Wikipedia talk:Move review

RfC: Should the purview of move review be expanded to include CfDs and RfDs that are limited in scope to renaming?

The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is anYunanimous consensus infavorof the proposal.∯WBG^converse04:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Currently, the scope of the move review process is limited to reviewing whetherrequested movediscussions have been properly closed and executed. The results of discussions that take place as part of the processes called 'categories for discussion' and 'redirects for discussion' have in the past been reviewed atdeletion review,even when the relevant discussions did not involve deletion. The awkwardness of this situation has recently become an issue, and so I've opened this RfC. Should the purview of the move review process formally be expanded to include reviews of the closing of renaming discussions that take place atWP:CfDandWP:RfD,and should the MR, CfD, and RfD pages be updated to clarify the review process for discussions that take part as part of those processes to that effect?RGloucester—☎21:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support– Move discussions related to any namespace should be reviewed at move review. The deletion review process is not suited for reviewing move-related discussions, and only took on that role because the move review process did not yet exist at the time that the CfD process was created.RGloucester—☎21:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Weak supportPer my arguments above. In favour, MR deals with naming and primary topics, while DR deals with deletions and merges/redirects. Editors participating in the DR process are likely more familiar with inclusion guidelines and those at MR are more familiar with NC and PTOPIC. However there could be confusion with RFD that result in delete whereWP:XYresults in deletion but PTOPIC was the reason for the RFD. Or a RFD that results in redirection (to say a DAB) where the title was thought to be too NN even for a redirect but a suitable target was suggested.Crouch, Swale(talk)21:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support:Speaking as an editor who doesn't normally deal with the various consensus review processes what ever the correct location it should be clear for those who aren't familiar with the process. "Move review" based on the name seems like an obvious place regardless if the move is an article, category, project name etc.Springee(talk)21:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support.Am I really that unusual in thinking words should mean what they usually mean? Deletion review is for reviewing deletion. Move review is for reviewing move. Newcomer accessibility, and all that. —SmokeyJoe(talk)22:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Supportwith the caveat (per thediscussion above) that the change in scope should be limited to review of moves only. Review of a closer's decision to not delete a category or redirect—in cases where deletion was considered during the CfD or RfD, but the outcome wasrenameormove—should still go to DRV. --Black Falcon^(talk)05:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • That's my understanding of "limited in scope to renaming". --SmokeyJoe(talk)06:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
    • You mean I'm actually supposed to read section titles?!?
      Yeah... I missed that bit and went straight to the proposal.:) Thanks for pointing that out, --Black Falcon^(talk)06:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I would assume that you have been following this for a while before!voting, entirely proper, and it is completely understandable that you missed the rewording of that title[1].:> --SmokeyJoe(talk)07:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Sure.TonyBallioni(talk)06:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• SupportThe issues and naming conventions are mainly the same and this is a natural venue to go to.Timrollpickering11:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support.This apparently does not happen very frequently. However, any clarification that improves the understanding of editors, both newcomers and others, is welcomed. Any further confusions such as those misgivings noted above can be dealt with as needed.Paine Ellsworth,ed.^{put'r there}23:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Not “result”, instead “scope limited to”. —SmokeyJoe(talk)21:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed.RGloucester—☎21:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Please clarify the question -- are you talking about moving deletion review under MR? or the whole initial renaming discussions? If I wanted to rename Category:Films in X to Category:Xian movies - would I go to CfD or to MR? I think that's what you are getting at, but the question paragraphs reads as if only deletion review would go under MR.Renata(talk)00:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood the point of this RfC. The question is whether CfDs that are limited in scope to renaming (as opposed to deletion) should be reviewed at MR, instead of deletion review, as they have been historically. Nothing would change about how CfDs involving deletion are reviewed. I don't understand what you mean by renaming a category at MR...that doesn't make much sense.RGloucester—☎00:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Then I complete don't get what this is about. Can you give aspecificexample of the new process you are proposing? Thanks,Renata(talk)

No one is proposing a 'new process'. The proposal is to allow MR to be used to review CfDs that are limited in scope to renaming, instead of holding those reviews atWP:DRV,as they have been in the past. See the above discussion#Is this the correct place to request a review of a category move?for the impetus of this RfC.RGloucester—☎02:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so the discussion to rename [Category:Films in X] to [Category:Xian movies] would go to CfD, but if the discussion was challenged and needed to be reversed it would go to MR instead of DRV. Right?Renata(talk)02:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear since I screwed this up, CfD is categories for discussion, not categories for deletion.Springee(talk)02:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• No,Renata.WP:DRV and WP:MR are process review forums. They are used when someone alleges the process was faulty, usually because the closer did their job wrong. WP:DRV and WP:MR are not for reversing properly made decisions. If you want to reverse a CfD decision, the proper thing is to wait six months and then make a fresh CfD proposal. If you want to reverse a deletion discussion, due to new sources for example, you should talk to the deleting admin. Some related advice is atWP:RENOM.--SmokeyJoe(talk)02:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying Mr Joe, but I'm afraid you've more than likely confused Renata more.@Renata3:Essentially, what you said is correct. Mr Joe is simply expounding on the principle that MRs are meant to examine improper closings (i.e. the actions of the closer), not the merits of the relevant move itself.RGloucester—☎03:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, got it. I got all mixed up with RM and MR.WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!.Can I suggest the following clarification to the RfC question?

Currently, the scope of move review is limited toreview whetherrequested movediscussions were properly closed and executed.The results of discussions that take place as part of the processes called 'categories for discussion' and 'redirects for discussion' have in the past been reviewed atdeletion review,even when the relevant discussions did not involve deletion. The awkwardness of this situation has recently become an issue, and so I've opened this RfC. Should the purview of the move review process formally be expanded to includereviews of the closing of therenaming discussions that take place atWP:CfDandWP:RfD,and should the MR, CfD, and RfD pages be updated to clarify the review process for discussions that take part as part of those processes to that effect?

And here is another dumb question - why can't all discussion closing reviews happen at one centralized place? Why have a separate place for "renaming" reviews and for "deletion" reviews? It is essentially the same procedure, no?Renata(talk)03:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I've clarified per your suggestions. Move review is a relatively new process, whereas DRV has existed for a very long time. I reckon that the fact that deletion is governed by special procedures (see thedeletion policy), and that only administrators can delete, has meant that it requires its own special chamber. I'm not at all certain on the history, however.RGloucester—☎03:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Renata,"why can't all discussion closing reviews happen at one centralized place"? That was the proposal, ~2011, at WT:DRV. It is in the archives of WT:DRV predating WP:MR. I for one strongly opposed it. WP:DRV is a very important check on the admin privilege of deletion, which is very difficult for most of the community to review. The importance of that role would be diluted by the far lesser weight issues of post RM disputes.

