Formal review processes |
---|
|
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: |
Administrators' noticeboard |
In bot-related matters: |
|
Discussion about closes prior to closing: |
Move review is a process to formally discuss and evaluate a contested close of Wikipedia page move discussions, including requested moves (RM), categories for discussion discussions (CfD), and redirects for discussion discussions (RfD), to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.
Prior to submitting a review of a page move's close, please attempt to resolve any issues on the closer's talk page. See step one below.
While the page move close is under review, any involved editor is free to revert any undiscussed moves of a nominated page without those actions being considered a violation of Wikipedia:No wheel warring.
This review process should be focused on the move discussion and the subsequent results of the move discussion, not on the person who closed the discussion. If you have ongoing concerns about a closer, please consult with the closer or post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Move review requests which cast aspersions or otherwise attack other editors may be speedily closed.
Do not request a move review if someone has boldly moved a page and you disagree. Instead, attempt to discuss it with the editor, and if the matter continues to be unresolved, start a formal WP:RM discussion on the article's talk page.
Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a page move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion.
Disagreements with Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions (WP:RMCI), WP:Article titles, the Manual of Style, a naming convention or the community norm of consensus should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page.
CfDs [1] and RfDs can only be reviewed here if the relevant discussion was limited in scope to renaming; CfDs or RfDs [2] involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review.
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:
Editors initiating a move review discussion should be familiar with the closing instructions provided in WP:RMCI.
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. |
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.
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 |
On 3 May 2024 there was a requested move from "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" and it was moved to "Gaza genocide". Three options were available to vote for the new article title: "Gaza genocide question", "Gaza genocide accusation" and "Gaza genocide". While the third option had the plurality of the votes, options 1 and 2 had a majority combined, and are basically the same thing just put into two different titles. I want to hear comments on if the move was applied too soon and if there is a clear consensus to call it Gaza genocide. User:Selfstudier wrote "If you want to dispute the current article title, which has consensus, Move Review is the place, where I note no-one has to date contested the recent move". [1] I am thus following his suggestion to ask for further review.-- 3E1I5S8B9RF7 ( talk) 12:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
argument was contested but not convincingly rebutted. Boud ( talk) 00:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
It's been a few years since the last move review. If the name "Salesforce Transit Center" wasn't common then, it certainly is now. Rationale for calling it "Salesforce Transit Center":
So, the passengers who pass through the transit center know it as Salesforce Transit Center. The drivers and transit agency employees know it as Salesforce Transit Center. Both locals and tourists know it as Salesforce Transit Center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallneil ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 21 July 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. |
So me and this user have been unable to come into an agreement regarding the name of this railway station. There have been two news article that state the official station name has changed, but Paine keeps stating its not enough to officially update the station name. I've provided several links & photos that show the name has changed. Please step in. FlushingLocal ( talk) 00:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
SNOW closing an RM after less then 6 hours is highly inappropriate, since certain time zones would have never had a chance to respond, and there is some evidence suggesting it may not have been an assassination attempt. This should have been given more time to develop with more input from others. Below the RM, the closer further justified closing it, so I did not see a need to bring this to their talk page with the highly likely result they refuse. Downerr2937 ( talk) 16:26, 14 July 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. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
review result to not move project 2025 to Project 2025/Presidential Transition Project. The discussion took place in the section Requested move 13 June 2024 in Talk:Project 2025. 173.72.3.91 ( talk) 18:53, 12 July 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. |
This was either a close for Ivory Coast or perhaps no-consensus. Red Slash based everything on ngrams as opposed to other argument content. ngrams were shown to be inefficient compared with so many major sources still using Ivory Coast. Google trends has Ivory Coast way ahead, and even that source is limiting. I've never seen ngrams used exclusively as a reason to close an RM. Past discussion have had the same ngram arguments and been quashed. Why this one RM and it's moved? I edit a lot of tennis articles and if we used ngrams to this extent all our foreign players and locations would be at different titles (titles Wikipedia forces us to use often get 0% ngrams vs 100% something else). Plus this was closed the day three more people placed their opinions... it was very active the day it closed. I'm sure the closer was sincere here, but it was just a bad close. Even the person who opened the RM thinks it was a bad close. