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.

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}}.

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.

Şanlıurfa Province (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (No discussion on closer's talk page specified)

The 2017 RM was closed with the decision to change the titles of two articles: Şanlıurfa to Urfa, and Şanlıurfa Province → Urfa Province. For whatever reason, the closer did move the former at the time, but not the latter. On that basis, a technical move request was initiated by @Keivan.f: today here to carry out the long overdue decision. The technical move request was initially contested by @Yue: as if it were a non-technical move request, but Keivan clarified the RM included both titles. In response, @TarnishedPath: reached out to @Amakuru: to ask why the title on the province was not moved. Amakuru answered that it was an oversight on their part, but noted the difficulty of the situation considering that 9 years have passed since the RM and this ought to be considered the stable. TarnishedPath subsequently converted the technical move request into a potentially controversial move request here.

However, since the matter concerns whether the 2017 RM close should be carried out, it is more appropriate for MRV to decide whether to endorse the 2017 decision or overturn it. In my view, the stability of the title is irrelevant in the face of the prior explicit RM decision to move the title. Furthermore, the differing titles between the city and province go against being WP:CONSISTENT in article titles, and the move of one should necessitate the move of the other. I therefore endorse the 2017 move decision and request it to be honored fully by having "Şanlıurfa Province" be moved to "Urfa Province". ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was uninvolved in the 2017 discussion but, as has been pointed out, I lodged a request for the results of the RM to be honored. It doesn't matter when it took place in my opinion. There was a community consensus at the time that went ignored for whatever reason. That mistake needs to be corrected so I endorse the result of the 2017 RM. Keivan.f^Talk 15:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• RM already opened by TarnishedPath. Let's see what happens with that.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I closed it per my reasoning there that this discussion should be held at MRV. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  What? Why? We settled this at WP:RMTR with the decision that although I closed the RM as moved, I acccidentally didn't do the move, and since nine years have passed since then and the old title remains the stable one per WP:TITLECHANGES, we'd treat it as controversial and go through to holding an RM to settle it once and for all. This is a complete waste of time.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a discussion about judging whether the 2017 RM decision was valid or not to change the title of this article, which is the venue of MRV, not RM. If you dispute the closing decision there, you would be asking to overturn the decision established there. Per WP:TITLECHANGES, stability in article titles only applies if there is no consensus to move it, but the 2017 RM did demonstrate consensus to move it. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 16:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  We settled this at WP:RMTR Technically we did no such thing. We established the timeline and realized that the move wasn't performed. I don't know why we should ignore the consensus established by an RM, no matter how long ago it was. Keivan.f^Talk 17:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That just isn't how it works. WP:TITLECHANGES operates based on whether "an article title has been stable for a long time". It's unfortunate that this wasn't moved at the time, and I do apologise for that part, but the statute of limitations has long-since passed. I don't even know what this MRV is supposed to be litigating? We all know what happened, but RM is the place to settle what the title should be rather than faffing around like this arguing over a nine-years-ago error and then having to go through an RM afterwards anyway. Howardcorn33 had no business closing the RM like that, this MRV is out of process, and they should reopen it.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The stable default would only be relevant here if there wasn't already an explicitly formed consensus to move it. As WP:TITLECHANGES goes on to say, consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title. Consensus overrides stability in this case and it must be honored. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it really doesn't. The policy is crystal clear. Please reopen the RM.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the policy is clear… which is why I quoted it directly. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This move review was specifically started to determine if the 2017 RM close decision was indeed correct. By contrast, it would be out of procedure to initiate a second RM for a title which already had consensus to move in the first place. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Nine years has passed since then. The current title is stable, and WP:TITLECHANGES says that a page that has been stable should not be moved without consensus to do so. It makes no mention about RMs from nine years ago or decisions that weren't implemented at the time. That's water under the bridge. The RM today was started specifically to determine if a change should be made, that's the ultimate decision we need to make here, to move this process forward and decide which title works best for readers. We should not be here relitigating something that happened nine years ago, in a fashion that benefits nobody, and you had absolutely no right to close down the RM in that fashion.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not water under the bridge, it is an oversight that should have been corrected. A consensus to do something 9 years ago is still consensus. Indeed I consulted with the person who originally converted the technical RM to a PCRM to open an MRV discussion and they found it acceptable. In any case, as I pointed out before, it goes against WP:CONSISTENT to have the province and the city have different names and the move of one necessitates the move of the other. If we are to re-open an RM of any kind it would have to include an RM of the city alongside that of the province. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:04, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Totally agree. If there is going to be an RM then it should also cover the city because the original RM covered both topics. And the will of the community cannot be ignored in this case. If there was an issue with moving the page, then that needs to be dealt with first to resolve the lack of action and the violation of WP:CONSISTENT that followed. An RM can later be opened to decide whether the results of the 2017 RM are still valid or not, based on policies such as WP:COMMONNAME, etc. Keivan.f^Talk 20:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and move to Urfa Province. Original consensus stands. A new move request (including both pages) can be opened to change the titles. The current inconsistency needs to be resolved first. Vpab15 (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert out of process close of RM and allow it to run its course. Consensus from 9 years ago is exceedingly stale. It's unfortanate that the move wasn't performed back then, but the artice has been in the same location since then and in fact since its creation in January 2005. TarnishedPath^talk 22:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Ps, the closing instructions (see WP:RMEC) only provide for procedural closes to occur in the case of discussions started by those engaged in block evasion. TarnishedPath^talk 22:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Then the new RM should cover both topics. I don't understand why the result of the 2017 RM should be honored for one page but not the other. Cover them both together in the same RM again. I would not necessarily be opposed to that scenario. Keivan.f^Talk 23:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I would think that discussing the other topic would only be necessary if the conclussion of the RM was Not moved to Urfa Province. TarnishedPath^talk 23:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @TarnishedPath: Since that is the rule for a procedural close, I will adhere to it. However, per Keivan's comments (who was the original proposer), I will include both the city and province in the move request so that an explicit and consistent consensus can form around both. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 01:34, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I hope I have now done this correctly. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 01:50, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Super Cup 2025 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (No discussion on closer's talk page specified)

