Wikipedia talk:Move review/Archive 2013

Six months in, time to review this process?

Hadn't really been watching this since the horrible experience I had with the Ivory Coast review, but another issue brought my attention this way earlier today. I have just reviewed all the archived discussions and unless I missed something in the six months since it was established this process has not overturned a single close of a move discussion. No disrespect to all who worked to put this together and keep it going, but perhaps it is time to review the utility of this process. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, time was spent. While there were no overturns, and several questionable closes of reviews, I'd rather work on fixing the process rather than dumping the work already done. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it is run maybe too conservatively, and there is too much acquiescence to the ill-defined "spirit and intent of RCMI" (the regulars seem to think it means something useful). However, I think there has been less move-warring, edit warring and inflammatory arguing ver disputed RM closes, and surely that is a good thing? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear I am not advocating just shutting this down, it just seems like a good time to review it and reexamine how and if it works. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that. My impression is that the way the reviews are happening are simple vote counting rather then an informed consideration of the policies that are suppose to guide the process. It has for the most part become a RM2 which is exactly what no one wanted. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem is lack of visibility. No one knows about this process, so it's chiefly used by the folks who were already involved in the RMs themselves.Cúchullain ^t/c 13:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

If a notice was added to {{cent}} or made to wp:vpm it would attract attention. The move notices are summarized at the dashboard, but not mrv, although the open ones could be easily added there. Apteva (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see this as a particularly useful process because it is very hard to overturn a move closure on procedural grounds unless there is a clear case of an involved closer. At the margin, and contested closes are always at the margin, consensus is rarely crystal clear and it is hard, and would be bad for the project, to say that the closer read consensus incorrectly. We've merely added a pointless layer to an already overburdened project. In my opinion, that is. --regentspark (comment) 14:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

What's up with putting the {{mrv}} on the page, instead of the talk page? I had assumed, and put it on the talk page, but now I see it says the page. Shouldn't it say put it on the top of the talk page discussion? {{MRVdiscuss}} also has a link to the discussion, but it is in the past tense, and as I see it replaces mrv after the review is over. Apteva (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think the notice should be placed both on top of the article and in a new section at the bottom of the talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

  What for? None of the move templates are on the article page, why would one suddenly be put there just because the move request close was contested? Also, the MRV notice should not be in a new section, but above the closed discussion, as it is a link and no discussion takes place there, but instead is about the close and at mrv. Apteva (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about this before ..., and I was apparently confused.

I do think that formal RM discussions should lead to a tag on the top of the article (contrary to current practice), much like merge discussions. A rename is a fairly big think sometimes, and mainspace editors should be advised.

I do not think that MRV discussion notices belong on top of the article (as is currently done). I hadn't really paid attention to this notice, but as the review is only a meta discussion of content, I don't think it is important to try to attract mainspace-only editors.

I do think that RM and MR discussions should be advertised on the talk page. RM is at the bottom of the talk page already, so it is fine. The MR discussion should be noted on top of the closed RM discussion as a hatnote, but I would like to see a more wordy templated message placed at teh bottom of the talk page move fully advising the purpose of the MR discussion. This note advising on the intended purpose of MR discussions may assist in improving the structure of MR discussions, maybe, and is unlikely to hurt. I'd like to see the note added to the bottom of the talk page because that is where new actions should be noted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoa. It is de rigore for mainspace editors to check the talk page. I sometimes do it after an edit instead of before, but I rarely miss that step, unless I am just undoing vandalism. My normal routine on pages I watch (I do not watchlist any, but have dozens to hundreds of pages that I watch) is to check history, then check the talk page for any requests, then look for ways to improve the article. The only people who do not check the talk page are readers. I have been adding the MRV link to the talk page just above the closed discussion, in the same section. I see no need for two links, but there is a difference to a link to an active discussion and a link to a closed discussion. I saw one closer remove the MRV link from the talk page, but that is inappropriate - although it needs to say there was a discussion and the result was X. I think keeping it as a hatnote right above the move discussion in the same section is good, rather than moving it to the talkheader as is done with links to afd, ga, etc. discussions. Apteva (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Should the RM notice go on the article?

• No. This is only of interest to editors, not readers. Apteva (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• Unsure. It may be of interest to readers who are rarely editors. It relates to content, just a little. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Should the MR notice go on the article?

• No. This becomes particularly clear if this is expanded to RfCs. Apteva (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• No. The review of a close of a discussion is not about content, and a review discussion does not seek non-editor input. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Per above the tag on the one open MRV was moved to the talk page. Apteva (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Overhauling the layout?