I have previously suggested, here at WT:MR, that WP:MR could handle a wider scope of non-deletion closure reviews, including WP:RFC close reviews. Currently, they are reviews in an undefined process atWP:AN,which I think is undesirable for a few reasons such as (1) The forum is not inviting for non-admins to participate; (2) There is so much other activity there that discussion watchlisting doesn't work; (3) Close reviews at WP:AN are non systematically titled, are not separately archived, and thus are hard to find; (4) there is very little about RfCs that requires an editor with the admin permission. --SmokeyJoe(talk)03:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe that wasUser:Jc37atWikipedia_talk:Move_review/Archive_2012#Expansion,and I merely liked the idea. --SmokeyJoe(talk)03:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe:that's where I was sort of going, that this could get expanded into a wider review of closing discussions (RfC included because I have seen a lot of complaining about "bad" RfC closures) - even if "deletion" review has its own board. Maybe worth resurrecting the proposal, if it was 6 years ago?Renata(talk)03:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Certainly, if anyone wants to propose such a thing, a sub-section in this RfC seems appropriate.RGloucester—☎03:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I think a central location for RfC and MR (and other) close request move reviews makes a lot of sense. One issue I see with the current MR rules is a very limited scope for why a review can be initiated. Beyond that, one of the things that makes Wikipedia difficult for editors who largely aren't working in this area is the number of different places you need to go to do/review something. A change that increases access/review is going to be a good thing.Springee(talk)04:08, 26 November 2018 (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.

Editors supporting a move of Jaggi Vasudev tag teaming to hat comments on Move review page

Ichangedthe section title to a more neutral title.Qualitist(talk) 08:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC) Can someone see and revert the group of tag teamers atWikipedia:Move_review/Log/2018_November#Jaggi_Vasudevhistorythat are edit warring[2][3][4]to hat!votes, against their POV. --DBigXrayᗙ06:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

You have to tell what is actually wrong with hatting a comment that includes personal attacks ( "article and the entire topic is sock and COI... people who are trying to game the system now" ) and is clearly intended to misuse MR as RM second round by copy pasting same bits from RM and making commentlonger than it needs to be.You were obviously not the right person to edit war to remove hatting of such distraction since you are also engaging in same personal attacks.[5]Qualitist(talk)08:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

CFDs and RFDs

I have added the text to indicate that only CFDs that are CFRs and RFDs where deletion was never proposed or considered should be listed here, it might need tweaking but that appeared to be the consensus in the RFC and my suggestion was not opposed so I have included the clarity (so that CFDs and RFDs that involve inclusion policies don't get taken here). I added that those where deletion was proposed/suggested but it ended up being retargeted elsewhere should go to DR since that tends to involve more inclusion policies, rather than titling/primary topic guidelines and its not uncommon for a redirect to be nominated for deletion due to not being covered at the target and end up being retargeted to somewhere it is covered.Crouch, Swale(talk)19:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I had already included such text in the "What this process is not" section, as I had deemed such details to be excess for the lead. I find your change unnecessary, but will not contest it.RGloucester—☎22:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I have deleted the extra text in the text at the top, however the footnote remains.Crouch, Swale(talk)22:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

That seems reasonable.RGloucester—☎22:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, its just that we don't want people listing CFDs and RFDs that don't actually end in deletion, but that was the main purpose. For CFDs its usually straightforward in thatCFD,CFM,CFSandCFLstill go to DR whileCFRgo to MR. For RFD its more complicated, in the redirect nominated for deletion due to not being covered at the target and end up being retargeted to somewhere it is covered example. However inWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 20#The Sun1 editor suggested deletion, but clearly that wouldn't happen and the sole issue was primacy. If we hadWikipedia:Miscellany for creation(which I wondered about creating years ago) orWikipedia:Articles for creationandWikipedia:Proposed mergerswere done in the same way as XFD and RM then DR would be suitable for those since they involve inclusion, not naming and primacy.Crouch, Swale(talk)18:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Explanation of how move requests get decided

The pages I've seen on Wikipedia's policies (e.g.Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus) read to me as if the strength of each argument is much more important than the number of votes, and that when it comes down to it, the votes are mostly irrelevant.

Consensusis determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.

However, what I've seen is that move requests often get decided solely on the number of votes, and the quality of the arguments is ignored. Would someone please explain what the proper procedure is for Move Requests and Move Reviews?Danielklein(talk)01:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Flowchart about move reviews

I made a flowchart to help people decide if they should start a move review!RedSlash02:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Red Slash?You did this a year ago. It is sort of funny, sort of right, definitely childish, but seems appropriate for some MR nominations. Isn't MRV supposed to be deadly serious dry? --SmokeyJoe(talk)13:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 10 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of arequested move.Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider amove reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was:not moved.consensus is the page should stay where it is. No prejudice to new RM with proposed title. Regards, —usernamekiran(talk)20:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Move review→? – As the result ofthis RfC in 2018as well asthis series of edits a few months later,the "Move review" board is no longer just for move reviews. Going by the result of the linked RfC, it seems that the intent of this board is supposed to be foranydiscussion that does not involve proposing deletion. My opinions aside about this being the clearest way to distinguish deletion discussions from non-deletion discussions, as well as my opinions about the how the RfC played out, I'm putting this move request here solely on the fact this page issupposedto now be used for more than move reviews per the result of the linked RfC. If this is to be the case, the current name of this page no longer encapsulates the entirety of the intended scope of this page. So... if this scope is to be updated, the name of the page probably needs to be changed toWikipedia:Non-deletion reviewor something similar. (For the record, I'm neutral on any name change if the scope remains the same [but should be moved away from the current title]... which is exclusive from my opinion about whether or not I support the current scope of the page as determined by the linked 2018 RfC.)Steel1943(talk)17:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Note:I haveplaced a notificationof this discussion onWikipedia:Village pump (proposals)to potentially garner input on this name change/update and/or other concerns.Steel1943(talk)19:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• I feel like there are two ways one could go with this. One is to keep as is because the intent of this board is not just for any non-deletion discussion; for CFD it's restricted to renames, whicharepage moves, just with the added need to recategorize all the articles into the new name. That is why the term "rename" is used instead of "move" in CFDs. Merges, on the other hand, are dealt with inWP:DRV,since merging a cat is similar to deleting it, but with the need to make sure the articles contained are still properly categorized. So I don't think that you've accurately summed up what the problem is, if there is one.

