Wikipedia:Move review

Move review is a process designed to formally discuss and evaluate a contested close of a requested move (RM) discussion 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 requesting a review, you should attempt to resolve any issues with the closer on their talk page.

While the requested 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

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 see 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 requested 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), Titling Policy, Manual of Style and Naming Conventions, or Consensus Norms should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page.

Instructions

Initiating move reviews

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.
• [Closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the RM: [identify information here] and the RM 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 discussion closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full 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.
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, xfd_page with the name of the move discussion page, and reason with the reason why the page move should be reviewed. For example: Copy this template skeleton for most pages: {{subst:mrv2 |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.--> |reason= }} ~~~~
3.	Inform the administrator who moved the page by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:MRVnote|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: {{MRVdiscuss|date=2015 October 13}}
5.	Nominations may also attach an {{mrv}} tag to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
6.	If the current month discussions are not already included in the discussion section below. Add the new log page to the top of the discussions section. {{Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 October}}
7.	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 close (endorsing the original close) or Overturn close (opposing the original 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 administrator 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 Requested 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 Requested 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 Requested Move discussion.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on Move Review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists to either endorse the close or overturn the close. If that consensus is to Overturn Close, the administrator 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. If the consensus is to Endorse Close, no further action is required on the article title. If the administrator 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"; administrators may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Move review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest MRV log page, if the closing administrator thinks that a different consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

Use {{subst:MRV top}} and {{subst:MRV bottom}} to close such discussions.

Typical move review decision options

The following set of options represent the typical results of a Move Review decision, although complex Requested 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 Decision	RM Closers Decision	Article Title Action at RM Close (By RM Closer)	Article Title Action at MRV Close (by MRV closer)	Status of RM at MRV Close
1. Endorse Close	Not Moved	Not Moved	No Action Required	Closed
2. Endorse Close	Move to new title	Moved to New Title	No Action Required	Closed
3. Overturn Close	Not Moved	Not Moved	Option 1: (If RM consensus is unclear or significantly divided) Reopen and relist RM Option 2: (If Consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RM	Open or Closed as necessary
4. Overturn Close	Move to new title	Moved to New Title	Move title back to pre-RM title, reopen and relist RM if appropriate	Closed or Open and relisted as appropriate
5. Relist	Not Moved	Not Moved	Reopen and relist RM	Open
6. Relist	Move to new title	Moved to new title	Move title to pre-RM title and reopen and relist RM	Open
7. Don't Relist	Not moved or moved	Not Moved or Moved	No Action Required	Closed

 

Active discussions

2015 September

Football at the 1956 Summer Olympics

Football at the 1956 Summer Olympics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM)

A frankly bizarre close that claims the discussion, which had been open for over seven weeks and was commented upon by several of our more experienced RM closers, "should have been closed immediately, because moving pages away from naming conventions is a profoundly bad, and actually non-enforceable, idea". I've discussed this with the closer, but he remains adamant that WP:CONLIMITED applies here and that there would need to be a consensus to change the entire Olympics naming convention (something which the RM had no intention to change and, as far as I can tell, is not written up anywhere anyway). This is a simple case of a title that you would usually expect to be fine being ambiguous. If the consensus was that association football is the primary topic here, even for a descriptive title, or that, of our naming criteria, consistency was deemed more important than recognisability and precision in this case, then I could live with it even if I disagreed. But this close is completely incorrect and is either a supervote or a misunderstanding of our naming practices. I think it would be best if the RM was reopened and then closed by someone else, but if there was a consensus to "overturn to [moved/no consensus]" instead of the current "failure", then that would also be fine and could arguably save us some time. Jenks24 (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me repeat: a local discussion may not override a naming convention. It doesn't matter what the discussion concluded: local consensus is not permitted to reject broad consensus. Start a discussion about the convention as a whole, and stop trying to force me to ignore policy. Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not about "overriding" a naming convention, which I do not want to change and which no one in the discussion advocated changing. It's about disambiguating one case out of several dozen because it happens to be ambiguous while the others are not. The same way we move Joe Bloggs (footballer) to Joe Bloggs (footballer, born 1920) if there happens to be a notable article about Joe Bloggs (footballer, born 1950), but Tom Bloggs (footballer) can stay where it is (someone else might be able to think of a natural disambiguation example, rather than my parenthetical disambiguation one). Jenks24 (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn to moved. The closure is the literal definition of a WP:SUPERVOTE, as the closer injected his own reason, which was not previously introduced by anyone in the actual discussion. There also does not appear to be an actual guideline or policy this move request would override. In fact, moving the page would have been in line with WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Calidum 15:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support closure Australian football took place once and once only at the Olympics (as a demo sport), in 1956. Anyone looking for football at the (1956) Olympics would expect to find the Football at the 1956 Summer Olympics (or whatever year they were searching for). Australian football (at the Olympics) is a low-likelyhood search term, and the hatnotes serve the purpose. This current setup conforms to WP:ASTONISH and WP:TITLECHANGES. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn. While it is true that local consensus does not override our naming conventions, I do not see how it applies in this case. Note in particular that dealing with disambiguation is parting of policy. Quoting from the policy page These should be seen as goals, not as rules. ... It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus.. PaleAqua (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn. WP:Supervote. Further, the closer's "a local discussion may not override a naming convention" is not so simple. Conventions have leeway, and exceptional cases provide for exceptions. As long as the discussion properly addresses the guidance of the policy page, a consensus may well be established that the convention does not apply to a particular situation. The most important thing is consensus. Closing a discussion without regard to the discussion is simply not OK. See WP:Supervote. WP:CONLIMITED is subservient to Wikipedia:Consensus#Achieving_consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn, I'm afraid. In addition to the WP:SUPERVOTE concern, the close was an appeal to the authority of conventions that don't really seem forthcoming. I'm not aware of, and can't find, any written convention recommending how Olympic football years should be titled. It's true that they are consistent, but these are by nature descriptive titles invented by Wikipedia editors to serve the readers. Descriptive titles should always make sure the subject is clear, especially in cases where two articles share a name. For most years there's not an issue, but for this particular year, we have Olympic Games featuring two sports called "football" in parts of the English-speaking world. These are the relevant naming conventions, and frankly, the change most participants supported is more in line with it than the closer's statement. Respectfully, I have to say the closer misjudged this one and the close should be overturned.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

