Wikipedia:Move review

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

Shortcuts WP:MRWP:MR WP:MRVWP:MRV

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.

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.

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.

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=
}}  ~~~~

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.

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}}.

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.

Shetland dialect (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

I was surprised to see the request to move Shetland dialect closed without moving the page to Shetland (language). The alternative proposal appears not to have been considered. By my count, support was as follows:

• Shaetlan: 4 support, 4 oppose, 3 no data
• Shetland (language): 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 no data
• Shetland language: 4 support, 1 oppose, 5 no data

Shetland (language) received the strongest support. AjaxSmack’s argument was cited as a basis for not moving the page, yet AjaxSmack explicitly supported the Shetland (language) option. May I request the closure be reconsidered in light of the vote distribution and full content of the discussion (particularly the alternative proposal)? — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 15:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Shetland (language). This was a very confusing discussion to read through because it was forked in the middle, and required a close reading - while there wasn't a consensus for the original move, there is clearly consensus for Shetland (language), even if weakly for a few users, and only a couple users specifically don't support Shetland (language). Furthermore AjaxSmack, whose opposition was mentioned by the closer, did not oppose the second proposal after a mis-reading. SportingFlyer T·C 17:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I also tend toward renaming per the arguments reviewed in the alternative proposal; however, the closer is an experienced editor and page mover. We must hear more details about the thinking which led to the overall decision not to move at all before we can render an objective review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS Should also mention that the nom requested closure of this RM at WP:CR. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I think the comments made below coupled with the closer's explanation warrants endorsement of this RM closure. And I think any new ideas of another move request should await the standard period, so that editors can utilize the time to strengthen their rationales. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 06:34, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the final decision, what is the "standard period"? — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 15:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't like how User:Griceylipper went straight to WP:DRV here without waiting for an answer from the closer. It's quite likely that User:Celia Homeford has not seen the message yet; the account shows no activity since it was posted. A good-faith discussion with the closer should always be the first step. See also WP:DEADLINE. 162 etc. (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @162 etc. The WP:MR advice is to "give [the closer] a few days to respond", which I did. I left a message on their talk page on 3 December as soon as I saw the outcome to not move the article, and I created the move review on 6 December. When it comes to disagreements, I would point to WP:DONTPOSTPONE in the same essay you link to.

  I would also like to point out that I started the discussion to move the article in question on 16 October, nearly two months ago. It is frustrating to wait as long as this only to have the discussion misread and moved in a way I don't think reflects the wishes of the users who contributed to the discussion. If I have been unfair at any point in the move request process, please point out to me where. I have not assumed bad faith with the closer, I just want to ensure the outcome accurately reflects the discussion, and have this sorted. — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 21:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've been away. I did not count supports or opposes, instead looking specifically for evidence demonstrating the common or most recognisable name. In the Alternative proposal section, the data presented did not support use of 'Shetland' alone or 'Shetland language' for Shaetlan. The term was shown to be uncommon and ambiguous. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can I ask why Myceteae's call for WP:NATDIS (or WP:PARENDIS which they were also open to) is invalid here? If "Shetland dialect" is valid, I see no reason why either "Shetland language" or "Shetland (language)" shouldn't be considered perfectly reasonable in light of new scientific classification.

  I think it is disingenuous to say these terms were shown to be uncommon and ambiguous - rather, they are more difficult to prove with ngrams. As a native speaker of this language, I can tell you it is extremely common to hear both "Shaetlan" (the autonym) and "Shetland" and "the Shetland language" being to used to the language (I probably hear some variant of all these every day!) But unless someone wants to sift through the contexts of all the ngram references it will be difficult to prove this textually.

  Is it unreasonable for other users to assume my own good faith in this regard?

  Otherwise, we are going to have to start doing silly things like renaming Koala to "Koala Bear" as it's a very common name, even though they're not bears at all. — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 10:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on you to prove that this terminology is used in reliable sources. You made little or no attempt to do this while the RM was going on. "I'm a Shetlander and I hear it all the time" isn't going to cut it. Zacwill (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Vacate the close and start a new Requested Move, listing each of the proposed names and asking the community to vote Yes or No on each. The options were not all listed initially in the RM in question, so that the voters were shooting at a moving target. List all the options at the outset of the new RM, and advertise it at the appropriate WikiProjects. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would prefer not to have to go through all this again. If I structured the discussion poorly, I apologise, I tried my best under the circumstances. But I don't think relisting the discussion will change the outcome of votes as above, I think it will only delay the same general intention from users again. — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 10:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (involved). No reliable sources were provided to support "Shetland", which is not an ideal name anyway since it is ambiguous. I am not sure that is the more common name. A new RM discussion can be started, as long as the proposed title is in line with policy and supported by reliable sources in English. For my money, that might very well be the original proposal "Shaetlan", which I have seen being used elsewhere. Vpab15 (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Search Move review archives Wikipedia:Move review

• Category:Pages at move review
• Category:Closed move reviews
• Wikipedia:Deletion review
• Subpages of this page