I request review of the close of the requested move discussion that resulted in moving the article to “2025 Greek Super Cup”. I believe the closure does not accurately reflect the balance of policy-based arguments, source evaluation, and consensus formation presented in the discussion.

1. Policy-based arguments were not fully weighed: Multiple policy-based arguments were presented supporting naming based on the year of the event’s occurrence and Wikipedia’s established treatment of single-match sporting events. These arguments were not directly refuted with policy-based reasoning of equal strength. The closure does not clearly explain why these policy-grounded arguments were outweighed. Instead, the decision appears to treat competing frameworks (policy interpretation vs. source interpretation) as equally balanced without determining which carries greater naming authority in this context.
2. Source evaluation remained inconclusive: The official federation source classifies the match within a competition season but does not provide an explicit naming convention for the match itself. Other sources presented in the discussion used multiple naming formats (single year, dual season, or year of play), without clear dominance of one form. The closure itself acknowledges that sources were vague or insufficient to determine the highest and best name. In such a case, Wikipedia naming practice and consistency typically carry greater weight, yet this was not clearly applied.
3. Recognition that the existing title was incorrect:Participants on both sides agreed that the previous title structure was not appropriate and that a year-first format was preferable. However, the closure resolves the year selection question without clearly demonstrating how consensus specifically favored 2025 over alternative interpretations, especially given the acknowledged ambiguity in both sources and framework.
4. Internal tension in the closure rationale: The close identifies two major competing arguments: a) policies and guidelines take precedence and b) sources take precedence. It then concludes that both have strength and both may be flawed. However, no clear resolution method is applied to determine which should govern naming in this case. The resulting determination therefore appears discretionary rather than consensus-driven.
5. The closer indicated a personal preference for an alternative title (“2025–2026 Greek Super Cup”) but did not implement it due to lack of consensus, which suggests the discussion may have reflected unresolved dual-year attribution rather than a clear preference for 2025.
6. Procedural context regarding closure timing: Prior to the closure, an involved participant contacted the closing editor on their talk page requesting that the discussion be closed, stating that sufficient time had passed and no further changes were expected. The closing editor subsequently reviewed the request and proceeded to close the discussion. This is noted only for procedural transparency. Review may help confirm that the closure determination reflects solely the discussion record and consensus assessment.