The other side, which I think could be a consideration, is to centralize all review discussions involving XFDs in one place regardless of the type of discussion it was, and perhaps rebrand "deletion review" as "discussion review" or "XFD review" (since discussion review might be too vague of a name). In that case, move review would strictly be for requested moves only. If your concern is centralization and access, I think that's something that might be worth considering.bibliomaniac1519:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• ...Agreed, this move request is just one way to approach this, and I filed this move request solely on the status quo determined by the RfC. This is where things start getting a bit fuzzy with how the RfC closed. The RfC result, in a nutshell, forWP:CFDs,states that CFDs for renaming should go here, but CFDs for deletion should go toWP:DRV.However, thing getreallyconfusing when it comes toWP:RFDs:A discussion proposed for deleting a redirect could end with it being retargeted or overwritten with a disambiguation page, and a discussion initially set up to retarget a redirect could result with it being deleted... neither of which have anything to do with moving the page. Heck, come to think of it, I think the resolution here would be to remove RFDs from using the "Move review" page and have them all go back to DRV by default.Steel1943(talk)19:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

...Then yes, maybeWikipedia:Deletion reviewshould be renamed "Discussion review", similar to what happened withWP:FFDa few years back andWP:RFDalmost 15 years ago.Steel1943(talk)19:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

...So, yeah, I filed this move request solely since it falls in line with the RfC status quo... even though... yes, I don't agree with the RfC outcome.Steel1943(talk)19:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've no disagreements with you there regarding removing RFD...though I suppose the issue becomes what to do about reviewing retarget or disambiguation decisions. Not a page move, but not deletion either. The more I think about it bundling CFD and RFD in the RFC was a very strange decision...apart from having results that don't often follow the keep/delete paradigm, they really are rather different.bibliomaniac1519:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Sorry for the edit conflict... this situation is a bit complicated, and the thoughts are just pouring out of me, it seems.) I think your mention about renamingWP:DRVfrom "deletion" to "discussion" kind of hits the nail on the head there for the reasons you stated... by first possibly removing RfD discussions from being listed on this page entirely, then probably revisiting whether or not CFD renaming discussions should be posted here or not (CFDs for renaming may end up staying here) since I don't see that result/discussion being as straight forward as a discussion regarding RfD.Steel1943(talk)19:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• I advocate for CFD renames being discussed here, because in the end a CFD rename is a page move, just with extra steps. The rest that you mention really seems to be a separate issue.bibliomaniac1521:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Some RFDs have absolutely nothing to do with deletion such as those that involveWP:PRIMARYREDIRECTand no one disputes it would not be deleted (such asThe Sun). Those have far more in common with the RM process than deletion process however there can be borderline cases such as where a redirect it pointed to a different place that would otherwise have been deleted. If the reason for the change was mainly because of the fact the redirect would otherwise have been deleted it seems like DR is the best forum otherwise I'd just use MR if the issue was over a retarget (or lack of).Crouch, Swale(talk)20:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment -WP:CLOSECHALLENGEstill says any non-move, non-deletion closure reviews should be handled atWP:AN.Are there enough of these reviews to warrant this page move and scope expansion? --Netoholic@05:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I think there are enough RfC close reviews, and even Ban discussion reviews, to warrant a specific review page off WP:AN, but I would create new review forum pages. RfC reviews on a subpage ofWP:RfC,WP:AN discussion close reviews on a subpage ofWP:AN.The advantage is for watchlisting, archiving, and finding these discussions. While the basic style of DRV and MR is a very good model, I don't think a good common model is a driving reason to centralise different things. --SmokeyJoe(talk)01:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Opposeany move. I fail to see a problem that needs solving. This page has had this name for a long period. It has accepted the expanded scope for quite some time, however, those cases happen only once in a blue moon. Renaming this page to something all-encompassing and necessarily vague would be a step in a wrong direction.No such user(talk)08:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose.WP:Move reviewstill works. Category renames coming here fits. I haven't seen disputed RfD retargets come here. A case to rename would be justified by RfC closes coming here, which they do not. --SmokeyJoe(talk)12:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• The 2018 RfC's intent was simply to centralise the review of renaming-related discussions here. Notice the word 'renaming'. RfCs, and RfDs and CfDs not involving renaming, are out of the scope of this page. Therefore, Iopposeany change.RGloucester—☎03:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Very weak oppose.While the 2019 RfC is pretty causal that eventually this page will need to be moved so it's clearer to newer editors/more accurate, it seems most documentation is yet to be properly updated with these changes -WP:CLOSECHALLENGEetc. "Move review" is not the best descriptor for what is now handled here: moves, CfDs and RfDs, but this move needs to happen in a few months once broader changes have been enacted. If you do put forward this move again later, please do ping me!ItsPugle(please use{{ping|ItsPugle}}on reply)22:54, 16 August 2020 (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.

Non-admin closures

Currently the instructions for closing move reviews hasan administrator will determine whether a consensus exists to either endorse the close or overturn the close.Recently there have been a few non-admin closures. I know traditionally WP:IAR exceptions have been made for procedural closes (I have closed some procedurally as NAC) but that that normal RMV closes required an admin to close. NAC of RM are fairly common and reasonable, but for contentious closes which MR often imply administrators are strongly preferred. See also/Archive 2018#Non-admin closures.PaleAqua(talk)20:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Seven days

I also wonder if some comment about the seven days should be changedA nominated page should remain on move review for at least seven daysas it seems most RMV stay open much longer than seven days and including this in the page instructions seems to imply that the RMV process is quicker than it actually is. I think a note be added to imply that move reviews might be open longer, closures on the order of a month or two seems to be fairly common.PaleAqua(talk)20:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think seven days should be the expectation, and the recent history of MRVs being open, with no new comments, for months, is undesirable. --SmokeyJoe(talk)04:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Involved participants

