Wiki Article
Wikipedia:Move review
Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net
 |
Move review is a process to formally discuss and evaluate a contested close of Wikipedia page move discussions, including requested moves (RM), categories for discussion discussions (CfD), and redirects for discussion discussions (RfD), to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.
Prior to submitting a review of a page move's close, please attempt to resolve any issues on the closer's talk page. See step one below.
While the page move close is under review, any involved editor is free to revert any undiscussed moves of a nominated page without those actions being considered a violation of Wikipedia:No wheel warring.
What this process is not
[edit]This review process should be focused on the move discussion and the subsequent results of the move discussion, not on the person who closed the discussion. If you have ongoing concerns about a closer, please consult with the closer or post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Move review requests which cast aspersions or otherwise attack other editors may be speedily closed.
Do not request a move review if someone has boldly moved a page and you disagree. Instead, attempt to discuss it with the editor, and if the matter continues to be unresolved, start a formal WP:RM discussion on the article's talk page.
Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a page move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion.
Disagreements with Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions (WP:RMCI), WP:Article titles, the Manual of Style, a naming convention or the community norm of consensus should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page.
CfDs[1] and RfDs can only be reviewed here if the relevant discussion was limited in scope to renaming; CfDs or RfDs[2] involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review.
Instructions
[edit]Initiating move reviews
[edit]Editors desiring to initiate a move review should follow the steps listed below. In the reason parameter, editors should limit their requests to one or both of the following reasons:
- [Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because [explain rationale here] in closing this requested move discussion.
- [Closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: [identify information here] and the discussion should be reopened and relisted.
Editors initiating a move review discussion should be familiar with the closing instructions provided in WP:RMCI.
Steps to list a new review request
[edit]| 1. |
Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page. Move review is a process that takes several days, sometimes weeks, to close. On the closer's talk page, you can probably resolve the matter much more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full, formal move review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, and you decide to request a review of the closure, please note in the review that you did first try discussing the matter with the closer. To clarify: You absolutely MUST attempt to discuss the matter with the closer FIRST, and give them a few days to respond. |
| 2. |
Follow this link to this month's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the contested move page, rm_page with the name of the move discussion page if needed, rm_section if needed, closer and closer_section with the post-move discussion information, and reason with the reason why the page move should be reviewed. For example: Copy this template skeleton for most pages:
{{subst:move review list
|page=
|rm_page= <!--Not needed if the move discussion is on the talk page of the page-->
|rm_section= <!--Name of the section with the move request-->
|closer= <!--User name of editor who closed the move request-->
|closer_section= <!--Name of the section of closer's talk page where discussion took place-->
|reason=
}} ~~~~
If either the
are correctly filled in, the result will include a "Discussion with closer" link to that discussion. If the |
| 3. |
If you have not done so already, inform the closer of the Move review discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
| 4. |
Leave notice of the move review in the same section as, but outside of and above the closed original move discussion. Use the following template: |
| 5. |
If the current month discussions are not already included in the discussion section below. Add the new log page to the top of the active discussions section.
|
| 6. |
The discussion with closer and notices required above are sufficient notification; you are not required to individually notify participants in the prior move discussion of the move review. However, if you individually notify any of them, you must individually notify all of them by posting a message about the move review on each participant's respective user talk page. |
Commenting in a move review
[edit]In general, commenters should prefix their comments with either Endorse or Overturn (optionally stating an alternative close) followed by their reasoning. Generally, the rationale should be an analysis of whether the closer properly followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, whether it was within closer's discretion and reasonably interpreted consensus in the discussion, while keeping in mind the spirit of Wikipedia policy, precedent and project goal. Commenters should be familiar with WP:RMCI, which sets forth community norms for closers of page move discussions.
If the close is considered premature because of on-going discussion or if significant relevant information was not considered during the discussion, commenters should suggest Relist followed by their rationale.
Commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review.
The closer of the page move under discussion should feel free to provide additional rationale as to why they closed the RM in the manner they did and why they believe the close followed the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI.
Remember that move review is not an opportunity to rehash, expand upon or first offer your opinion on the proper title of the page in question – move review is not a do-over of the WP:RM discussion but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process (in the absence of significant new information). Thus, the action specified should be the editor's analysis of whether the close of the discussion was reasonable or unreasonable based on the debate and applicable policy and guidelines. Providing evidence such as page views, ghits, ngrams, challenging sourcing and naming conventions, etc. to defend a specific title choice is not within the purview of a move review. Evidence should be limited to demonstrating that the RM closer did or did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing the page move discussion.
Closing reviews
[edit]A nominated page should remain on move review for at least seven days. After seven days, an uninvolved editor will determine whether a consensus exists to either endorse the close or overturn the close. If that consensus is to Overturn Close, the MRV closer should take the appropriate actions to revert any title changes resulting from the RM close. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at Wikipedia:Requested moves, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, or Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If the consensus is to Endorse Close, no further action is required on the article title. If the MRV closer finds that there is no consensus in the move review, then in most cases this has the same effect as Endorse Close and no action is required on the article title. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; MRV closers may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.
