideline should be applied in this case. As above, the discussion could and probably should have been closed as no consensus, but the practical difference between those outcomes is negligible.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't agree here - none of those opposing applied WP:PRIMARYFILM correctly, once you understand the premise - the argument is that is the primary film title of all of the films named Carousel, and WP:PRIMARYFILM says to disambiguate that with a year. There's no specific reason argued by those opposing why WP:PRIMARYFILM should not apply. While WP:PRIMARYFILM does go against the gravity of everything else on the site, the consensus has been reaffirmed relatively recently. Unlike notability, move reviews are an area where the rules are a bit more clear cut... SportingFlyer T·C 03:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. I agree with Amakuru. Although I've bolded it as "overturn", I agree with the remarks that there's no difference here for practical purposes. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (the closer) — I can agree with almost everyone here that there really is not much of a difference between not moved and no conensus, and I'd consider them synonyms with each other. As this was my first RM closure, I didn't really give any weight between the two. That said, I still found consensus to not move.
𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 14:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perspiration (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Perspiration (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

When including all comments from the initial discussion, regardless of whether they were directly about the proposal, the vote was evenly split at 50/50 (4:4). The closing message was 'no consensus', which is accurate based on the numbers alone. However, since WP:RMCI requires evaluating arguments as well as numbers, I will briefly summarize these: opposers preferred 'perspiration', feeling it sounded more encyclopedic (WP:TONE) and less ambiguous than 'sweat', referring to both the fluid and the process, thereby avoiding confusion about the article's focus. Supporters, on the other hand, emphasized the statistical prevalence of 'sweat' over 'perspiration' (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:MEDTITLE), refuted the claim that 'sweat' describes a different phenomenon than 'perspiration' when referring to the fluid, and advocated for a clear focus on either the fluid or the process. Overall, this decision appears to contrast factual arguments (statistics) with personal preferences. –Tobias (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Closer comment): while !votes with rationales like seems more encyclopedic are not especially helpful, there was a key argument on the "oppose" side that lead me to mark it "no consensus". (That said, WP:TONE plays some role and should not be entirely discarded. A formal tone is important.) Basically, the argument put forward by WhatamIdoing: Also, it's not clear to me whether this article ought to be about "the fluid" or about "the process of excreting the fluid". "Perspiration" works for both, but with the proposed name, it would have to be either sweat (the wet stuff itself, as a collection of water and some other chemicals) or sweating (the process of making the wet stuff; Diaphoresis). As this article currently covers both (and that seems fine to me), then having a name that covers both in the same grammatical form seems convenient. This argument is just as valid and as strong as the COMMONNAME-based one; we shouldn't be swayed into thinking that numbers-based rationales are somehow more worthy or more powerful. (I would also like to note: I did not make the close based on the numbers alone.) Sweat is a bit too ambiguous a term, and does not cover the entirety of the article subject. Therefore I think the arguments are equally matched. (Remember I don't have to defend the ambiguity argument as better than the other one, and I don't think it is. I just have to show it has equal weight). I would not characterize that argument as a personal preference.
If this response is unsatisfactory, I'm happy to elaborate further on why I think my close is appropriate. Cremastra (u — c) 13:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. This discussion wasn't that well attended and since its especially controversial (otherwise we wouldn't be here), it could use more input from the community.VR (Please ping on reply) 18:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved): WP:TONE / WP:SLANG is a legitimate reason to oppose this proposed move, and that is basically what people mean by saying the current title "seems more encyclopedic". "Sweating" was also mentioned as a possibility, which also seems like a good candidate, but didn't gain clear traction. The RM was relisted and was open for more than two weeks. No consensus was evident, so the RM was closed as "no consensus", which seems fine. Less formal terminology is often avoided in Wikipedia article titles (Defecation, Feces, Urine, Sexual intercourse, etc.). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse there was no consensus in that discussion. There are functionally two different, potentially correct arguments with about equal support. In fact, I will even go further and say that I do not think the argument that sweat was the COMMONNAME was clearly made (I wouldn't think a simple ngrams shows anything useful since it's not limited to medical topics.) SportingFlyer T·C 17:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There's no tone or slang problem. There was no consensus around the issue of whether an article whose main subject is sweating, while also discussing sweat as the result of sweating, should be named "Sweat"; it was said that perspiration means both sweat and sweating, while sweat does not mean sweating and is therefore not the name for sweating for it to even qualify as the single most common obvious name for sweating.—Alalch E. 12:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - There was no consensus, and it was closed as No Consensus. Move Review is not Requested Move round 2. Relist would have been valid, but closure as No Consensus was also valid. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. That was a “no consensus” heavily leaning to “rough consensus to not move”. The nomination was weak and two support arguments were weak, as in not engaging with actual evidence, while the oppose arguments had more substance. No consensus is a good close because overall it was a superficial discussion in an unimportant move. A future fresh nomination should be expected to have more rationale. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.

Israel–Hamas war (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Israel–Hamas war (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)
See also other post-move discussions here, here, here and here.