Can we scrap out separation-by-day and then go for separation-by-month or separation-by-case or something like WP:non-free content review? What will we do about WP:move review/New day, WP:move review/Next day, WP:move review/Log/Template, and others? --George Ho (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Would much prefer a division only of "current" and "old", if even that, and that all discussions belong in their own pages directly transcluded into the main review page on nomination, and removed after closure. How they are referenced for archiving is not so important. At this stage, year by year would be suitable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... with activity slowing down, making a "WP:move review/<artice>" is either a waste of bytes or unnecessary. --George Ho (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

How many more bytes are required to divide, for example, the two sections of Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2012 October into Wikipedia:Move review/Seattle–Tacoma International Airport and Wikipedia:Move review/Mexican–American War?

The advantage is not that it is "necessary", but of convenience. convenience in being able to follow each discussion independently using the watchlisting function, convenience in linking to an informative title, and convenience again in watchlisting Wikipedia:Move review to see the appearance and removal of a meaningful page title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I've said before that I would be fine with "by month" - we can always switch back to "by day" if volume requires it. - jc37 06:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better. I'm pretty sure that no one has disagreed with doing that. Implementing the change is not something I am good at, but I dare say that anyone may just do it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's plan for this to start for Jan 2013 then. I'll take a look at the templates. (That's the complex part. Creating the monthly pages should be fairly simple by comparison.) - jc37 06:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Now that it is January, please check my work. I edited {{Mrv}} and the instructions for using it and {{MRVdiscuss}}, which still needs to be edited, I think. Maybe. Apteva (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the preloads and removed day from some of the meta functions. Wikipedia:Move review/Log/Template needs to get fixed so that when viewed on Wikipedia:Move review/New month page it doesn't generate errors but gives a preview for the current month. PaleAqua (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done I think I've fixed up the rest of the stuff. I restored the old template be used for the old daily logs, and created a new one for monthly. I also went back and fixed all the next and prev links for all the daily pages in the archive. PaleAqua (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Typical move review decision options

After looking at the Lewis MRV it seems like there should be an additional MRV decision possible. Something along the lines of Endorse close, but relist, or Endorse close, but revise. Basically something that says the close was correct, but the article should probably be moved to a third or different choice. PaleAqua (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this suggestion is problematic on two counts. First Endorse close, but relist is a contradiction. I am not sure how you can say the closer made the right decision (endorse close) but the closer should have relisted the RM. If the RM should be been relisted, then that is the decision the closer should have made. Since relist is already an option on the MRV page, what purpose does Endorse close, but relist serve? The second option suggested Endorse close, but revise begins to go well beyond the role of the RM closer. Again if the closer made the right decision (endorse close), then why the “But you should have moved the article to another title”? Either the closing decision was correct or it wasn’t. Whenever there are alternative titles (beyond the original requested new title), judging consensus can become muddled. When new titles are introduced into an RM discussion it is sometimes very difficult to ascertain whether or not subsequent positions refer to the original or new alternative. Editors commenting on the original alternative may not participate in the discussion after an alternate is introduced. For an admin to arbitrarily ignore the discussion on the original alternative and make a move to the new alternative unless there is overwhelming consensus to do so, puts the admin in a supervote! position. All that said, there is nothing wrong with making a relisting comment that refocuses the discussion on a new alternative title. However, once that is done, I believe the specific RM is best closed by another admin, not the relisting one. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

How about "Revise close" or "Amend close" to handle situations where the move was Foo → Bar, and twenty people say it should be Foobar, and no one objects, but the close was either "No move" or "Moved to Bar". I agree that Endorse but relist makes no sense. Apteva (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I see the endorse and relist as a simple relist. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The close being discussed here is, in my mind, wrong since there was a strong consensus to move. The issue is where. Your point about moving to a new option is valid, a late suggestion is probably not the best move. In the past, I believe that, I have closed discussions as a move and immediately opened a new discussion for a name that may not have received full consideration in the just closed discussion. Closing admins really do have options if they go outside the box. The just need to stay within the spirit of the instructions. The existing options are fine. We don't need complex options when incomplete statistics are given undo weight in the close. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You'd have something there, except that there was no "strong consensus to move". A slight numerical superiority does not a "strong consensus" make. At any rate I don't believe that leaving a discussion that had had no comments for days to further impact the severe backlog would have likely yielded another result, though it may have made some people feel better, and avoided this pointless MR discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

But that is the problem. There is a strong consensus to move if you take the strength of the arguments. You are correct that by counting !votes, a consensus to move does not exist. That is the issue. Your comment here implies that !votes were counted and the strength of the arguments was not considered. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. I considered the strength of the arguments, and found many of the support votes quite weak. There's no way to spin a "strong consensus" out of that discussion without inserting your own opinions into it.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse close, but relist is a not necessarily a contradiction, and is not unheard at DRV it means "Endorse the close as it occurred at that time but relist (or allow immediate renomination) due to new information". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In this case, I see this process as having been far more trouble than it was worth. Hot Stop brought up his concern to me on December 8, about 5 days after the close. I told him I disagreed with him, and rather than continuing to discuss, their very next step was to open a move review. So, rather than a discussion of the merits of relisting and potential other remedies, the conversation automatically became a debate about whether the close itself was legitimate or not. Since the close was clearly within the bounds of the WP:RMCI, there was no chance of overturning even if this process had ever successfully overturned a close. So, after nearly a month of back and forth here, the inevitable result was reached and the article stays where it is.

