Wikipedia:Move review

Skip to: Active discussions · Recent discussions · Archive · (purge cache)

Move review is a process to formally discuss and evaluate a contested close of Wikipedia page move discussions, including requested moves (RM), categories for discussion discussions (CfD), and redirects for discussion discussions (RfD), to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.

Prior to submitting a review of a page move's close, please attempt to resolve any issues on the closer's talk page. See step one below.

While the page move close is under review, any involved editor is free to revert any undiscussed moves of a nominated page without those actions being considered a violation of Wikipedia:No wheel warring.

What this process is not

Shortcut

WP:MRNOT

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

Initiating move reviews

Shortcut

WP:IMR

Editors desiring to initiate a move review should follow the steps listed below. In the reason parameter, editors should limit their requests to one or both of the following reasons:

[Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because [explain rationale here] in closing this requested move discussion.
[Closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: [identify information here] and the discussion should be reopened and relisted.

Editors initiating a move review discussion should be familiar with the closing instructions provided in WP:RMCI.

Steps to list a new review request


1.	Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page. Move review is a process that takes several days, sometimes weeks, to close. On the closer's talk page, you can probably resolve the matter much more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full, formal move review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, and you decide to request a review of the closure, please note in the review that you did first try discussing the matter with the closer. To clarify: You absolutely MUST attempt to discuss the matter with the closer FIRST, and give them a few days to respond.
2.	Follow this link to this month's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the contested move page, rm_page with the name of the move discussion page if needed, rm_section if needed, closer and closer_section with the post-move discussion information, and reason with the reason why the page move should be reviewed. For example: Copy this template skeleton for most pages: {{subst:move review list \|page= \|rm_page= <!--Not needed if the move discussion is on the talk page of the page--> \|rm_section= <!--Name of the section with the move request--> \|closer= <!--User name of editor who closed the move request--> \|closer_section= <!--Name of the section of closer's talk page where discussion took place--> \|reason= }} ~~~~ If either the `\|closer=` or `\|closer_section=` parameter is omitted, the result will include "No discussion on closer's talk page". When `\|closer= < closer's username >` and `\|closer_section= < section header on closer's talk page where there was discussion about the close >` are correctly filled in, the result will include a "Discussion with closer" link to that discussion. If the `\|closer_section=` link is to the section on the closer's talk page where the closer has only been notified of Move review (see step 3) and the closer has not actually discussed their close with another editor on their talk page, the result will include a "No discussion on closer's talk page" link to the Move review notice.
3.	If you have not done so already, inform the closer of the Move review discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: `{{subst:move review note\|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~`
4.	Leave notice of the move review in the same section as, but outside of and above the closed original move discussion. Use the following template: `{{move review talk\|date=29 August 2024}}`. Do not tag the article.
5.	If the current month discussions are not already included in the discussion section below. Add the new log page to the top of the active discussions section. `{{Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 August}}`
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
	Not moved	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

2024 August

Liverpool 1 (TV series) (closed)

Liverpool 1 (TV series) – Decision endorsed * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I think it's wrong to close a move (whether as not moved or no consensus. in this case, the former) if there are only two participants and since its only been 8 days. While there is no minimum participation, I don't think 2 people opposing is enough because the nominators/proposers decision should also be taken into account alongside the participants. It is also because the policy on WP:SMALLDETAILS can be subjective. Liverpool One is the title of the shopping complex while Liverpool 1 is a dab page with it only containing the TV series and the shopping. I know that people may refer to the shopping area as Liverpool 1 because of the fact that it's also in the logo. However, natural disambiguation is preferable, hence why small details apply. On the RM, the views for the shopping area and the TV series is about the same. The closer went by counting votes (closers shouldn't just count votes but weigh them) and have excluded the nominator/proposers rationale. I just think the consensus score would have been 1 support and 1.5 opposes. Therefore, I think it's safe to say that relisting (or even overturning it) is the best way forward. JuniperChill (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Endorse~~Weak endorse (involved) but possibly change to "no consensus" or relist, both opposers pointed to the ambiguity such as the logo of the shopping area using "1" rather than "One". I am a supporter of SMALLDETAILS but I doubted it applies in this case so its not like the opposers didn't discuss the policy. In terms of the point about natural disambiguation WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT may apply. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). Entirely correct close. The title is clearly ambiguous and we deal with ambiguity with disambiguation. The only participants other than the nominator (who is also the nominator here) opposed the move. Yes, it only had three participants, but if we reopened every close that only had a handful of participants we'd hardly close anything. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because two people opposing with one supporting (the proposer) isn't enough to deal with whether or not small details would apply. If someone proposed (for example) to change Tacoma, Washington to just Tacoma (because Tacoma redirects to Tacoma, Washington), and only 2 people opposed it, that's fine by me because WP:USPLACE stipulates that the state has to be included with almost every US city. Therefore, relisting it should have been the option, or simply, leaving it since RMs could last for infinity. While Liverpool 1 is ambiguous, hatnotes can deal with it fine, like in ice cube (the one used to cool drinks down) to Ice Cube (the rapper). Apple is ambiguous due to the tech company, but that title is taken by the fruit. I normally search in all lowercase. I could argue that a the closer opposed it

