Wikipedia:Move review

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

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

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

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

What this process is not

Shortcut

WP:MRNOT

This review process should be focused on the move discussion and the subsequent results of the move discussion, not on the person who closed the discussion. If you have ongoing concerns about a closer, please consult with the closer or post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Move review requests which cast aspersions or otherwise attack other editors may be speedily closed.

Do not request a move review if someone has boldly moved a page and you disagree. Instead, attempt to discuss it with the editor, and if the matter continues to be unresolved, start a formal WP:RM discussion on the article's talk page.

Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a page move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion.

Disagreements with Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions (WP:RMCI), WP:Article titles, the Manual of Style, a naming convention or the community norm of consensus should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page.

CfDs^[1] and RfDs can only be reviewed here if the relevant discussion was limited in scope to renaming; CfDs or RfDs^[2] involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Instructions

Initiating move reviews

Shortcut

WP:IMR

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

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

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

Steps to list a new review request


1.	Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page. Move review is a process that takes several days, sometimes weeks, to close. On the closer's talk page, you can probably resolve the matter much more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full, formal move review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, and you decide to request a review of the closure, please note in the review that you did first try discussing the matter with the closer. To clarify: You absolutely MUST attempt to discuss the matter with the closer FIRST, and give them a few days to respond.
2.	Follow this link to this month's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the contested move page, rm_page with the name of the move discussion page if needed, rm_section if needed, closer and closer_section with the post-move discussion information, and reason with the reason why the page move should be reviewed. For example: Copy this template skeleton for most pages: {{subst:move review list \|page= \|rm_page= <!--Not needed if the move discussion is on the talk page of the page--> \|rm_section= <!--Name of the section with the move request--> \|closer= <!--User name of editor who closed the move request--> \|closer_section= <!--Name of the section of closer's talk page where discussion took place--> \|reason= }} ~~~~ If either the `\|closer=` or `\|closer_section=` parameter is omitted, the result will include "No discussion on closer's talk page". When `\|closer= < closer's username >` and `\|closer_section= < section header on closer's talk page where there was discussion about the close >` are correctly filled in, the result will include a "Discussion with closer" link to that discussion. If the `\|closer_section=` link is to the section on the closer's talk page where the closer has only been notified of Move review (see step 3) and the closer has not actually discussed their close with another editor on their talk page, the result will include a "No discussion on closer's talk page" link to the Move review notice.
3.	If you have not done so already, inform the closer of the Move review discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: `{{subst:move review note\|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~`
4.	Leave notice of the move review in the same section as, but outside of and above the closed original move discussion. Use the following template: `{{move review talk\|date=29 May 2025}}`. Do not tag the article.
5.	If the current month discussions are not already included in the discussion section below. Add the new log page to the top of the active discussions section. `{{Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 May}}`
6.	The discussion with closer and notices required above are sufficient notification; you are not required to individually notify participants in the prior move discussion of the move review. However, if you individually notify any of them, you must individually notify all of them by posting a message about the move review on each participant's respective user talk page.

Commenting in a move review

In general, commenters should prefix their comments with either Endorse or Overturn (optionally stating an alternative close) followed by their reasoning. Generally, the rationale should be an analysis of whether the closer properly followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, whether it was within closer's discretion and reasonably interpreted consensus in the discussion, while keeping in mind the spirit of Wikipedia policy, precedent and project goal. Commenters should be familiar with WP:RMCI, which sets forth community norms for closers of page move discussions.

If the close is considered premature because of on-going discussion or if significant relevant information was not considered during the discussion, commenters should suggest Relist followed by their rationale.

Commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review.

The closer of the page move under discussion should feel free to provide additional rationale as to why they closed the RM in the manner they did and why they believe the close followed the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI.

Remember that move review is not an opportunity to rehash, expand upon or first offer your opinion on the proper title of the page in question – move review is not a do-over of the WP:RM discussion but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process (in the absence of significant new information). Thus, the action specified should be the editor's analysis of whether the close of the discussion was reasonable or unreasonable based on the debate and applicable policy and guidelines. Providing evidence such as page views, ghits, ngrams, challenging sourcing and naming conventions, etc. to defend a specific title choice is not within the purview of a move review. Evidence should be limited to demonstrating that the RM closer did or did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing the page move discussion.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on move review for at least seven days. After seven days, an uninvolved editor will determine whether a consensus exists to either endorse the close or overturn the close. If that consensus is to Overturn Close, the MRV closer should take the appropriate actions to revert any title changes resulting from the RM close. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at Wikipedia:Requested moves, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, or Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If the consensus is to Endorse Close, no further action is required on the article title. If the MRV closer finds that there is no consensus in the move review, then in most cases this has the same effect as Endorse Close and no action is required on the article title. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; MRV closers may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

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

Also, add a result to the {{move review talk}} template on the talk page where the original discussion took place, e.g. {{move review talk|date=April 24 2015|result=Closure endorsed}}.