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 06:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This was a protacted, verbose, contentious discussion with both sides deeply entrenched, and yet Red Slash moved the article and stated, " Arguably, there was a consensus to move to the lower-case title; many people agreed that, when dealing with all peoples who are indigenous to a given area, the 'i' should be lowercase." There was absolutely not a consensus. Nonetheless, Red Slash moved the article diff] The article had previously been at Genocide of Indigenous peoples, and a previous discussion to move to Genocide of indigenous peoples had failed. [2]. On their talk page, Red Slash wrote, "The consensus was broad-ish, though not overly strong. Because of this, I concede that a reasonable person might view it as if there were no consensus." Yes, WP consensuses don't need to be unaminous, but this was not a consensus. Being a highly controversial discussion, this should have had an administrator close the discussion. Yuchitown ( talk) 14:51, 11 July 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. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
On the basis of page views, 1981 Irish hunger strike is a clear primary topic by usage. The pages " 1920 Cork hunger strike" and " 1923 Irish hunger strikes" were both created in 2021 and have 37 and 42 incoming links respectively, while "1981 Irish hunger strike" was created in 2004 and has 1,162. Until recent changes, " Irish hunger strike" had been a stable redirect to " 1981 Irish hunger strike" since 2007. While the two opposing editors cited "recentism" as a reason to disregard that evidence, WP:RECENTISM is an essay without the status of guideline or policy, and little attempt was made to justify the assertion. The most recent of these events took place over 40 years ago. The Irish media describe the 1920 and 1923 hunger strikes as "forgotten", and "among the least well remembered" of their kind. The move request was initially closed as "not moved" without further comment. When I asked the mover to consider reopening the discussion, the comment, "Consensus there is no primary topic for 'Irish hunger strike'. The events in 1920 and 1923 in particular have a long-term significance similar to that of the events in 1981" was added. My feeling is that, given the lack of evidence for that long-term significance, the evidence of page views should have been given more weight, per WP:RMCIDC. Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 16:15, 8 July 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. |
Ignoring the "per nom" and "as above" arguments, I do not see a clear consensus. It looks like a 50-50 to me. So, as other users pointed at BillMammal's user talk page, I believe that that this discussion should be reopened and relisted. GTrang ( talk) 00:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
open for only one week, but was instead open for over two weeks. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
poorly argued. For example: The Australian broadcaster reaches 8 digit levels of people on a weekly basis, while the U.S. company averages around 7 million on nightly newscasts. I must be missing something because this clearly establishes the US broadcaster as the more watched. The support comment that oppose arguments have a very US-centric worldview bears no relationship to the actual preceding oppose comments. To this we can add per nom and as above. The whole discussion is so short it is very easy to read in full. Which I did after I saw the link corrections in my watchlist. I was flabbergasted that this counted as consensus. In a very different case, it might. But these are highly visible articles with a history of RMs. (And just for the record, I am neither Australian nor American.) Srnec ( talk) 03:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
one was from a British editor, I didn't think that we discounted arguments on the basis of nationality. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
The substance of the closeamounted to "moved". No further justification was provided in the closer's statement. Srnec ( talk) 15:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
the data is currently lost because the page has been moved - but if I recall it was something like 16.1K compared to the Australian 3.3K
the number of links in and out was in the thousands compared to the hundreds for the Australian station
"supporters" comments are just adding "per nom", "per above", etc. without any other reasonable argument why the American ABC News must not be primary topic. I also failed to see any reasonable argument from you as to why American ABC News must be the primary topic. Your argument was merely that when searching ABC News on the internet (presumably you mean Google or some other search engine) that more results come up for the American ABC News than for the Australian ABC News. That happens because presumably you are in America, because when I search for ABC News on the internet, the absolute opposite occurs for me. That is to say your subjective experience of using search engines is not universal and hence wasn't a good argument. The other oppose argument was that there had been too many discussions and therefore the status quo should remain. Again, not a good argument. Both of the oppose arguments were weak arguments. TarnishedPath talk 13:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
[t]here have been eight previous requested moves on this topic; of those, only two had more participation. 7 participants in a RM discussion is not exactly smaller than general. I've seen quite a few RM discussions with participation smaller than that. The RM discussion went for fully two weeks, which is longer than the 7 days that they generally go for. There was a banner up on the page and anyone who was interested could have participated. TarnishedPath talk 02:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
The Australian broadcaster reaches 8 digit levels of people on a weekly basis, while the U.S. company averages around 7 million on nightly newscasts; the sources provided showed the Australian source had 13,000,000 users per week while the American source had 7,000,000 viewers per night. When closing I interpreted this as them arguing that they had comparable audiences, and since this wasn't self-evidently contradicted by the sources, and no editor opposing the move presented an argument against it, I had no basis to consider the argument invalid.