2015 August

Rasgulla

Rasgulla (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM)

The moot question is, "Whether Wikipedia must stick to its current naming Rasgulla when the naming is misleading or inaccurate, against Rosogolla (content here)." Rosogolla is the formal, original, familiar and most common name of this dessert, so the requested move would benefit the wider community.

Considerations has been made for this question that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, therefore, content and title there, necessarily needs to be encyclopedic. The naming should be seen as goals, not as rules. Whereas, Oxford dictionary mentions rasgullā originates in Hindi, and the Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets highlights Rosogolla describes, often spelled as Rasgulla. Therefore, the name Rasgulla needs to be disambiguated to avoid confusion with Rosogolla. Whereas, in West Bengal only, some 8 percent of nation's population consumed half of the country's sixteen billion rupees worth of sweets in 2003, adding to it Bangladesh and Bengalis from other Indian states/countries, would be even more consumption. Almost all 254 million Bengalis - the inhabitants of West Bengal, Bangladesh and other Indian states use the name Rosogolla only, and people of Bangladesh never use the name Rasgulla.

(i) The closer Jenks24 did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because he should have focused on the fact that how the article Rosogolla was not a proposed deletion, but a speedy deletion, bypassing a discussion even when there were practical chances of surviving a discussion, in closing this requested move.

(ii) The closer Jenks24 was requested to focused on the move discussion, as requester indicated him how clearly it was a rough consensus; considering the strength of his argument,