At some point we should reconsider whether those who participated in the RM should be participating in the move review. Allowing them to do so gives free rein to relitigate the previous move request.--Calidum00:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think they should participate, but the word is “decorum”. —SmokeyJoe(talk)00:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• I wonder if sections for involved vs uninvolved comments make sense. At some point the norm seems to have switchedfromto tagging uninvolved comments instead of involved ones.PaleAqua(talk)00:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Separate sections might very well be a good idea. How many sections? "Uninvolved" comments are the most valuable and I think it would be good to have them in their own section. Of the involved, there are usually three subgroups, the closer; the MRV initiator; the other!votes. --SmokeyJoe(talk)04:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    • The initiator has the "reason" spot to make their case so might not need a separate section. But agree that the other subgroups could be split out.PaleAqua(talk)16:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm ok with separating uninvolved and involved participants, on a trial basis at least.--Calidum17:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• I think we could do with something like that. It was suggested in a few recent MRVs (in one of those, the discussion turned into a long and rambling battle between two opposing teams from the RM). I think we can go a long way towards discouraging such battle re-enactments by first, having separate sections for the involved (positionedafterthe one for the uninvolved), and second, adapting the minor stylistics rule of prohibiting bolded!votes in the involved section. – Uanfala (talk)14:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
• I fully support the segregation of Involved/Uninvolved comments into separate sections in a MR. Additionally, if that is done, emphasis should be placed in guidance that the MR’s initiator’s and closer’s comments are restricted to theInvolvedsection unless there is a specific question posed to them in theUninvolvedsection. I believe this would go a long way to mitigating the tendency by persistent editors to re-litigate the RM in the MR discussion and challenge every editor opinion they might disagree with.Mike Cline(talk)12:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• I think the issue isn't so much that people are involved or uninvolved, but rather avoiding the constant relitigation of the discussion rather than discussing the close. I think we should be closing discussions much more quickly where there was a reasonable defensible close, and there isn't a glaring error and also when people have been given a reasonable explanation by the closer but then go on to challenge it anyway becauseWP:IDONTLIKEIT.For example in the currentIndus Valley civilisationcase. Some discussions effectively come down to line calls, and it's not reasonable for us to simply replace one person's interpretation of a line call with another person's interpretation. Which is what will happen if the IVC RM and others like it is overturned. —Amakuru(talk)13:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Uninvolved participation

As an aside from the above, I think a bigger concern is getting more uninvolved users to participate in the process. Based on my experience, I would say between half and three-quarters of the participants in a given move review previously participated in the requested move. This differs fromWP:DRVwhere (based on my limited involvement there) most editors have not participated in the previous XFD. Maybe it's because there are so few move reviews compared to deletion reviews or because RMs and MRs are a somewhat niche process.--Calidum17:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I check RM so regally that if I didn't participate in a RM I usually have no interest/knowledge in the subject but I could probably give some kind of guidance on the consensus and I do occasionally participate.Crouch, Swale(talk)21:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisting a closed RM

When a RM is closed as "Overturn and relist", how do I relist the already-closed RM? I refer toTalk:Víctor Medina (footballer, born 1964)(although I'm half-tempted to reclose it as "moved" myself, most MR participants expressed the preference that the original closer does it. I guess that{{RM relist}}won't do the trick, and that leaves placing{{Requested move}}on the talk page again.wbm1058,will that cause any issues with RMCD bot?No such user(talk)13:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Done–No such user,do itlike this.–wbm1058(talk)14:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wbm1058:The need arose again, and Itriedto do it myself, but it didn't do the trick (perhaps unhat and relist should be done in the same edit?), so the RM remains orphaned and unlisted. Would you lend a hand again, please?No such user(talk)14:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that was pretty stupid on my part... I did all the paperwork of overturning, but did not actually move the page back.No such user(talk)14:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Merging withWP:DRV

I've floated the idea of merging this page withWP:DRVat the Village Pump. Feedback is welcomethere.Thank you--Calidum21:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Prayagraj

Why isnt my move review for October 2021 for the closure of the move discussion forPrayagrajshown yet? I filled in the Format. The discussion Was closed a few days ago but the reason for the closure is not specified. The opposes are in Wikipedia policy while the supports are not. That is not enough, because nobody understands why. Please take care on this issue.

--Tecumseh*1301(talk)19:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. SeeWikipedia:Move review#Allahabad.Have a nice day--Toddy1(talk)20:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Expand scope to include merge proposal closure review?

I just sawWikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 March#Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness_controversy_(closed)speedy closed. The discussion was atTalk:List of Wikipedia controversies#Merge Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy to List of Wikipedia controversies.

Why not expand MR to includeWikipedia:Proposed article mergersclosure reviews? There are some strong similarities. WP:AN does not function well for close reviews.SmokeyJoe(talk)06:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Supportfor what it's worth. NOTBURO and CREEP notwithstanding, merge discussions tend to be treated as second-class citizens when compared with deletions and moves, and procedural disputes such as this one do not have a venue for recourse. I will notifyWP:WikiProject Mergeabout this discussion.No such user(talk)09:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Question:why notWP:DRV?To me a merge has more in common with a deletion than a move, as it results in a reduction of the number of articles.Firefangledfeathers(talk|contribs)13:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Commentif it's going to include merges, why not also includesplits?--65.92.246.142(talk)16:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Qualified Support- I see no issue with contesting a merge decision via the move review process with one BIG CAVEAT. Initiating a move review on any merge decision should be made as soon as practical after the decision and BEFORE editors embark on actually executing the merge. Unlike a title change which can be easily reverted, the sometimes extensive editing required to actually execute the merge decision would be wasted effort if the merge review overturned the merge decision after the merge was executed. After examining the activity and process atWP:PM,I would not like to see an editor challenge a merge decision after all the actual merging had taken place. The allowed timing of the merge review initiation would have to be carefully controlled.Mike Cline(talk)16:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Opposethey should go to deletion review which deals with article inclusion of which merges and splits are part of since a merge is a lesser action than a delete while move review deals with article titles.Crouch, Swale(talk)17:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  And to clarify yes this also apply to split reviews, these should also go to deletion review. This is why we agreed to send RFDs and CFDs that were only about renames or primary topics to move review since these aren't generally related to deletion. There have been proposals to merge move review with deletion review but this has failed to gain consensus so as long as move review and deletion review are not combined reviews of discussions for inclusion criteria should go to deletion review and discussions involving renaming pages and primary topics should go to move review. If its not clear if a page should go to deletion review or move review because say a redirect or category was considered for deletion by several participants but was retagreted or renamed and its not clear which then deletion review should probably be default but many CFDs and RFDs involve cases where no one suggests deletion and there is no realistic chance of deletion and clearly relate to moves/primary topics and are thus not appropriate for deletion review.Crouch, Swale(talk)19:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose.As Crouch said, these would be better off handled at DRV.Calidum19:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Merges and splits are not deletions, so not appropriate for DRV. —SmokeyJoe(talk)20:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• CommentWhile not explicitly opposed to having something systematic for this (whether it be WP:MR or WP:DRV), my perspective is that this seems like a rare need, and when it happens, may be best left to broaderWP:ANIWP:ANif it can't be dealt with on UserTalk or the talk page of the affected page(s). Most merge discussions have low participation, are optional to begin with, and unlike move or deletion discussions may be closed by the nominator or any other involved user. So, any controversy in the close of a merge or execution of a merge will be up against the reality that the current system allows for conflicts of interest in the first place, because they are rarely an issue. Second, as discussed a bit above, any controversy in a merge must be dealt with in a timely manner, because while merges can be easily reverted, once there are follow-on edits to the merged page, it becomes difficult to impossible to restore the status quo. Given how long move reviews or deletion reviews take, if they are able to reach a resolution they will face quite the mess to cleanup when they do, so the goal should be to quickly resolve disagreements directly on talk pages. Lastly, something else worth discussing that may help with merge problems is for all merges to be listed by default atWP:PM,which is currently not the case, and thereby make it completely analogous toWP:RM,where discussions occur on article talk pages, but are automatically listed in a centralized place. I would strongly support such a change.Mdewman6(talk)00:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  Surely you mean WP:AN the status quo, not WP:ANI, a completely inappropriate page for conducting reviews?SmokeyJoe(talk)03:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