The source says: ABC News has weekly users averaging 7.7 millionYou're right, I misread that - although 7.7 isn't the full picture, it misses the ABC news app etc.
the US ABC News has more readers than all other ABC News articles put together
much more likely than any other single topic; in some circumstances it has accepted four times as sufficient to meet that requirement, but in others it has rejected it.
of which the US article had thousands compared to the hundreds of the Australian one
more likely than all the other topics combined, and editors have successfully argued that in other discussions. Second, I interpreted the supporting arguments as implicitly arguing that there is no primary topic by
long-term significance, and since there is no consensus on which aspect takes precedence I wouldn't be able to give either sides !votes additional weight.
is the only one person who posted a meaningful and policy-based comment in the discussion. This has been claimed over and over again, however I don't see that this is a correct statement. The oppose voter who cited primary topic used their subjective experience of search engine results as evidence for their claim. That is not in line with policy. TarnishedPath talk 08:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
compelling and factually-accurate argumentsfor or against the move here. Srnec ( talk) 20:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion. It's clear from the length and substance of the commentary here, that significant information was not discussed in the RM. For example, editors have begun to debate assessments of page views and incoming links. No matter whether you agree any of that information should ultimately change the outcome, a reopened RM the place for it to be discussed. The closer is right that the closure could not have considered arguments that had not yet been made by any editor, but it is wrong not to reopen the discussion now that they are being made. Adumbrativus ( talk) 06:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
this was a policy-compliant close, and a fair reading of consensus in the discussion.I said very little in my own !vote, because it seemed sufficiently clear where the stronger argument was; I cannot fault the closer for judging likewise. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
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
|
Formal review processes |
---|
|
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: |
Administrators' noticeboard |
In bot-related matters: |
|
Discussion about closes prior to closing: |
Move review is a process to formally discuss and evaluate a contested close of Wikipedia page move discussions, including requested moves (RM), categories for discussion discussions (CfD), and redirects for discussion discussions (RfD), to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.
Prior to submitting a review of a page move's close, please attempt to resolve any issues on the closer's talk page. See step one below.
While the page move close is under review, any involved editor is free to revert any undiscussed moves of a nominated page without those actions being considered a violation of Wikipedia:No wheel warring.
This review process should be focused on the move discussion and the subsequent results of the move discussion, not on the person who closed the discussion. If you have ongoing concerns about a closer, please consult with the closer or post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Move review requests which cast aspersions or otherwise attack other editors may be speedily closed.
Do not request a move review if someone has boldly moved a page and you disagree. Instead, attempt to discuss it with the editor, and if the matter continues to be unresolved, start a formal WP:RM discussion on the article's talk page.
Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a page move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion.
Disagreements with Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions (WP:RMCI), WP:Article titles, the Manual of Style, a naming convention or the community norm of consensus should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page.
CfDs [1] and RfDs can only be reviewed here if the relevant discussion was limited in scope to renaming; CfDs or RfDs [2] involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review.
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:
Editors initiating a move review discussion should be familiar with the closing instructions provided in WP:RMCI.
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. |
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.