(iii) In addition to above, the closer Jenks24 was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the RM: since requester's argument was too long, he summarized it and given, the summary clearly reflects how the move discussion was purely based on un-reasonability, therefore, the RM should have reopened and re-listed.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• "The result of the move request was: not moved". I request that all closers say something as to why not. For example: "Unanimously opposed, the nominator's WP:walls of text didn't persuade any other editor." Jenks could probably phrase it more nicely. The nominator needs to appreciate that concise writing is more persuasive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That's a fair point, I'll take that on board. In this case I would probably say something like, "despite the strident arguments of the nominator, there was a clear consensus that the current title is the most common name". Jenks24 (talk) 08:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    • The nominator himself acknowledges and appreciates the idea put forward for concise writing – mostly caused due to lack of awareness of good practices, for the rationale he then believed more rough than a clear consensus, when the current title contradict most common name concerning ambiguity, mislead or inaccuracy. He feels grateful for the admittance of instant move review. Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Given that every one of multiple other participants did not agree with you, there is absolutely no way a closer could have closed it any other way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
        • First part of the above observation needs to be interpreted that, other participants used Talk:Rasgulla#Survey as polling, none of their explanations addressed reasons commensurate to Wikipedia's policy on article titles, while it is an admitted fact that polling is not a substitute for discussion. So their oppositions are defective. Similarly, in the second part of the above statement, the closer did not focus on the move discussion but ignored that the naming of Rasgulla did not follow 'most common name' described in Wikipedia policy, before closing it. Wikipedia suggests, "Editors should consider that ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used, neutrality also considered," " the name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedia sources may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register and what names are most frequently used." Ambiguity that the Oxford dictionary mentions rasgullā originates in Hindi, and the Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets highlights Rosogolla, describes often spelled as Rasgulla, primarily associated with West Bengal. Not Hindi, in India.Establishing both that the other participants disagreement & the close by the closer do not commensurate with the Wikipedia policy. Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Until now, none of the other participants preferred to say anything. Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
          • You would be better advised to compose a better renomination after waiting six months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
            • I would like to thank for the unexplained advise above. I have my full faith in the Wikipedia Policy. In regard to the original Move review requested above, I will not prefer to express my grievance here, if any; irrespective of the outcome of the instant move review - fair or prejudiced. I will rather prefer to share my understanding with my circles relevant. However, since said policy and its maintenance are two different things, definitely, my understanding about said maintenance will depend in the way it would be decided. Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse close I'ld echo the message about closing summaries which Jenks24's has already aknowledged, but the concensus is clear. Note that this is the English-language version of Wikipedia; as such common names depends on usage in English sources over usage by sources in other languages. PaleAqua (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If allowed to comment on the above diktat, I would like to mention that Jenks24's aknowledgement ignored ambiguous name, nor considered 'most common name' as per Wikipedia policy mentioned above.. In addition to that, the consensus was more polling, when polling is not a substitute for discussion, did not address reasons commensurate to Wikipedia's policy on article titles. Besides the book, that I have cited, the Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets is not only from an English source but also from English speaking countries USA and Great Britain. So the basis of the Endorsement though questionable but who will address it? Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 07:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Why so called consensus is more polling than consensus? (1) A thorough reading of ‘Talk:Rasgulla#Requested_move_14_August_2015' would reflect, most of the other participants preferred more on Odisha version of the article name than following Wikipedia:Article_titles. (2) The references in naming the article could not establish Odisha's prevalence in sources among English-speaking countries. (3) The only source cited from English-speaking countries is Oxford Dictionaries, mentions Rasgulla - an Indian sweet consisting of a ball of curd cheese cooked in syrup, from Hindi rasgullā ras 'juice' + gullā 'ball' - the source does not mention Odisha but the words Indian and Hindi. (4) On the other hand, the source cited by the nominator is encyclopedic in nature also from English-speaking countries. The Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets by Michael Krondl & others. The book mentions in page 580, - rosogolla, often spelled rasgulla, is a popular Indian ball-shaped sweet prepared from fresh milk curd soaked in sugar syrup. The book continues, rosogolla is primarily associated with West Bengal, where it is just one, if perhaps the best known, of numberless chhana-based sweets. Page 259 mentions, "Bengalis - inhabitants of the Indian state of West Bengal and the Republic of Bangladesh - are famous for their love of misti, or sweets, considered the apogee of the Indian sweet maker's art." (5) These observations rather reflect a biased attitude of the other participants in Odisha. Also Rasgulla - an ambiguous name taken from Hindi language, admittedly, Rosogolla is primarily associated with West Bengal and the 'most common name' as described in Wikipedia policy. Statements of the other participants, quoted from Talk:Rasgulla#Requested_move_14_August_2015, would reflect they are biased towards Odisha, (i) "Moving the article to "rosogolla" will result in an unnecessary Bengali-vs-Odiya troll fest, considering the fact that people of Odisha had celebrated "Rasagola Dibasa" very recently. utcursch | talk 18:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)," (ii) "The Odiyas (who claim that their state is the dessert's birthplace) have other spellings for the name, including "rasagolla", "rassogolla", and "rasagola". utcursch | talk 14:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)," (iii) "Moreover if historians say that there is documentary evidence of Puri being the origin and the 13th century Madala Panji has a mention of rasagulla in it's chronicles then it should be taken as the basis of deciding the sweet's origin," (iv) " Now the evidence of origin of such words can be traced to the Odia language and it being an ancient language(classical language) has such words. I will give an example - the sweetdish Kheer was originated in Odisha 2000 years ago in Puri(same place where Rasagulla/Rasagolla) was originated,".Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Also consider Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. One person insisting on more discussion becomes disruptive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Sir and I do apologize. My argument appears to became disruptive. I'll rather maintain silence. Meanwhile, I'll just see the above recommendation.Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The debate appears to die a natural death. Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse. The close clearly reflected the consensus.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Archive

2012
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December
2013
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December
2014
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December
2015
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

See also

• Category:Pages at move review
• Category:Closed move reviews