yes, WP:AN. My mistake.Mdewman6(talk)20:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Bad MRV close

Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2022_May#Berbers_(closed)was a bad close.

User:Paine_Ellsworth,please revert your close.

If someone was being uncivil, take them to ANI for an admin to block them. Do not shut down procedural review pages like that.SmokeyJoe(talk)08:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree that ANI is a better place to handle all this. The RM was inciteful, and MRV was no place to continue the trolling. Have you read thetalk page?Think we're coming to an understanding. It would be an honor if you would read and add your positive thoughts.P.I. Ellsworth -ed.^{put'r there}08:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Your talk there is good, but it is really bad precedent for non-admins to speedy close requests for review on the basis of incivility. I don’t see see incivility overwhelming any legitimacy of their complaint about a close, and it is better to resolve it in the MRV discussion, than to have it continue somewhere else.SmokeyJoe(talk)10:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

If after reading all that, you still think I should revert the closure, I will of course do it. I have to leave soon, and won't be back for several hours.P.I. Ellsworth -ed.^{put'r there}11:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

ToeditorSmokeyJoe:closure reverted.P.I. Ellsworth -ed.^{put'r there}16:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Question regarding post-move clarification

Hi, I was recently involved in a protracted discussion over the move ofVukovar-Syrmiaarticle toVukovar-Srijem.While I am obviously not happy with the outcome I accept it as a fact. Nevertheless, I asked for some further clarification inthis editbut so far I haven't received any feedback (I believe editor in question may be very busy with other tasks so maybe somebody else will be available). I wanted to ask if there is any procedure alternative to formal move review (as I do acknowledge the outcome) in which this specific concern may be addressed?MirkoS18(talk)10:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The closer, whether admin or otherwise, is required byWP:ADMINACCTto politely respond to queries about their close. However, in this case I do not believe your question is of their close, but is a question that should be put on the article talk page. I advise you to remove the question from the closer’s talk page, and post it on the article talk page.SmokeyJoe(talk)13:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind feedback. I will share the question on the talk page in full (right now there is link to talk page). If you feel like you can give any specific feedback on the talk page I would really appreciate anyone's involvement.--MirkoS18(talk)07:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Late sign misses?

By accident, I did not sign my Move Review request initially[6].I then added my sign late[7].Question is: are there signing-effects missed, link pings? I did notice the involved closer separately all right. -DePiep(talk)22:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Mpox#Requested move 28 February 2023

Two editors, myself andUser:Graham Beardshave complained about the closure atTalk:Mpox#Requested move 28 February 2023.The point isn't that we are unhappy the page remains at mpox. Both of us are exasperated frankly about this waste of time. The point is thenon-admin closurecomments byUser:Red Slashwere personally opinionated and lecturing as well as being factually incorrect.

For background, a page move discussion opened on 28th November 2022, shortly after WHO officially changed the name (they are the international body in charge of naming diseases). At the time, editors wanted to see if the name was accepted. By 28th December it was clear that it was accepted and the change had already occurred in many places online. The discussion was advertised atWT:MED.On the 28th January (two months after the initial name change proposal), adminUser:SilkTorkagreed there was consensus for change to mpox. On 31st January I posted message to nearly 40 related article talk pages and to theWikipedia:WikiProject Current events/Monkeypox outbreak task force.We discused how to go about renaming those too.

Then out of the blue on 28 Feburary an editor opens up an RM asking for the name to be moved back to monkeypox. We would at this point, be the only publication on the planet choosing to go back to the old name. This editor admitted to not having seen the earlier discussion and thought the name change was undiscussed. During the RM discussion, it was clear that folk coming from this noticeboard had not done their research about the disease name nor seemed aware ofWP:NAMECHANGES.

