Wikipedia:Move review
 |
| 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.
What this process is not
[edit]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.
Instructions
[edit]Initiating move reviews
[edit]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
[edit]| 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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]- ^ 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
[edit]This discussion was not closed by an assessment of the discussion, but by a supervote: "I am satisfied that "Timor Leste" is now the dominant term". The close contained not only the individual analysis leading to this view, but also pointed towards commentary made at another close to bolster the argument. What the close does not have is any evaluation of the participants' discussion. There has been some post-close commentary about a potential relisting, but either way the move request should be re-closed with an assessment of consensus. CMD (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn. Supervote and BADNAC. I read a strong “no consensus”. Non admins should not be closing contentious discussions. A closer beginning their rationale by citing their previous closes is a plain claim to being INVOLVED in similar cases, and is an unacceptable bias to take as positive evidence. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn. I voted "oppose" to the move of East Timor to Timor-Leste because this country's Portuguese-language name is not its WP:COMMONNAME exonym in the English-speaking world. Nonetheless, since Wikipedia is consensus-based, I would not be reluctant to accept a clear majority in favor of the move, such as the majorities evident in the city name moves Kiev → Kyiv or Odessa → Odesa. However, the votes do not show majority support for the move and, since moves of country names are rare and contentious (the most recent such move — Ivory Coast → Côte d'Ivoire at Talk:Ivory Coast#Requested move 27 June 2024 — also resulted in a move review), a move of this nature should be made only if consensus is clear and unambiguous. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn (uninvolved) Per Supervote. Yet another example of a NAC doing a contentious close, that did not indicate consensus, but rather POV of the closer themselves. TiggerJay (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse I don't actually see any problem with the close, and on DRV I tend to yell BADNAC even when others don't. The closer is not an admin, but clearly has experience closing discussions, and while their final sentence isn't well worded, the rest of the close was clearly thought out. Those supporting also made a better case than those opposing, in my opinion: those supporting cite COMMONNAME, and those opposing don't really discuss how it's not the COMMONNAME but instead make a variety of differing arguments. No reason to overturn this one. SportingFlyer T·C 06:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse (partially involved - I made a general comment but didn't vote). I think the close could have absolutely been worded better, but I don't see it as a supervote - to me, I read it as a judgement after the closer read the argument and I don't think that a closer needs to explicitly say "After reading this discussion I am satisfied...". The arguments opposing the move were weak and generally related to vague claims and cherry-picked sources, or pointing to frustration with the move request in general rather than actually why the page shouldn't be moved. In contrast, support votes provided evidence and cited policy reasons for the move, which makes a move a perfectly logical conclusion. It could have been relisted for sure, but I don't think it needed to be, and closing seems fine to me. Turnagra (talk) 06:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are picking at the wrong issue with being explicit, if the closer is meant to be "satisfied" they should be with the consensus and its support in policy; they are not meant to be satisfied or not that a particular argument meets a certain standard. Closing RMs is not a burden-of-evidence style judgement. CMD (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Relist. I think the discussion hadn't quite settled into a steady state. Plenty of new participants were still coming in, based on the number who joined shortly before the closure. After the closure there were further new interested parties and further discussion, of which a good portion was helpful commentary and not just, say, only the same people repeating the same points they already made. And of course this is on a backdrop of a long history of dispute over the same proposal. No single one of these factors inherently requires a relist, but in the overall circumstances I would allow the post-close suggestions to discuss more. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn. This was a pure supervote, based not on the consensus of the discussion but on the closer's reading of the position. Such an argument should have been made as a !vote, not as a close. This should be changed either to no consensus or to relist, so that it can be re-closed with a rationale that is actually based on the content of the discussion rather than the closer's position on the underlying question. Kahastok talk 09:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Relist. This was a premature close and its rationale had supervote character. I am personally in favor of a page move and could be content with the outcome, but at that stage of the discussion, a relist would have been the most appropriate thing to do. –Austronesier (talk) 10:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus or relist Agree that the close was premature and there was not a strong consensus (which is probably needed given the number of attempts to move this article in the past). As an aside, I also find it quite odd that Ngrams were not referred to at all in the discussion, as they would usually be a key source when considering whether a common name had changed or not. The results would suggest that the move should not have taken place. Number 57 16:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Relist - The closing statement is a statement of the closer's opinion, not a statement about the consensus of opinions of the participants. It is therefore a supervote. There is no consensus, and relisting is better than just closing as No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Do not overturn to no consensus (partially involved) – there are still arguments to be made from users in the post-close discussion, and I generally believe 7-day discussions should very rarely be closed as no consensus. Relists exist to find that consensus. I made my comments about whether I think it's a good close or not on the talk page, but I don't feel strongly one way or the other; I'm not going to comment here on whether this should be relisted or endorsed. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Murder of Zvi Kogan (closed)
[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
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 - chat/contributions 01:00, 12 December 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
 | Search Move review archives
| |