There was a broad consensus for a move of the title away from Hamas and towards Gaza based on increasing and converging use of Gaza by RS. While initially a move to Israel-Gaza war found mixed support, I proposed a compromise for a move to Gaza War, which found great support among editors as a middle ground solution. Despite this the move was closed as no consensus, and there were attempts by several editors to discuss a rereview with the closing editor, to which they did not agree with. To add to that, three editors who had voted against were found to be sockpuppets. This really needs a rereview to accurately reflect the established consensus. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse (involved). Most editors didn’t participate in the alternative proposal, and their silence cannot be interpreted as endorsement of it. This is particularly the case because Gaza War has previously been considered and rejected. BilledMammal (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has claimed that their silence was an endorsement. As for the prior consensus argument, it is irrelevant given the passage of time and new sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were two proposals. Here is a tally of the !vote count of each one:
"Support" "Oppose" Support % Note
Move "Israel–Hamas war" to "Israel–Gaza war" 50
List
GeoffreyA,kashmīrī,Ïvana,Unbandito,Jebiguess,Mast303,Charles Essie,Scuba,Urro,إيان,HadesTTW,CoolAndUniqueUsername,Genabab,Haskko,nableezy,Stephan rostie,Yeoutie,Selfstudier,Jeppiz,JOEBRO64,BarrelProof,Levivich,Pachu Kannan,Makeandtoss,Iskandar323,Ainty Painty,20WattSphere,Josethewikier,Clayoquot,Aszx5000,RealKnockout,Black roses124,Kire1975,ByVarying,Est. 2021,Wellington Bay,WillowCity,Chicdat,Abo Yemen,C&C,Gödel2200,Benpiano800,EmilePersaud,Hydrangeans,Snowstormfigorion,Havradim,TyphoonAmpil,Albert Mond,VR,DFlhb
 37
List
BilledMammal,PaPiker,UnspokenPassion,Longhornsg,Kowal2701,Drocj,웬디러비,The Mountain of Eden,InvadingInvader,Jdcomix,Figureofnine,Hogo-2020,DecafPotato,Nashhinton,MaskedSinger,IanMacM,The Weather Event Writer,JohnAdams1800,xDanielx,Excel23,IntrepidContributor,FortunateSons,Alaexis,Kalpesh Manna 2002,Eladkarmel,InfiniteNexus,Clear Looking Glass,photogenic scientist,LuxembourgLover,Benjitheijneb,Swordman97,Drsruli,Awesome Aasim,IJA,Some1,Katangais,Yovt
 57% All of the "Support" !votes in this section supported moving away from "Israel–Hamas war", with many supporting a move to Gaza war instead.
Move "Israel–Hamas war" to "Gaza war" 37
List
Stephan rostie,Black roses124,GeoffreyA,Pachu Kannan,Chicdat,Clayoquot,Gödel2200,Selfstudier,Levivich,CNC,Hydrangeans,JOEBRO64,Ïvana,Jeaucques Quœure,GnocchiFan,Shadowwarrior8,JasonMacker,Lewisguile,نعم البدل,Vanilla Wizard,WikiFouf,Bluethricecreamman,Raskolnikov.Rev,Chuckstablers,Jotamide,20WattSphere,HadesTTW,pma,CoolAndUniqueUsername,Smallangryplanet,Kingofthedead,Braganza,PadFoot,Nojus R,VR,SP00KY,Parham wiki
 10
List
XavierGreen,Mast303,modern_primat,Alaexis,Mag1cal,Drsruli ,Coretheapple,MaGioZal,Andre,Yovt
 79% Most supporters in this section were ok with both dates and without dates, while some had a strong preference to omit dates. One of those who opposed this title, also opposed Israel-Hamas war (in favor of Israel-Gaza war).

Note some users !voted in both sections but most only !voted in one section.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - Discussions of this size and time length are often incredibly hard to judge and more often than not both sides have equally strong policy arguments, even if one has more !votes behind it. In most cases, no consensus is the only possible and responsible close. I'd agree with the closer, give it a few more months (or less, as always if something changes more clearly), and maybe propose Gaza war or some variation of it next time around, but I don't see how a close in favor of any particular opinion could've been anything but a WP:SUPERVOTE.estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Gaza war I thought there was clear consensus for a move to that title at this time, and this is how I would have closed the discussion. A no consensus close is easier because it's a contentious topic but I'm not sure it's correct here given there's a clear numerical advantage to move. Given the nature of the discussion, this may necessitate another immediate move discussion, and I think that's fine. SportingFlyer T·C 20:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse IMHO, the closer made the right call by closing the RM as 'no consensus' on moving Israel–Hamas war to Israel–Gaza war. The 'Common ground' section raised additional questions, but I doubt most editors who participated in the main RM bothered to scroll down far enough to see it (or took the time to engage with that part). As the closer suggested, editors should give it a few months and then open a new RM. This time, they can ask whether Israel–Hamas war should be moved to Gaza war [with or without dates] and see if the consensus is clearer without the other options getting in the way. Some1 (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the common ground section, why not support a relist? It would be time consuming and unnecessary to start this process all over again in a few months. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved) - If I had participated, I might not have noticed the Common Ground containing an alternate proposal. The option of Gaza War was not obvious. What is obvious was the choice between Israel-Hamas War and Israel-Gaza War, and that was no consensus and closed as No Consensus. A separate RM should be started to rename the article Gaza War, which will probably pass. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) Once again a split between editors as to whether it ought to be Gaza war or Israel Gaza war, in the face of which the closer is stuck with a no consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) - this requested move discussion should have followed, not ignored, a procedural requested move of Gaza War (which is a disambiguation page). The claim that …many supporting a move to Gaza war instead is questionable, with several editors basing their argument solely through Yes, which are not valid arguments.
𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 21:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mast303
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.

Archive

Archives, by year and month
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

See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
00:31, Wednesday, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Move_review&oldid=1260815966"