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 |
On 3 May 2024 there was a requested move from "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" and it was moved to "Gaza genocide". Three options were available to vote for the new article title: "Gaza genocide question", "Gaza genocide accusation" and "Gaza genocide". While the third option had the plurality of the votes, options 1 and 2 had a majority combined, and are basically the same thing just put into two different titles. I want to hear comments on if the move was applied too soon and if there is a clear consensus to call it Gaza genocide. User:Selfstudier wrote "If you want to dispute the current article title, which has consensus, Move Review is the place, where I note no-one has to date contested the recent move". [1] I am thus following his suggestion to ask for further review.-- 3E1I5S8B9RF7 ( talk) 12:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
argument was contested but not convincingly rebutted. Boud ( talk) 00:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
It's been a few years since the last move review. If the name "Salesforce Transit Center" wasn't common then, it certainly is now. Rationale for calling it "Salesforce Transit Center":
So, the passengers who pass through the transit center know it as Salesforce Transit Center. The drivers and transit agency employees know it as Salesforce Transit Center. Both locals and tourists know it as Salesforce Transit Center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallneil ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 21 July 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. |
So me and this user have been unable to come into an agreement regarding the name of this railway station. There have been two news article that state the official station name has changed, but Paine keeps stating its not enough to officially update the station name. I've provided several links & photos that show the name has changed. Please step in. FlushingLocal ( talk) 00:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
SNOW closing an RM after less then 6 hours is highly inappropriate, since certain time zones would have never had a chance to respond, and there is some evidence suggesting it may not have been an assassination attempt. This should have been given more time to develop with more input from others. Below the RM, the closer further justified closing it, so I did not see a need to bring this to their talk page with the highly likely result they refuse. Downerr2937 ( talk) 16:26, 14 July 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. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
review result to not move project 2025 to Project 2025/Presidential Transition Project. The discussion took place in the section Requested move 13 June 2024 in Talk:Project 2025. 173.72.3.91 ( talk) 18:53, 12 July 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. |
This was either a close for Ivory Coast or perhaps no-consensus. Red Slash based everything on ngrams as opposed to other argument content. ngrams were shown to be inefficient compared with so many major sources still using Ivory Coast. Google trends has Ivory Coast way ahead, and even that source is limiting. I've never seen ngrams used exclusively as a reason to close an RM. Past discussion have had the same ngram arguments and been quashed. Why this one RM and it's moved? I edit a lot of tennis articles and if we used ngrams to this extent all our foreign players and locations would be at different titles (titles Wikipedia forces us to use often get 0% ngrams vs 100% something else). Plus this was closed the day three more people placed their opinions... it was very active the day it closed. I'm sure the closer was sincere here, but it was just a bad close. Even the person who opened the RM thinks it was a bad close. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 06:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This was a protacted, verbose, contentious discussion with both sides deeply entrenched, and yet Red Slash moved the article and stated, " Arguably, there was a consensus to move to the lower-case title; many people agreed that, when dealing with all peoples who are indigenous to a given area, the 'i' should be lowercase." There was absolutely not a consensus. Nonetheless, Red Slash moved the article diff] The article had previously been at Genocide of Indigenous peoples, and a previous discussion to move to Genocide of indigenous peoples had failed. [2]. On their talk page, Red Slash wrote, "The consensus was broad-ish, though not overly strong. Because of this, I concede that a reasonable person might view it as if there were no consensus." Yes, WP consensuses don't need to be unaminous, but this was not a consensus. Being a highly controversial discussion, this should have had an administrator close the discussion. Yuchitown ( talk) 14:51, 11 July 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. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
On the basis of page views, 1981 Irish hunger strike is a clear primary topic by usage. The pages " 1920 Cork hunger strike" and " 1923 Irish hunger strikes" were both created in 2021 and have 37 and 42 incoming links respectively, while "1981 Irish hunger strike" was created in 2004 and has 1,162. Until recent changes, " Irish hunger strike" had been a stable redirect to " 1981 Irish hunger strike" since 2007. While the two opposing editors cited "recentism" as a reason to disregard that evidence, WP:RECENTISM is an essay without the status of guideline or policy, and little attempt was made to justify the assertion. The most recent of these events took place over 40 years ago. The Irish media describe the 1920 and 1923 hunger strikes as "forgotten", and "among the least well remembered" of their kind. The move request was initially closed as "not moved" without further comment. When I asked the mover to consider reopening the discussion, the comment, "Consensus there is no primary topic for 'Irish hunger strike'. The events in 1920 and 1923 in particular have a long-term significance similar to that of the events in 1981" was added. My feeling is that, given the lack of evidence for that long-term significance, the evidence of page views should have been given more weight, per WP:RMCIDC. Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 16:15, 8 July 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. |