And with natural disambiguation, how is Liverpool 1 redirecting to the shopping natural? What I mean is that both articles won't have a disambiguiator or maybe I was thinking it wrong JuniperChill (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fruit is considered primary by long-term significance rather than primarily because the company has a different title, see Rock (geology) which is primary for Stone even though its not for Rock. WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT states "The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary". If the RM had have been closed as "moved" I would have taken it to move review. If we were discussing Liverpool 1! and Liverpool One!! then I agree SMALLDETAILS would apply but as noted "One" and "1" are interchangable and evidence was presented by both opposers that the shopping area is ambiguous with "1" so it seemd reasonable for the closer to close as "not moved" though as noted a relist or "no consensus" may be better and possibly the shopping area should also be qualified. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Formula One vs Formula 1, because of the fact both are in common use (though I could argue Formula 1 is WP:COMMONNAME but that's a different topic altogether). But with the Liverpool One/1 situation, its different. Both articles have way less views than F1 and that there are only one article titled Liverpool 1 and Liverpool One. When I tried to move Train simulator (disambiguation) to Train Simulator, (which Crouch also participated in and supported it. Necrothesp was also there, but opposed it) the opposers stated that there are only a few articles that are titled "Train Simulator" with the rest being partial title matches WP:PTM, and the fact it adds ambiguity.

Maybe you meant to vote 'weak endorse' because you said that relisting/no consensus may have been a better option? JuniperChill (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that for Train Simulator there is probably no primary topic even though Train simulator has one. The same might be true for "Liverpool 1" meaning I'm not saying "Liverpool 1" should redirect to the shopping centre but go to the DAB which it does. As noted I provided evidence that the shopping centre appears to be called "Liverpool 1" with my Google search and Necrothesp provided the argument about the logo. Such arguments may have been weak but were from what I can see policy based and were the only evidence presented in the discussion, you didn't provide any evidence that "Liverpool 1" mainly refers to the TV series. Now if the debate was relisted and evidence of a primary topic was presented and we had others agreeing with you then yes the discussion could later be closed as "moved" but from the evidence and participation in the discussion as it standed it could only have been closed as either "not moved" or "no consensus" if not relisted. I have changed my !vote to weak though my main point of "endorse" is that the discussion should not be closed as "moved" at this time. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To conclude, the reason why I opened this review was because of the fact that there were only two participants which both of them opposed and its only been open for 8 days (just above the minimum of 7). If there were at least three participants and all of them opposed, I would've left it as it as and won't have to talk to the closer, let alone open this review. I would be hopeful for a third participant to support/oppose it, and it would've been the end of the matter. I am thinking it's wrong to close an RM with just two participants opposing it and that relisting or leaving it is the best way forward since RMs don't have a maximum length and that is what I would have done (although idk about relisting moves I opened). Hopefully, there will be uninvolved users commenting on this since it's been over 30 hours and I have notified the TV series Wikiproject. JuniperChill (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse (uninvolved). Had I been in the closer's shoes, I probably would have relisted the discussion or closed as no consensus, but I think "not moved" is also within the range of reasonable interpretations a closer could make here. Participants were divided on whether applying WP:SMALLDETAILS would be appropriate – and some back-and-forth took place on that question, so I don't think either side would have been likely to convince the other with more time for discussion. The only primary topic-related discussion argued for no primary topic, so the absence of a consensus to apply SMALLDETAILS means that not moving the page was the correct approach. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) not an incorrect decision as there's no consensus to move. I don't think a relist would have been a bad option, but I'm also not sure relisting will attract a large enough audience to get this out of the "not moved" category given the arguments by those opposing. SportingFlyer T·C 18:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was another RM at Talk:The In-Between (2019 film)#Requested move 10 May 2022 about if a hyphen is sufficent per SMALLDETAILS which may be relevant to this discussion though I would say that a hyphen is likely a smaller/less defining difference than "1" v "One" but some of the points probably apply to this as well. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). The result was a lack of agreement on the application of WP:SMALLDETAILS. Some RMs receive more attention than others; there is no minimum amount of participation necessary for a close and no obligation to relist. As noted above a "no consensus" close may have been possible here, but the discussion did not appear headed to any consensus to move. Dekimasuよ! 16:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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