Typical move review decision options

The following set of options represent the typical results of a move review decision, although complex page move discussions involving multiple title changes may require a combination of these options based on the specific details of the RM and MRV discussions.

MRV closer's decision	RM closer's decision	Move review closed as	Status of RM after MRV close
1. Endorse	Moved / Not moved	No action required	Closed
2. Overturn	Not moved	Option 1: (If RM consensus is unclear or significantly divided) Reopen and relist RM	Open
	Not moved	Option 2: (If consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RM	Closed
	Moved	Move title back to pre-RM title, and reopen and relist RM if appropriate	Open
3. Relist	Moved / Not moved	Reopen and relist RM and if moved, move title back to pre-RM title	Open

Notes

^ Those that involve renames (Template:Cfr), for all other types of CFDs use deletion review.
^ Generally for those that don't involve any proposed or suggested deletion, where only the redirect's target was being discussed or if the redirect should be a disambiguation page, for other (even those that were retargeted where deletion was proposed or considered) use deletion review.

Active discussions

2025 May

Church Fathers

Editors opposing the move have offered opinions as to the degree of capitalisation in sources without reference to any actual evidence to substantiate their assertions and largely without any reference to the prevailing P&G. They have also opined that the lowercase form has different contexts without any evidence to substantiate this conjecture. With reference to specific examples and a search of google scholar more generally, it was evidenced that there was no substance to the assertion of different contexts for LC and UC and therefore, no reasonable reason to question the validity of the ngram evidence presented. The ngram evidence (including contexts capturing prose usage) were presented in conjunction with google scholar evidence as a cross comparison and to confirm context. Actual evidence (as opposed to unsubstantiated conjecture) indicates near equal capitalisation for the two forms - ie the proportions of capitalisation for each form are not significantly different. Viewing the question through the lens of the prevailing P&G, there is no reasonable reason to retain capitalisation when actual evidence indicates about equal capitalisation. From discussion with the closer, it appears they have assessed the individual VOTES viewed in isolation from the fuller debate - giving weight to unsubstantiated opinion where debate with reference to actual evidence shows that such assertions lack credibility. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. « uninvolved » This closure was reasonable and in line with closing instructions. Gentle caution to focus on the closure and not reargue the move request. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 06:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This does focus on the closure, closing instructions including WP:DISCARD and why unsubstantiate opinion and conjecture without reference to prevailing P&G carries little or no weight against arguments that address the evidential criteria of prevailing P&G with reference to verifiable evidence. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved), I just read the RM discussion and there was no other way to close it. 'Church Fathers' is the recognizable name pertaining to the early Christian scholars and theologians, etc., who formed the religion. 'Father' in the current context means 'priest' (since Catholics call their priests 'Father'), which is a separate topic and not to be confused with this one. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) I disagree with the outcome - a simple academic source search shows this is often capitalised but not consistently captialised, and that there exist instances where the phrase "church fathers" does not refer to the topic here, but that is my own research, not the discussion. This is an instance where the discussion was firmly against but the evidence against those who are against isn't clear from the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 14:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, those arguing against offered personal opinions as to what sources did but no actual evidence to substantiate the claims. The actual evidence that was offered in the debate showed that these claims were false - ie those arguing against the move did so on the basis of a premise that was demonstrably false. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (uinvolved) as the close that reflected consensus. I will add that if I had taken part in the RM, I would have opposed de-capitalization, because Catholics, and probably Eastern Orthodox, use Church Fathers as a proper noun. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The real issue should be one that is not for Move Review, and that is how to limit these small wars to de-capitalize phrases that are used as proper names. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse « uninvolved » The close was reasonable and within the guidelines. The nom states: Editors opposing the move have offered opinions as to the degree of capitalisation in sources without reference to any actual evidence to substantiate their assertions and largely without any reference to the prevailing P&G. In reading the thread, I find multiple instances of opponents citing evidence (including Britannica, a reliable tertiary source usually considered authoritative for usage) and P&G, and refuting evidence and arguments put forth by supporters. This was a well-attended RM where editors (mostly) engaged with one another's arguments and the close reflects the consensus.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Revolution (closed)