If Hot Stop had come to me earlier, or even if they hadn't just moved straight to the MR, I'd have been available to discuss other remedies. In this case, however, opening an MR channeled the conversation in a direction that was never going to lead to a change. Even just letting it go and opening another RM later would have been more productive. I don't know if it's just this one case, or if it's is a systemic problem with this process, but this exercise was a waste of time for everyone involved.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

riksdag

I believe the closure of the MRV on riksdag is incorrect. The open move request at talk:riksdag is procedurally improper (WP:DISRUPTIVE/WP:POINT - per nom's assertion that RMs will be filed until the move is reversed) and should be closed to allow the MRV to proceed. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that reopening the MRV is impossible. The current request was four days before the MRV, and there were support and oppose votes lately, making the MRV on 2012 discussion null and void. --George Ho (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Applicability of move review

There is a discussion which in part involves the applicability of move review here. It may interest some followers of this page.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Close Riksdag

Will someone close that sock-riddled Riksdag review? Staying open for over a month with no new comments is ridiculous.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:MRVdiscuss

There is a minor problem with Template:MRVdiscuss in that it does not calculate the correct month on the last day of the month - if you put in 2013 April 30 it takes you to 2013 May, 2013 May 31 takes you to 2013 June. See Talk:dot the i#Requested move, for example. Apteva (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Template fixed with a slightly better date formatting work-a-round. PaleAqua (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Conditions of this process

Right now, this venue is almost dead, and someone is trying to overturn the closure of "dot the i". ...Ugh... Fighting over one title or another is one thing, but taking this to move review just to rehash it backfires, as many of them result "decision endorsed". So far this year, we have one to three contest reviews per month, and no inspiring discussions were made. I was a proponent of this venue, but then I realize that closures and closers matter more than this nearly dead venue. As I realized, WP:ANI is the best way to contest the closers, not this venue. So far, "dot the i" could be our only chance of inspiration if the decision is overturned, but it's not inspiring enough. Next year, can we make quarters or thirds of a year? --George Ho (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm the closing admin of the dot the i move review, and I would welcome any other admin to come in and close the review. George, why not leave a message for User:Cuchullain to see if he wants to close it? He does have experience in closing difficult RMs. Any outcome seems better than leaving the move review to sit here forever. In my opinion the issue is not earthshaking, so any review outcome is reasonable. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone "endorsed" the decisions today, so... let's wait for a long while... In the meantime, I'll have him close the "Harry Truman Memorial" thing then, which is simply a waste of time. --George Ho (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The venue is calm, not dead. The venue was needed to give people the space to make a case that a close was bad. The mere existence of this venue has calmed the post-RM-close disputes. Closer's know that they may have to see their closes put under community scrutiny, and to be criticised, let alone overturned, is embarrassing and inducing of behavioural change. The the unhappy participant, they can no longer bluster, move-war, or merely repeat the same RM request on the basis that the previous was wrong, but they have to put up or shut up, and if they nominate, they risk similar embarrassment for a silly nomination.

The venue has not solved all problems. There is still a RM backlog. People still get upset out of proportion of the stakes involved. The venue was not meant to solve all problems.

There are indeed so few MR nominations that the overly complicated subpaging day or month logging system is silly. And the subpaging system is still silly in not allowing a watchlist on WP:MR to report additions or removals of reviews. I still think every MR should get its own page, and be directly transcluded into WP:MR. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Daily definitely was overkill. Looks like it's normally about two reviews a month lately. Since you can watch pages that don't exist yet, I've added all the log pages for the rest of the year to my watchlog. Just add the following to your raw watchlist to watch the rest of the year. You can just paste them in even if you already are watching some of them, and it will adds only the ones that you don't have. PaleAqua (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I added 33 future pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Log files for 2013-5

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 January Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 February Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 March Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 April Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 May Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 June Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 July Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 August Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 September Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 October Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 November Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 December Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 January Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 February Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 March Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 April Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 June Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 July Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 August Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 September Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 October Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 November Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 December Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 January Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 February Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 March Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 April Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 May Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 June Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 July Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 August Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 September Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 October Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 November Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 December