Ignoring the "per nom" and "as above" arguments, I do not see a clear consensus. It looks like a 50-50 to me. So, as other users pointed at BillMammal's user talk page, I believe that that this discussion should be reopened and relisted. GTrang ( talk) 00:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
open for only one week, but was instead open for over two weeks. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
poorly argued. For example: The Australian broadcaster reaches 8 digit levels of people on a weekly basis, while the U.S. company averages around 7 million on nightly newscasts. I must be missing something because this clearly establishes the US broadcaster as the more watched. The support comment that oppose arguments have a very US-centric worldview bears no relationship to the actual preceding oppose comments. To this we can add per nom and as above. The whole discussion is so short it is very easy to read in full. Which I did after I saw the link corrections in my watchlist. I was flabbergasted that this counted as consensus. In a very different case, it might. But these are highly visible articles with a history of RMs. (And just for the record, I am neither Australian nor American.) Srnec ( talk) 03:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
one was from a British editor, I didn't think that we discounted arguments on the basis of nationality. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
The substance of the closeamounted to "moved". No further justification was provided in the closer's statement. Srnec ( talk) 15:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
the data is currently lost because the page has been moved - but if I recall it was something like 16.1K compared to the Australian 3.3K
the number of links in and out was in the thousands compared to the hundreds for the Australian station
"supporters" comments are just adding "per nom", "per above", etc. without any other reasonable argument why the American ABC News must not be primary topic. I also failed to see any reasonable argument from you as to why American ABC News must be the primary topic. Your argument was merely that when searching ABC News on the internet (presumably you mean Google or some other search engine) that more results come up for the American ABC News than for the Australian ABC News. That happens because presumably you are in America, because when I search for ABC News on the internet, the absolute opposite occurs for me. That is to say your subjective experience of using search engines is not universal and hence wasn't a good argument. The other oppose argument was that there had been too many discussions and therefore the status quo should remain. Again, not a good argument. Both of the oppose arguments were weak arguments. TarnishedPath talk 13:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
[t]here have been eight previous requested moves on this topic; of those, only two had more participation. 7 participants in a RM discussion is not exactly smaller than general. I've seen quite a few RM discussions with participation smaller than that. The RM discussion went for fully two weeks, which is longer than the 7 days that they generally go for. There was a banner up on the page and anyone who was interested could have participated. TarnishedPath talk 02:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
The Australian broadcaster reaches 8 digit levels of people on a weekly basis, while the U.S. company averages around 7 million on nightly newscasts; the sources provided showed the Australian source had 13,000,000 users per week while the American source had 7,000,000 viewers per night. When closing I interpreted this as them arguing that they had comparable audiences, and since this wasn't self-evidently contradicted by the sources, and no editor opposing the move presented an argument against it, I had no basis to consider the argument invalid.
The source says: ABC News has weekly users averaging 7.7 millionYou're right, I misread that - although 7.7 isn't the full picture, it misses the ABC news app etc.
the US ABC News has more readers than all other ABC News articles put together
much more likely than any other single topic; in some circumstances it has accepted four times as sufficient to meet that requirement, but in others it has rejected it.
of which the US article had thousands compared to the hundreds of the Australian one
more likely than all the other topics combined, and editors have successfully argued that in other discussions. Second, I interpreted the supporting arguments as implicitly arguing that there is no primary topic by
long-term significance, and since there is no consensus on which aspect takes precedence I wouldn't be able to give either sides !votes additional weight.
is the only one person who posted a meaningful and policy-based comment in the discussion. This has been claimed over and over again, however I don't see that this is a correct statement. The oppose voter who cited primary topic used their subjective experience of search engine results as evidence for their claim. That is not in line with policy. TarnishedPath talk 08:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
compelling and factually-accurate argumentsfor or against the move here. Srnec ( talk) 20:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion. It's clear from the length and substance of the commentary here, that significant information was not discussed in the RM. For example, editors have begun to debate assessments of page views and incoming links. No matter whether you agree any of that information should ultimately change the outcome, a reopened RM the place for it to be discussed. The closer is right that the closure could not have considered arguments that had not yet been made by any editor, but it is wrong not to reopen the discussion now that they are being made. Adumbrativus ( talk) 06:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
this was a policy-compliant close, and a fair reading of consensus in the discussion.I said very little in my own !vote, because it seemed sufficiently clear where the stronger argument was; I cannot fault the closer for judging likewise. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
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
|