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
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
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
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
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
- ^ 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
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This was a WP:SNOW close after the RM in question was open for two days. There were several options proposed in the discussion, and while I can see that the title as moved did receive the most !votes, the vast majority of comments (for any of the proposed titles) do not make reference to any policy or guideline, and are pure votes. Additionally, the closer provided absolutely no rationale to support a snow close nor did they address any of the very valid points brought up in the discussion by those who opposed the new name/supported others. This just looks like a bad attempt at a WP:BARTENDER close to me. I brought up this matter to the closer as polling is not a substitute for discussion, but I received no response. At the very least, this discussion should have been allowed to continue for a normal length of time. - estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:18, 30 September 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. |
- Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Florida (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)
WP:RMCI, Further, 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.
The relevant naming convention is WP:NCE, which fairly explicitly limits the omission of years from the title (WP:NOYEAR) to matters that can be evaluated with historic perspective
. Such perspective does not exist after just a couple of weeks. Also consider WP:BLPCRIME (raised at the RM as well) which seems to unambiguously disallow this type of article title where we name a BLP as we have in this instance. Additionally, WP:BADNAC #2, given the contentious nature of this subject, an administrator really should have been the one to close this. Finally, User_talk:Compassionate727#Non-admin_closures where the closer was asked to not close discussions that could be contentious in the future (from May 1, 2024). At best, the outcome should be "no consensus" with no prejudice to starting a new RM that considers existing naming conventions and content policies. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Relist due to bad non-admin close. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Relist while I can see where the closer's head was at with the closure. I would agree with the nom that an nc close without prejudice, as in just a quick read through this discussion looks like a WP:TRAINWRECK to me.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse (uninvolved) as a reasonable interpretation of consensus. Also I note that WP:BADNAC is an essay (i.e. the opinion of one or more individual editors) and is as such not a consensus-backed guideline or policy. In my opinion, adminship shouldn't grant a user any more ability to close contentious RMs than anyone else. Per WP:ADMIN, Admins are no more important than any other editor, they just have access to more tools. Bensci54 (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Admins are no more important than any other editor
More important, agreed. But admins are also typically much more versed in how to interpret consensus and are aware of issues such as WP:LOCALCON and are more likely to follow the instructions at WP:RMCI. WP:IAR exists, but no argument was made at the RM that would have merited invoking IAR. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse (uninvolved) Just skimming through the RM, 5 different editors (including Locke Cole and estar8806 who both commented here) mentioned WP:NOYEAR/WP:NCE or WP:BLPCRIME, while at least 30 different editors supported a title that included the words 'assassination attempt'. The NOYEAR/NCE/BLPCRIME arguments were made early on in the discussion and did not gain traction, meanwhile many of the latter votes were to support the move. The RM wasn't contentious and the closer did not supervote, so these vague handwaves at the WP:BADNAC essay aren't convincing. Some1 (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Some1 The principle that the quoted section from WP:RMCI is based upon is WP:LOCALCON, which is sitewide policy (and has made it into the principle of an RFAR). Would you like to adjust your !vote in light of this? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- WP:RMCI is an explanatory essay, and this RM closure does not conflict with 'global consensus', so no, I'm not changing my !vote. Some1 (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NCE is not an essay, and neither is WP:LOCALCON. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NCE/WP:NOYEAR says
Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it.
The month or days should not be used in the title unless other descriptors are insufficient to establish the identity of the incident...
And more importantly,As this is a judgement call, please discuss it with other editors if there is disagreement.
The please discuss it with other editors part is the Requested Move, and only three editors (including you and estar8806) cited WP:NCE/NOYEAR in the RM, while a vast majority of the participants in the RM supported titles that omitted the year. Some1 (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)please discuss it with other editors if there is disagreement
Neat. Can you point to comments in the RM that addressed WP:NOYEAR? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NCE/WP:NOYEAR says
- WP:NCE is not an essay, and neither is WP:LOCALCON. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- WP:RMCI is an explanatory essay, and this RM closure does not conflict with 'global consensus', so no, I'm not changing my !vote. Some1 (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Some1 The principle that the quoted section from WP:RMCI is based upon is WP:LOCALCON, which is sitewide policy (and has made it into the principle of an RFAR). Would you like to adjust your !vote in light of this? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse Poor example of a poor BADNAC. SerialNumber54129 13:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse this close, open to a separate RM (involved) If I'm reading this correctly (do correct me if I'm wrong), Locke Cole wants this to be relisted because the year is omitted from the title? I was one of the people who preferred disambiguation by date rather than location, but the main focus of the requested move was whether it should be called an attempted assassination, which sources created after the RM solidified. For context, the original title was Trump International Golf Club shooting.
- Reopening this requested move is just going to reignite arguments on if we should call it an assassination attempt. It would be less confusing to keep the current name for now, and maybe open a second requested move (like what Zekerocks11 attempted) so it's clear that the question is how to disambiguate it, not what the overall event should be categorized as. This is a situation where a relist might complicate matters, but a different solution may be better. Unnamed anon (talk) 05:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Symphony station (Sound Transit) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)
The WP:COMMONNAME in use by reliable third-party sources such as the Seattle Times (1, 2, 3), for the past 30+ years, is "Symphony Station" capital-S proper noun.