Use {{subst:move review top}} and {{subst:move review bottom}} to close such discussions.
Alternatively, the opener of a move review can close it only if unanimous opposition is obvious, the discussion has not had any comments yet, or the review was initiated via block evasion.
Also, add a result to the {{move review talk}} template on the talk page where the original discussion took place, e.g. {{move review talk|date=April 24 2015|result=Closure endorsed}}.
Typical move review decision options
[edit]The following set of options represent the typical results of a move review decision, although complex page move discussions involving multiple title changes may require a combination of these options based on the specific details of the RM and MRV discussions.
| MRV closer's decision | RM closer's decision | Move review closed as | Status of RM after MRV close |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Endorse | Moved / Not moved | No action required | Closed |
| 2. Overturn | Not moved | Option 1: (If RM consensus is unclear or significantly divided) Reopen and relist RM | Open |
| Option 2: (If consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RM | Closed | ||
| Moved | Move title back to pre-RM title, and reopen and relist RM if appropriate | Open | |
| 3. Relist | Moved / Not moved | Reopen and relist RM and if moved, move title back to pre-RM title | Open |
Notes
[edit]- ^ Those that involve renames (Template:Cfr), for all other types of CFDs use deletion review.
- ^ Generally for those that don't involve any proposed or suggested deletion, where only the redirect's target was being discussed or if the redirect should be a disambiguation page, for other (even those that were retargeted where deletion was proposed or considered) use deletion review.
Active discussions
[edit]- 1952 Dallas mid-air collision (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)
This article was moved to the requested name in February despite it being evenly split between the keep and oppose votes. The February requested move should be relisted or moved to no consensus. Zaptain United (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Explanation of why I closed this way at User_talk:Pppery/Archive_28#Talk:1952_Dallas_mid-air_collision. I think that, even if my closure is wrong, it has been so overtaken by events (the later move requests) that it's not overturnable. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse and speedy close! « uninvolved » Please see also an Aug move review. The closer is correct above. The nom opened an RM in July after this Feb RM closed as "moved". That was too soon, and the no-consensus outcome was no surprise. Then the nom opened another RM in Nov, which closed with a consensus to uphold this closer's Feb decision. WP:NOTAVOTE also applies. So not only was this Feb decision good, it has already been endorsed by an RM consensus several months later. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with you, and I don't feel strongly about this one at all, but as someone involved, I do understand the frustration considering the original discussion should have been closed as a no consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 23:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, frustrating. We should also have some difficulty with an MRV nomination that comes after two ensuing move requests and the previous August MRV, all of which strongly supported the outcome of the February RM. It's a way long dead horse being kicked here. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 06:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- And it should be mentioned that this is the second review for which there was no previous discussion between the nom and the closer. Isn't this yet another good reason to speedy-close this MRV? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 06:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- Probably. I did ask Pppery why they didn't no consensus the first close and then didn't bring it to move review, so I guess I am in part responsible for this mess. SportingFlyer T·C 09:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- Don't close this due to lack of discussion with me - if a discussion with me had been attempted I wold still have had nothing more to say than I already said above. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- I did discuss this with you. I didn't bring it to move review afterwards. That would have avoided the procedural mess. SportingFlyer T·C 18:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse, both on the merits of the close, and due to “moot”, too old. A reason the incident is not named after the commercial flight is that the commercial flight was not at fault, it’s crew and passengers suffered no injuries, and landed almost completely unscathed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)
Previously discussed in 2023; that one also went to MRV and was ultimately closed as "no consensus". In this 2026 discussion, the consensus in favour of Czechia men's national ice hockey team appeared stronger. The opposition was based solely on WP:CONSISTENT, which was rejected by the supporting editors (including myself) as being subordinate to WP:COMMONNAME, per WP:TITLECON. I discussed this with the closer at user talk; User:Vestrian24Bio's response was to amend the original closing statement from "No consensus" to "Not moved", which appears completely unjustifiable. 162 etc. (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment. « uninvolved » This RM should return to a "no-consensus" outcome, and just barely. Seems that over time the trend has been toward the renames. Returning to "no consensus" signals for a new RM in a few months with stronger support rationales. That seems better than waiting a longer period due to a "not moved" decision. Moreover, I would also be okay with overturning to "moved". It appears to be that close a call. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 19:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Regardless of my opinion on the validity of the decision, "stealth" changing the closing statement in this way four days later is a serious faux pas. 162 etc. (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn so I'm quasi-involved here, since it looks like I !voted in the 2023 discussion, but I have serious issues with the procedure of this close. First, the discussion absolutely supports the move on the numbers for the hockey teams (7 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose). The Olympics could be either a moved or a no consensus (6 support, 2 neutral, 4 oppose). For the hockey, both sides have valid arguments, but as is noted in the discussion WP:TITLECON does mean COMMONNAME gets weighed a little more heavily than CONSISTENCY, meaning those supporting have both numbers and weight. Second, "not moved" is different than "no consensus!" "Not moved" means there was consensus against the move. Not understanding this means the closer probably shouldn't be closing move reviews. The close should be vacated and re-closed. SportingFlyer T·C 23:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment involved. WP:CONSISTENT is a strong reason and if it's not a tally of votes, then it is "no consensus". There is no national team page that has the name of a territory in its name, which is a redirect. Past examples (e.g. the move from East Timor to Timor-Leste a year ago) show that the names are linked. After the country name was moved, the related pages (like Timor-Leste national football team) were moved without any discussion of what the common name was or what was found in the sources. It only mattered about the name of the parent page. The Olympics are a completely clear case; that page should not have been associated in the RM with ice hockey teams at all. I should have mentioned this in the discussion, but I accidentally deleted it from my watchlist and never went back.