I would like an admin to re-close the discussion in a proper manner. Not voice their own surprise that mpox was actually the common name in 2023. Not lecture folk about using RM. Not get their facts wrong about consensus and the earlier discussion. Is it appropriate to use a "move review" to request that, even if the outcome is the same. Or could someone more experienced with naming closures just do the job better instead. There isn't frankly a lot that needs to be said. Something like"As many editors pointed outWP:NAMECHANGESrequires us to give weight to sources and reliable publications written after a name change. This has been amply done with numerous examples given. Editors complaining about the new name not conforming to COMMONNAME didn't offer any evidence to support that. "--Colin°^Talk18:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Using RM is mandatory if you want to make a controversial move. The earlier discussion lacked standing, as noted by several participants in the RM. It was immaterial in the end because apparently there's consensus anyway, but Wikipedia has processes like AFD and RM for a reason, to allow input from a wide range of editors. And if those processes are not followed then subsequent discussions are liable to overturn decisions if no consensus exists. I too am surprised that mpox might now be the common name, but there it is. Cheers —Amakuru(talk)18:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Please can you cite some reliable sources that the monkeypox -> mpox name was "controversial" on 28th Feb 2023, when the article name was changed. Otherwise, please don't lecture me about process, which explicitly states RM should not be used for uncontroversial changes. You might be surprised about the name, the closing admin was too. But it helps, before expressing your opinions on Wikipedia, to do the research. We are here to write an encyclopaedia, so we expect editors to do that. --Colin°^Talk19:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to note that at this point, Red Slash has made some concessions/edits to their close remarks, where previously they saw nothing wrong. So the closing text is volatile currently. --Colin°^Talk19:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I agree that closing statements should be to the point and avoid too many opinions or lectures from the closer, particularly if what they say doesn't derive from what was said in the discussion. So it looks like the updated close from RS is an improvement in that regard. I sense, however, that the root of your issue here is the question of what would have happened had the close in the discussion been no consensus. Now I have no issue if you felt up front that the original move from monkeypox to mpox was uncontroversial, there's nothing wrong with that original decision although I would have predicted it might attract controversy myself. And subsequent objections and debate have shown that in fact there was some controversy. The move in hindsight wasn't regarded as straightforward, and many people went on to oppose it. So once it's shown that it's controversial, it needs an RM to make a definitive decision one way or the other, as we've had here. And the convention for the past 20+ years is that no consensus closes revert to the long-term stable title, which in this case was "monkeypox". Cheers —Amakuru(talk)21:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Your answer here demonstrates quite a different attitude to the lecturing on that talk page. We were lectured that we were wrong not to publish an RM back in January/February. It only looks controversial if you include the opinions and votes from Wikipedians attracted by the RM who very plainly didn't do any research and didn't know about NAMECHANGES in policy and seemed surprised the disease name had even got changed. Lots of articles get their name changed without RM. What's the bias called where obstetrician's think most pregnancies are dangerous because they only get called for the dangerous ones (in the UK anyway, where midwives deal with the routine cases). That's what I'm seeing here.

I don't think the "no consensus" issue is the root of my concerns. It is somewhat hypothetical. If that had actually happened, and an admin had the nerve to move it back, there'd be newspaper headlines. They'd speculate perhaps whether we still talked about Prince Charles and called Boris Johnson the prime minister. And once a truly wider section of the Wikipedia community saw this, the section who have newspapers and access to Google and who do research before posting their opinions, there'd be an almighty big WTF. Too many people wikilaywering over this and not actually thinking about what was being proposed. That Wikipedia should be the only publication on earth to go backwards.

No my biggest concern is that the closing person repeatedly voiced their opinion and gave lectures, and didn't stick to briefly summarising the policy/consensus rational for the close decision. And their "strong" advice that we need a "full discussion" about the lead sentence. As if several dozen sources on the talk page already, all explicitly backing up those four words, wasn't enough. --Colin°^Talk23:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

This isa lotof angst over a process that ultimately worked out in the sense of going the way one would hope it would, in line with the reliable sourcing and the expectations of the platform to follow best practice. Ok, you didn't like the closer's comments. The closer has clearly taken that on board, since they've already made some tweaks. That's presumably all that you can expect from this? Nothing that you've mentioned here is going to induce anyone to go through the rigmarole of unclosing and reclosing this, not least because the project has finite resources and it'd be a worthless time sink.Iskandar323(talk)03:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

"worthless timesink", you mean like suggesting Wikipedia go back to 2022 in the face of every reliable publication in 2023? I agree there appears to be no appetite on this forum for getting things right. The closer made a few tweaks but didn't respond to most of the glaring issues. If anyone cares to examine the demographics of those who posted who appeared to (a) have a clue or did research about the name and (b) have a clue or read the policy page, it is fairly clear that RM has something broken about it. If folk want to get all ranty and lecture people that they must follow this process, they sure picked the worst possible example to demonstrate its value. --Colin°^Talk07:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Be that as it may, even if the process was a worthless time sink, there is little merit in compounding that with further procedure given that there is general agreement that the result was correct. At the end of the day, all processes here are just a means to an end, and we already have the right end here. No one pretends Wikipedia's processes are flawless, but the perennial priority is to fix processes with poor outcomes.Iskandar323(talk)08:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, advertised formal discussions such as RfCs and RMs do tend to attract idle knowitalls, particularly when they pertain a hot topic such as this one. And this RM is a clear example of one. But then, advertising discussions also has a benefit that walled-garden discussions among a close circle of editors also attract scrutiny from a wider community, preventingWP:LOCALCONSENSUSto form against broader principles. Hey, that's Wikipedia for you. As Iskandar323 said, the process worked in the end, and while Red Slash might have used less editorializing/lectures in the close (and subsequently toned it down), he closed it correctly, on the basis of evidence, despite any preconceptions he himself had about the subject. So the process eventually worked, even if one might deem it a worthless time sink.No such user(talk)08:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

While I've got you guys here then, any ideas how to handleTalk:2022–2023 monkeypox outbreak#Requested move 28 February 2023which is the RM that gave someone the idea to request reverting the originalmpoxname change. We have nearly 40 articles with the same name pattern. Do we need another RM and ping all the previous participants, while hoping that they spot this is the one where they need to flip their support/oppose votes? And repeat all the same arguments. Is there any way to shortcut that timesink. Please, for goodness sake, don't tell me we need 40 RMs. I already placed a notice on all the article talk pages and the task force page that was running all those pages. --Colin°^Talk08:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess it's just speedy-reopen and relist (which I'll do right now), or, if one feels bold enough, close and move to "mpox". While being WP:CONSISTENT is tempting, I can see a plausible argument "it was called monkeypox at the time", even if I personally disagree with it.No such user(talk)08:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

If consensus can be hashed out on the parent article, it would be logical to assume that the consensus established there and atMpoxcould be boldly carried through to all of the 'by country' child articles without further discussion. At that point, it would be supported/not controversial at all.Iskandar323(talk)10:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I don't sense much participation in all the country-specific articles in the naming review anyway, even though they have now been informed twice. Thanks for your advice on this aspect. --Colin°^Talk12:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Move Reviews without talking to closers

We've stated in our requirements for quite some time that it'srequired(in bold) to talk to closers first.

I therefore summarily up and closed the MRV for Grey Goose. Apparently there's some super-complicated history about the close and it was overturned or something but I had no idea any of that happened, I just closed a move request, and instead of telling melike he was required tothe guy just posts a move review immediately. I may well have overturned myself if he'd just posted on my talk page first.