Just two decisions overturned

Finally, we have at least one decision overturned this year. Maybe this venue has some benefits after all. --George Ho (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• For reference, which? An overturn rate is not the measure of value for Move Review. Instead, look at the rate of post RM close move warring. Are closes being made with more care and being given more respect? Does MR provide a forum for review, reflection and continued learning? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• In Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 June#Hillary Clinton (closed) the 'Moved' verdict was overturned.
• In Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 July#The Dark Knight (film) (closed) the 'Moved' verdict was overturned. EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope this is okay, but the HRC move review resulted in an overturn of a moved verdict, not a not moved one. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You're right, the move to Hillary Rodham Clinton was overturned on review. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

almost. The move FROM Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton was overturned.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

In some of the 2013 MRV cases, no actions were taken on review because there was something wrong with the request. For instance in one case the original move discussion was still in progress when it was brought to MRV. So, looking only at the completed requests, there were 12 well-formed requests for review in 2013. In two of them the original decision was overturned, in the other 10, the decision of the RM was confirmed. EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea/Bradley Manning crisis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't think this venue would handle a controversy like this. Look at Burma vs. Myannmar and Perth situations. I am afraid that, if "closure endorsed" becomes a result in case that closure review is made, crisis could be worsened. What should be more careful, correct procedures BESIDES discussing with the closer if this venue is not the answer? --George Ho (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Or, you know, editors who disagree with the closure could try not worsening the crisis. If an endorsement of the closure must worsen the crisis, then essentially the selection of "careful, correct procedures" is limited to "procedures that will definitely overturn the closure", and there aren't any. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

We can't control editors' decisions, and you know that. You are saying that we can't control destinies and that there is nothing to prevent further crisis? --George Ho (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing script

FYI

I have created a closing script for move reviews at User:Armbrust/closemrv.js. If you want to use it, than simply add

importScript('User:Armbrust/closemrv.js');

to your vector JS page and bypass your cache. (Not tested on monobook or modern either) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Relisting

Relisting should be removed from the list of outcomes, as it's simply never viable in practice. This process runs at a heavy backlog, with discussions routinely staying open for over a month after the original RM closed. Given such a long amount of time, a "relisted" discussion would effectively be a new RM entirely. Additionally, no MR has ever been decided as a "relist", the closest we've come is Upstairs–Downstairs (album), which was relisted by the RM closer (to date only two other MRs have ever overturned a decision in any way). As such I plan to remove "relist" as a stated option so that discussions stay more on track with the actual viable outcomes.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• On the other hand, instructions should not be written assuming that RM and MR are backlogged. It is a reasonable scenario that someone closes a RM too early, and the MR finds a quick SNOW consensus for a relist. That this is rare suggests that closers err on the side of hesitating to close. This may not be the case next year. As relist is a quick and easy outcome, and the process problems are at the far end of quick and easy, the explicit relist option is not a problem. Upstairs–Downstairs (album) is an excellent example of how the process should work well. "Relist" is viable, and removing it may mistakenly be read as saying that MRV closers should not relist in any circumstance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Instructions should be written according to reality. The reality for the last year and a half has been that relisting has never proven viable, even once, yet editors uninitiated in this backwater process are still encouraged to !vote as if it was. It's probable this just encourages further backlogs, as admins have to consider a bunch of "relist" votes months after the dust has settled. Removing relisting from the specific options would not preclude a savvy admin from closing that way if that's really the consensus. In fact it would potentially make this rather useless process somewhat less useless. --Cúchullain ^t/c 00:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It's true that it is unclear as to whether the table of Typical move review decision options is intended to be read as !voting assistance for new participants. For closers, it is overly detailed. For participants, you're probably right. How about collapsing the table, and leaving Wikipedia:Move_review#Closing_reviews with just the one paragraph uncollapsed, which prepares the participant with what to expect at closing. In terms of documenting reality, yes, and it might be a good idea to note that "at least seven days" may mean "seven weeks". I disagree that "never used", although meaning "never proven viable", means "not viable". A relist is a viable flavor of "overturn", no different to practice at DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the table represents all possible outcomes as it does not consider the specific circumstances of any given RM close. Although rare, it is possible that an RM closer might really prematurely close an RM where there was either insufficient discussion to make a good decision or it was evident that the discussion was going to be controversial and ongoing. Either way, the RM close would be premature and logically eligible for MRV. A possible outcome of the MRV would be to relist. It may be a rare (I hope) circumstance, but a possible one. Relist should stay as an option in the table. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The option wouldn't be off the table just because stop encouraging participants to vote for an outcome that has never happened over the course of a year and a half. Admins could still use their discretion. Perhaps the wording could be amended to say "reopen" or something (ie, opening a new RM rather than overturning or relisting the old one) to make it clear that there has never been even one case where relisting has occurred, and it's not likely to occur unless there are serious changes to the process.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)