- I agree that closer's change of the move review should not have happened at all, this was the wrong approach. FromCzech (talk) 06:47, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- Re-List WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT are both very good reasons. As mentioned by SportingFlyer,
WP:TITLECON does mean COMMONNAME gets weighed a little more heavily than CONSISTENCY
. But this should have been re listed to gain a clearer consensus and not closed after just 2 weeks. Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn - The decision being based on the country article, is in error. GoodDay (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Various discussions led to the move being closed, reopened and closed again, finally with a 'no consensus' decision, which I agree with. However, I do not agree with the desicision to leave the page at its current name. The page previously existed at Glenfiddich distillery maintaining a WP:CONSISTENT naming policy determined in a 2012 discussion on the Spirits project talk page. The final closer notes that the page is currently at its most stable title over the years. The article was created at its current name; after the 2012 move to the 'distillery' point it was moved back without discussion by a sock in 2014, then moved back to include 'distillery' in 2023 and moved again without discussion to where it is now in 2025 (see logs at Glenfiddich and Glenfiddich distillery). The question is, does stability trump the decision made the only time consensus may have been deemed to have been reached in 2012? The quality of that discussion has also been brought into question, and my arguments as to why it should be moved back can be read on the article in question's talk page, along with other arguments that led to the 'no consensus' decision. YorkshireExpat (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse, sort of (uninvolved) I actually see consensus not to move in that discussion, not no consensus. So I'd overturn it to "consensus not to move," making the reasoning of which title is most stable moot, but doesn't change any outcome. (Two additional things: First, I sort of agree with the analysis above - the title had been stable for a couple years, and had been reverted from a sock's move, but it is not a straightforward analysis by any means. Second, I personally don't agree with the outcome - I don't have any strong feelings about this article at all, but it's the only distillery in Category:Distilleries in Scotland which doesn't use the word distillery apart from a single company which is more known for brewing beer, so the outcome seems strange to me, but it appears there may need to be a split between the product and the distillery at some point. SportingFlyer T·C 23:35, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Swindon Stadium (closed)
[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
User:HurricaneZeta was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: the stadium has closed in December 2025, which materially changes the context for naming the article; numerous reliable sources (BBC, ITV, Racing Post, Swindon Advertiser, Insider Media, local councils, GOV.UK) consistently refer to the venue as "Abbey Stadium," and the trading name "Swindon Stadium" is no longer in current or historical use in coverage of its closure. The title "Abbey Stadium, Swindon" is also precise and unambiguous, while "Swindon Stadium" is ambiguous and conflicts with WP:PRECISION and WP:COMMONNAME guidelines. Therefore, the closure of the move discussion should be reviewed in light of these significant new circumstances and sources. Icaldonta (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it. |
Scouting America (closed)
[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
| The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it. |
Twelve Angry Men (stage play) (closed)
[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
StarFox0Lover did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because they did not use appropriate WP:RMNAC tags, allow a full seven days discussion, nor give appropriate weight to arguments based in guidelines and policy in assessing consensus and closing this requested move discussion. StarFox0Lover was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: usage of only play or musical as a disambiguator is the standard convention adequate to them distinguish from other media, even when there is another disambiguator, as in Smash (TV series) and Smash (musical) (see also Category:Plays based on television series and Category:Plays based on films), with "stage" added only when further disambiguation is needed, such as in Burlesque (stage musical), where "Burlesque (musical)" redirects to "Victorian burlesque," and the discussion should be reopened and relisted. - BrechtBro (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it. |
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2025 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2024 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2023 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2022 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2021 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2020 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2019 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2018 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2017 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2016 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2015 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2014 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2013 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2012 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
 | Search Move review archives
| |