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.

Gulf of Mexico (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

This RM was closed after less than an hour being open, when there had only been three comments, with no reasoning or explanation provided behind the early closure. This is on a talk page which has had numerous edit requests asking to change the title, so it is clearly not a foregone conclusion. The closer also participated in a related RfC further up the talk page so isn't an uninvolved editor. Chessrat 22:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as a snowball clause case. WP:RMEC tells us [t]his clause should not be used to close a discussion when a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "highly likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. Since that applies, and there is a longer-term consensus shown in above discussions (evidence that this is not an early pileon), WP:SNOW is correct. This closure was indeed a bit hasty, but given that this has been already discussed to death (earlier RM), it is acceptable. Had there not already been discussion about the title, I would lean towards "neutral".

Also: The closer also participated in a related RfC further up the talk page so isn't an uninvolved editor. – as Pppery correctly pointed out on their user talk page, the RfC participation came after their move close (by one minute). So they were in fact an uninvolved editor.

Overall, I agree with Pppery that this MRV is a waste of community time. Cremastra (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out that the other RM was also closed after only an hour, hardly time for more editors to contribute to a full discussion, and that there was also a significant material change of circumstances between the two RMs- the Interior Department formally enacting the name change. Chessrat 23:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close - the fact that a requested move was opened just days after another was closed with a consensus not to move without any materially new reasoning is justification enough for me. Consensus can change, but reading the talk page, it’s not there yet, and opening requested moves ad nauseum with the same arguments doesn’t benefit anyone. Steven Crossin 23:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close. The nominator's rationale reads like bureaucracy, the same WP:SNOW points out to avoid, especially when there are multiple name-related discussions open or archived on the talk page. Opening repetitive move discussions, and now move reviews, simply because you believe that a country has sovereignty over an international topic ("the Interior Department formally enacting the name change"), falls within WP:IDHT as you are not only not accepting that Wikipedia follows WP:COMMONAMES (as you were told on your own RM), but you want to enforce us to leave a discussion open to Trump followers who will continuously ignore that WP:OFFICIALNAMES are not the norm. (CC) Tbhotch 23:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Close as a valid exercise of administrative judgment that the Requested Move is premature and disruptive. I concur with the proposal, in the opposition to the move, of a moratorium on Reuested Moves. I would suggest waiting about a month before allowing another well-publicized Requested Move that can run for seven days. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Endorse – I do not normally comment on these kinds of discussions. But I felt I had to say this. There had already been at least one RM before this last one, about changing the title to “Gulf of America”, and it failed miserably. So this RM that got speedily closed and sent to move review was already at least the second RM (if not more) in the last week. And if that’s not enough, the redirect “Gulf of America” ended up at RfD, three times if I’m not mistaken. So yes, I very strongly endorse this close; and would love to see some kind of “moratorium” or something to prevent additional RMs at “Gulf of Mexico” for at least the next few weeks, otherwise, I would not be surprised to see this page and the RM page swamped with Gulf of Mexico/America related moves. And also as an involvement note, I was not involved in the RM that triggered this review, (I wasn’t even aware of the RM until after it closed), but I did leave a strong oppose in the previous RM. Hurricane Clyde 🌀 04:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close and Trout. Please see the FAQ on the talk page. Or skim the 135,642 bytes of Talk:Gulf of Mexico/Archive 1, nearly all of which are the same discussion happening over and over again. Or the multiple sections of meta-discussions going on at Talk:Gulf of Mexico where editors discuss how to address the problem of more and more redundant discussions being started about the same thing. The "numerous edit requests" the OP mentioned were unmanageable amounts of spam from unregistered or new users, the same things being proposed dozens of times, each time with an avalanche of opposition for all the same reasons. It was such a problem that even the talk page had to be protected... twice. Editors have already written multiple novellas worth of text discussing this subject, there's no reason to believe that if only we had just one more discussion then maybe the consensus would be different. Pppery made the right call by closing it quickly per WP:SNOW. As an involvement note, I did not !vote in either move discussion, but have been active at the talk page and would have !voted oppose.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 06:31, 26 January 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