This common name went completely unchallenged in the requested move. Not a single WP:SOURCE was provided showing "Symphony" or "Symphony station" usage.
We have a guideline at WP:USSTATION to specifically cover this case. The top item in the naming convention is Generally, U.S. station articles should be titled by their common name, followed by "station" if not already part of the name.
It goes on to say In cases where the word "Station" is part of the proper name, it should be capitalized.
and in cases where "station" is not part of the proper name, or is not usually capitalized in sources, it should be in written in lower case
. I'm not sure to which the "proper name" refers, but both the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME are "Symphony Station" and it is usually (always) capitalized in sources.
Rather than following the two guidelines above, the closer instead went with their interpretation of "the spirit" of the guideline: The spirit of WP:USSTATION would point to this being non-capitalized.
But the actual guideline shows that "Symphony Station" should be capitalized and has a piece written specifically to cover this case.
Closer also wrote in their close Indeed, the station does not even use "station" it its signage, which would indicate it is just a regular station, as opposed to "named transit center" to quote the guideline.
. This is not true. While some platform signs do show the abbreviated "Symphony", other signs show "Symphony Station". Such as the signs at the recent renaming of the station, where officials stood at a "Symphony Station" podium underneath a permanent "SYMPHONY STATION" sign in front of the transit facility. Also unclear what "a regular station"
is and why that WP:OR should be considered.
In our required discussion prior to this MR, closer wrote Anyways, on Wikipedia there is a pretty high bar for whether something is considered a proper noun: "consistently" capitalized, not just usually. I believe another user was able to find sources that did not capitalize it, so in cases like that Wikipedia defaults to not capitalizing.
Other users actually did not provide any reliable source showing "Symphony station" in use. Comment from an oppose voter that stated both "Symphony Station" and "Symphony station" are equally correct ways to refer to it
should have been disregarded, as again not a single source was presented in the RM showing uncapitalized usage. Upon this being pointed out, closer said I concede that you are correct in that none of the links provided actually included a lowercase "Symphony station."
There is a WP:CONSISTENT argument in the close and discussion, which I agree with. But the solution to achieve consistency should be to subsequently move the other Sound Transit stations to match their common names (which in all/most cases will be "Station"). Moving the other station articles based on the result of this RM was supported by several participants, and even both of the oppose voters were open to moving the Seattle stations and/or all US stations.
Finally, the closer wrote Further, the article as currently named maintains consistency with the current capitalization of the majority of US stations, and OP claims to not want to shift the guideline for the entire US. Arguments that Seattle stations are somehow different do not seem to hold water, as similar arguments could be made for many other cites.
Seattle stations are different per their cited usage in reliable third-party sources, which consistently capitalize "Station". I don't think though it's valid to require the massive scope of all US rail stations to be consistent amongst each other at the expense of disregarding their WP:COMMONNAMES, and this point of view was supported by others in the RM: Expanding the scope of this discussion to the entire country is an unnecessary escalation and does not result in productive reasoning here.
. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. Sense of the group was not to move. Arguments against can not be discounted. The closer's summary and explanations don't matter. The outcome was reasonable.—Alalch E. 22:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse a no-consensus outcome here, if not the current "not moved" close. However, while the closer's commentary may have been intended to summarize the discussion, it happened to look quite a bit like a new comment in opposition to the move; such closing comments may make things more likely to end up here. The close suggests that the official name is determinative in choosing an article name. Further, the user talk comment stating that "on Wikipedia there is a pretty high bar for whether something is considered a proper noun: 'consistently' capitalized, not just usually" is a questionable interpretation of WP:MOS-CAPS. The guideline actually states that Wikipedia capitalizes when terms are "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources". That is, the guideline requires evidence that a substantial majority of RS capitalize the term systematically. This equates pretty accurately to "usually capitalized in RS" rather than "always capitalized in RS". Dekimasuよ! 01:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I was not a participant of this RM, but there are several issues with this closure.
These issues were discussed on the closer's talk page, and the closer did not seem willing to reopen. Natg 19 (talk) 02:22, 19 September 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. |
LGBTQ (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I and others would like an opportunity to comment on the discussion. I want the conversation re-opened to give more space and time for additional comments, and then re-evaluated based on a more complete discourse. The discussion on the talk page is not representative of the discourse, and it is apparent from other discussion including Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Now_that_the_main_article_has_been_moved_to_LGBTQ,_all_sub-articles_(including_the_Wikiproject)_can_follow_suit that there are people who have more to say and other people who want to give comment. The move from LGBT -> LGBTQ would affect 50,000 links, so is a very high impact change, but the move discussion lasted 10 days and included about 20 people, so was very small relative to the consequences. There were several previous move discussions, and participants in those discussions were not notified. Because this is such a complex move affecting so many articles, there is no reason to act in haste, and nothing would be lost by opening the discussion for a while longer to advertise it and let everyone say what they want to say. I do not object to the the move closure as an interpretation of the comments considered, but it is apparent now that thousands of articles are going to be affected that there are more people who would have commented, had they known the discussion was happening. It is problematic and an error that now that 10-day discussion is shutting down conversation as instead of debating the name, some people are arguing on the basis of the matter being settled on the basis of representative consensus discussion being reached. That small group was not the fullness of discussion. Thanks for considering. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:06, 2 September 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. |
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
|