Ethiopian Revolution – The result of the review was to endorse. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

In raising the matter with the closer, it would appear that the closer has determined no consensus on the basis of tied VOTES rather than the strength of argument viewed through the lens of P&G and evidence presented, which does not support that the title even reaches a simple majority of capitalisation in prose. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsed. « uninvolved » This RM closure is reasonable and is consistent with closing instructions. It should be endorsed and a waiting period of three months or so is in line with a no-consensus outcome. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 03:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) – just because an involved editor has their own assessment of MOS:MILTERMS that is different from the closer's assessment of MOS:MILTERMS doesn't mean their version is right. The discussion does not support the nom's assertion of determin[ing] no consensus on the bases of tied VOTES rather than the strength of argument. MRV is not "I don't like the outcome" – it's a place to bring up issues with the close itself. From the discussion and reasoning, the close is well-reasoned. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 13:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chicdat, only one comment mentions MOS:MILTERMS and it presumes a lower threshold for caps. The editor presents ngram evidence to contexturalise the search for prose usage and this indicates that the title does not even reach 50% capitalisation (ie they supported the move). Your comment is way off beam in respect to your first sentence. Another editor refers to a Google Scholar search and that lowercase is more common in prose. Contrary to this, they opine that it is a trivial proper name (whatever that is) and should still be capitalised despite the evidence. The discussion refers to evidence from GS and Google Books, not just ngrams as the closer indicates in the close. Strength of argument comes from assessing evidence in the light of P&G. The close states that the opposers have only indicated evidence but not how this relates to P&G, while supporters have done both. If this is an accurate and well-reasoned close the former would carry very little weight - thereby indicating that no consensus has been arrived at on the bases of tied VOTES rather than the strength of argument. We also see one opposing comment to effect that it will eventually become consistently capped in sources - an argument with no basis in P&G - which they tacitly acknowledge through a reference to WP:CRYSTAL. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not another Move Review having to do with Wikipedia's eccentric capitalization rule! Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed (involved), after two relistings the "no consensus" close both makes sense and accurately summarizes the situation. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as an accurate reflection of consensus. This is a case where Use Common Sense is as important as an eccentric MOS rule. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) I believe the standard here is set out by Myceteae - not "always" as per the nom, but "usually." And I think Myceteae had clearly the best analysis of the facts here. That being said, there's just enough doubt about what "usually" means in the discussion that no consensus is probably the best result. SportingFlyer T·C 19:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, Myceteae and DL both refer to usually. While their interpretations may or may not be the same, they reach the same conclusion to support. Myceteae presents evidence that the capped version in prose is not used more often than not (ie a 50% threshold). It is confirmed by google scholar results: As Kowal2701 concedes, there seems to be more lowercase use in prose. There is no debate to suggest that usually means or includes something that is less often than not. Where then lies the doubt? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's just enough doubt over whether the n-grams show "usually" with this one. I'd try again in a couple months. SportingFlyer T·C 06:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A close should assess the debate and an MR is similarly constrained to considering WP:RMCIDC and WP:DISCARD. It was the place of the debate to create doubt as to the evidence and Myceteae has not just relied on ngrams. There was plenty of opportunity to debate Myceteae's evidence or conclusion. While I might have debated that "usually" creates a substantially lower threshold than usually applies, their evidence and conclusion nonetheless supported lowercase. The meaning of "usually" as a point of debate has become the flavour of the month in RMs falling under MOS:MILTERMS. As an aside, you may be interested in these [1][2][3] and how "usually" is most usually interpreted quantitatively. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I find providing those links somewhat condescending. SportingFlyer T·C 15:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and SNOW close!. Mast303 (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC) (Closer) Cinderella157 (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (uninvolved) accurate reflection of consensus. --Plumber (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
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

Formal review processes
Deletion review Move review Administrative action review
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews:
Administrators' noticeboard
In bot-related matters:
Bots noticeboard
Discussion about closes prior to closing:
Discussions for discussion
v t e