In the future, I suggest to anyone; when someone goes so outside our procedures to make a MRV without communicating with the closer first, just close it automatically.RedSlash21:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The instructionsarevery explicit and emphatic on that step, so yes, no excuses for this really.Iskandar323(talk)07:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Would you please speedily close the MRV then?RedSlash15:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

May <involved> keep posting until all others are exhausted?

Thinking ofWikipedia:Move review#Hindu terrorismas a current example, should <involved> editors be welcome to keep posting in the review until all but one is exhausted? No, this is a classic non-consensus behaviour.

I suggest that where an involved editors exceeds 10 posts or 10kB in a single discussion, they should be required to put their contribution on the review talk page.

Involved editors should contribute, especially to answer questions, but in any review process, involved parties should not be allowed to dominate proceedings. Some threshold of decorum, please.SmokeyJoe(talk)04:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Withdrawals

I've seen RfCs and RMs withdrawn when there were a lot of editors opposing and no support in a short period of time. By extension, at MRV any withdrawals should be only with a lot of editors endorsing. A recent review atWP:MR#Albert von Sachsen (closed)was withdrawn by thenomwith three endorsements and three non-endorsements. Under the circumstances in this particular case this MRV likely needed to be closed, but was withdrawal appropriate? Shouldn't it still have been closed by an uninvolved editor? Just concerned about the precedent that is being set by this withdrawal.P.I. Ellsworth ,ed.^{put'er there}11:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I would agree. I think once an editor makes aWP:MRVinitiative, it should be hands off until properly closed by an uninvolved editor, including any move of the article under consideration. For MRV to have any credibility any given MRV request must run its course. I would support language in the MRV guidance to this effect.Mike Cline(talk)12:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Black Breath

There's an odd situation atTalk:Black Breath (band).User:Ppperyproposed a move toBlack Breathas the only article with the title. It gathered two support!votes and was closed as Moved byUser:Lightoilafter 7 days. Rather than start a Move Review or new RM,User:Chiswick Chapsimply reverted the move and close, and posted a notice atWT:WikiProject Middle-earth.It's since gathered oppose!votes. What's the best procedure in a situation like this?Station1(talk)20:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

All I want to say is that notification toWikiProjectsis not required forrequested moves.Thus not a valid reason to revert my move.Lightoil(talk)21:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

An admin should re-close the RM. Move the article to where the consensus was. Allow anyone who disagrees to begin a new RM but note that if it ends no consensus it will default to staying atBlack Breath.Trout Chiswick Chap who is an experienced editor and should know much better.Jenks24(talk)21:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The failure to notify the WikiProject is a good enough reason to relist.SmokeyJoe(talk)21:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

For sure, if he had started a discussion with the closer or even brought it to MRV I would be supportive of a relist. I just don't like rewarding the behaviour of reverting without even having a discussion first. I think Jc37 is correct just below that if we allow it to stand we are tacitly endorsing that behaviour which in turn means it will happen more often. But I do realise at this point it has now been re-opened for over half a day and there have been a number of new comments so re-closing it would probably cause more headaches than it would solve.Jenks24(talk)07:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

We're starting to see more and more of this. People who oppose an XfD or a merge or an RM discussion resolution, and just revert it. And the more it's even somewhat successful, the more we're going to see it happening. -jc3721:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

This was the original rationale for creating MRV. Use MRV. However, don’t shut down an active discussion that could be productive.SmokeyJoe(talk)21:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Chiswick Chapis an advanced editor and not an RM regular. He should be allowed this latitude. The RM process should serve the project, not rule it.SmokeyJoe(talk)21:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Well I learn something new about Wikipedia most every day. First I've noticed thatCategory:Redirects with possibilities by WikiProjectwas a thing, though I guess I already knew that comics, middle-earth, ships, and taxons were "special" on Wikipedia.Jenks24,welcome back, I'm thrilled to note that you have nearly 100 recent edits. Hoping you stick around, and feeling bad that you lost your admin privileges because of changes to "activity requirements". I feel your sentiment but I guess I'm perhaps willing to grant a somewhat reluctant pass per SmokeyJoe due to user expectations created by my bot's notifications. I'm going to look into ensuring that my bot gives RM notices to such special cases in the future. I'm all about coding bot enhancements that will mitigate drama and issues. –wbm1058(talk)22:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

No worries about the admin bit to be honest. It would be nice to still have but I actually agree with the reason the activity requirement changes were made, too many admins coming back after a long period out and not being up to speed with current norms made it necessary.Jenks24(talk)07:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a closure, you talk to the closer and, if that doesn't resolve it, you go to MR. Reverting leads to chaos, and I hope Chiswick Chap doesn't do this again. But at this point it's water under the bridge (especially since the closer would probably have relisted anyway if asked) and the RM should just proceed.Extraordinary Writ(talk)22:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Bot upgraded

Version 8.10 ofRMCD bothas enhanced notifications service and has posted a notice atTalk:Nazgûl#Move discussion in progress.BecauseWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Article alertsexists, no notice will be posted onWikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earthas the bot assumes that theArticle Alertsservice covers notices, and avoids posting unnecessary, redundant notices. The older version of the bot previously posted a notice onTalk:Black Breath,the talk page of a redirect. –wbm1058(talk)16:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Multiple pages

How do I open a move review for several pages at once? Please mention me for whoever does respondYoblyblob(talk)15:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Yoblyblob:If you mean a review of one requested move that proposed to move multiple pages, just use the title where the RM discussion took place. Of course, first discuss with the closer per themove review instructions.SilverLocust💬00:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Monthly log pages

When the clock strikes midnight on Wednesday, I'm going to take 60 seconds out of my day to watchlist (and, if no one beats me to it, transclude)Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 November.Maybe some of you will too. Maybe others of you went through and watchlisted every single future log page for years to come. (Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2027 Decemberalready has four watchers.) Watchlisting the monthly log is the only way to be notified when a new MR comes up. Why? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just run MRs directly onWikipedia:Move review?MRs are sufficiently uncommon that the page wouldn't be overwhelmed (the number of open MRs is almost always between 0 and 3), and giving editors a single page to watchlist would likely reduce the hassle and increase uninvolved participation in discussions. Thoughts?Extraordinary Writ(talk)00:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that “/Log/YYYY MMMM” is not justified. It would be better to have every move review on its own page transcluded directly ontoWikipedia:Move review,untranscluded when closed, and logged from a log page. This would mean that by watchlisting WP:MR, you get one blip for every new review and every close, and not regular blips of irrelevant monthly logs processing.

By having each review on its own page, watchlisting better serves those engaged in the review. It also means there’s a dedicate talk page, to where badgering by involved editors can be sent.SmokeyJoe(talk)01:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose just running MRs on the top level. That would mean cut-paste archiving, which is poor practice.SmokeyJoe(talk)01:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Separate pages would also be an improvement, although it would complicate things by requiring the initiator to understand transclusion. I'm not sure I understand the issue with cut-paste archiving: it's not functionally different than how we archive talk pages, right?Extraordinary Writ(talk)01:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Transclusion can be done by following simple instructions.

Issues with cut-paste archiving is that the edit history is in a different place to the archive. Yes, this is how talk pages are managed, but they are just talk pages, and they are supposed to be just archives. Review pages, like AfDs and MfDs that have this model of one page per discussion, are of ongoing reference purpose. With the current log-date system, linking to an old MRV requires a long awkward url and a “#” character. With one discussion per page, titled with the page title being reviewed, it makes for easy and obvious linking.

Archiving by moving the transclusion off the top level and onto a log page means that all participants by default continue to watchlist the discussion. This is occasionally very useful in preventing altering of the record, or responding to a late protest. It also means the archive can be found by following one’s contribution history. This is far superior for any wikiarcheologist.SmokeyJoe(talk)02:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. I'd be happy to give it a try if others are on board.Extraordinary Writ(talk)04:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Old discussion, but I've had this thought myself a few times - I believe it would also help boost participation in move reviews. (The alternative, that I would also support, is aWP:Administration noticeboard/Discussion reviews,whereallreviews would be held.)BilledMammal(talk)22:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Disagree with “Administration noticeboard” being in the title. That would make it sound like it’s a place meant for admins. Reviews should be for community participation.SmokeyJoe(talk)22:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

That's why I support moving the current ones from "Administrators' noticeboard" to "Administration noticeboard", but I would equally support "Editors' noticeboard/Discussion reviews" and "Village pump/Discussion reviews".BilledMammal(talk)22:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that was too subtle for me.

How aboutWP:Close reviews.

I’m not in favour of putting all reviews onto one page. I would strongly oppose merging DRV. XRV exists separately and would not merge well, is not even a close review. MRV has a long culture that would not blend well with closing ANI block discussions as well as RfC closes. I do, as above, support listing every review as a subpage of a parent page, MfD style, so that by watchlisting the parent page you can see every discussion being added and removed.SmokeyJoe(talk)06:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisting three times

RegardingTransformers (film),this article has been relisteda third timedespitethirteeneditors' involvement. I question the judgment ofBilledMammalas a non-admin page mover, especially in regard to calling a "no consensus", here and with another RM discussion recently (details on talk page). See RM discussion here:Transformers (film) § Requested move 17 May 2024.Erik(talk|contrib)^{(ping me)}21:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion was low-drama, with no back-and-forth, and I felt it was worth a final relist to try to find a consensus. Other editors may of course disagree.BilledMammal(talk)22:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

They were all pointless comment-free relists. How about you just don’t do comment free relists?SmokeyJoe(talk)22:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Only the first was comment-free.BilledMammal(talk)22:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I couldn’t find the second comment, and the third was a statement, not a comment, by my definitions.

Anyway, seriously, I think it is massively more helpful for the relister to state, in simple terms, why you judge that consensus cannot be assertained, what is the open question. I think this makes it much easier, weather you!voted previously or are arriving new, to make a helpful new comment. I would presume that the relister has just read through the discussion.SmokeyJoe(talk)06:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Are new rules needed for high-profile or previously contested proposals?

I have initiated a discussion at the Village Pump on the question,Are new rules needed for high-profile or previously contested proposals?BD2412T00:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Involved II

I know this has been discussed previously, last timetwo years ago,but it does seem that participation by involved editors at move reviews does more harm than good. We should still allow comments by involved editors, but I'd suggest we disallow them from explicitly endorsing or opposing (overturning) the close, since their possition can be inferred by their participation in the move request itself. That could reduce the number of involved editors participating in move reviews, which would make them less heated and easier to close. We could add to the instructions something similar to what is mentioned atWP:RMCOMMENTfor nominators:Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. Any thoughts?Vpab15(talk)16:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see us section off involved comments.Firefangledfeathers(talk/contribs)16:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

No, that was tried briefly. It makes the thread of the discussion much harder to follow.Station1(talk)20:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you remember approximately when it was tried?Firefangledfeathers(talk/contribs)01:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I can only find one off-hand, from September 2022 (Charles III, not a great example). I'm certain there were a few others but I don't remember when.Station1(talk)04:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that sectioning off is probably the best way to handle this. It seems to work well for AN RFC appeals. –Novem Linguae(talk)01:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Could share the link to one of those appeal discussions, so we can see what that looks like?Vpab15(talk)11:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure. This one is pretty typical:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive362#RfC closure review request at Talk:Israel#RfC: Apartheid in Lead.The sectioning is typically done with level 3 headings for "involved" and "non-involved". Or more recently, "participants" and "non-participants". The idea is a person should make their top level comment/!vote in the correct section. However anyone can reply to a top-level comment anywhere. –Novem Linguae(talk)12:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, something like that would definitely be an improvement.Vpab15(talk)12:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with everyone above, and it should not (does not) matter whether someone is involved or not. If someone relitigates, the closer will see it. The closer of a Move Review must be capable enough to spot and discount such arguments. If the closer isn't capable of it, they shouldn't close, and if they close badly because of their inability, they should be told not to close any more Move Reviews, and a Move Review that was badly closed can be challenged and overturned at AN. —Alalch E.13:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Why should involved participants not be allowed to contribute? The purpose of a MR is not to relitigate the discussion, on which those involved editors clearly had an opinion, but to determine whether the close was valid given the discussion. That's something anyone can opine on, provided they give evidence as to why they think the close is correct or incorrect. Not to mention the possibility that this could lead to "gaming" the system, whereby a number of editors hold off voting in the main discussion so that they can subsequently appear at MRs and overturn the close as an "uninvolved" watcher. IMHO other than the closer, who would be subject to the standardWP:INVOLVEDrestrictions, all other participants in MRs should be able to contribute fully and equally, not restricted or having their votes sectioned off into a subsidiary section. The spirit ofWP:CONSENSUSis that all editors are equal. —Amakuru(talk)13:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Noted with thanks for you

Noted with thanks for you2409:4080:386:290C:0:0:2857:98B0(talk)13:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)