I request that the close be reviewed to determine whether:

• consensus for the specific title “2025 Greek Super Cup” was clearly established, and
• policy-based naming principles were appropriately weighed against ambiguous sourcing.

If not, the closer’s determination may need reconsideration or clarification. Thank you. BEN917 (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see you insist on supporting the wrong view. Did I have the strongest source? YES! Did I have the consensus of most of the participants in the discussion? YES.

So why do you insist? Did you see what a mistake was made in the Italian Super Cup that opinions like yours prevailed? But the Italians didn't accept it either. They are right.

You have the right to insist. Since you are unable to understand that there can be no super champion in a season that has not been completed, your right. If I were you, I would be quite concerned. Πούμα (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. « RM closer » A gentle reminder to reviewers... just to clarify, all the nom wants is for the year to be 2026 rather than 2025. There was consensus in two discussions to use "2025" as the year in this article's title. In this talk, which took place in January on another talk page, an editor asked for a 3rd opinion on this subject. They received not just a 3rd, but also a 4th opinion that the year should be 2025. That's three strong arguments for "2025" and one for "2026". And as I mentioned in my closing statement, consensus was also achieved in this move request to keep the year "2025" in the article's title. So I'm hopeful that my closure is sound and should be endorsed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 13:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the clarification regarding the earlier discussions and the third-opinion input. However, I would like to address an important distinction that remains central to this review: the difference between numerical agreement and policy-grounded consensus. Consensus is determined by the strength and policy basis of arguments, not by the number of participants holding a view.

  Several of the positions supporting the use of "2025" rely primarily on functional or interpretive reasoning rather than demonstrable naming practice or policy application. In particular:

  • Some arguments rest on the idea that the match determines the champion of the 2024–25 season and therefore should carry the earlier year. However, this approach prioritizes the season of the qualifying competitions over the identity of the match as a discrete event. This appears difficult to reconcile with the standard treatment of single sporting events, which are normally titled by the year they are held. Applying seasonal attribution as the decisive factor would therefore require a departure from established naming practice rather than an application of it. This creates tension with general naming criteria emphasizing precision, recognizability, and consistency across comparable events.
  • Other arguments are based on hypothetical future conflicts (e.g., potential duplicate titles in later years). These are speculative concerns and are normally handled through standard disambiguation if and when they arise. This is a hypothetical scenario rather than a present naming constraint. Anticipated future conflicts are typically handled through disambiguation when they arise, not by preemptively modifying naming logic. Structuring titles around speculative duplication risks introducing inconsistency with how single-event articles are normally handled.
  • Several comparisons rely on analogies to events with fixed institutional branding (such as globally branded competitions whose official name embeds a specific year regardless of when held). However, those examples involve events with formally designated names that remain stable regardless of actual date. In contrast, the present case concerns how Wikipedia determines the most appropriate descriptive title in the absence of a clearly dominant official naming convention. Using such analogies therefore does not directly resolve the naming question here and may not align with common-name and descriptive titling practice.
  • Some arguments explicitly appeal to flexibility, exceptions, or the idea that rules should adapt, but do not demonstrate an established alternative naming framework or consistent precedent supporting a specific year selection in this case. While adaptation is sometimes appropriate, an exception-based rationale does not itself establish which alternative naming framework should replace the existing one. Without a clear and generalizable rule, such adjustments risk reducing consistency across comparable articles.
  • References to how organizations classify competitions within seasonal frameworks help establish context, but classification within a season is not the same as establishing a naming convention for the match itself. Where sources describe multiple frameworks (seasonal vs calendar), Wikipedia naming practice normally resolves the ambiguity through consistency and recognizability rather than by selecting one organizational classification as determinative.
  • The closure references consensus in multiple discussions. However, the record also repeatedly acknowledges ambiguity in sources, competing interpretive frameworks, and consideration of alternative dual-year titling. This suggests the presence of unresolved structural disagreement rather than clear convergence on a single naming logic. Counting positions alone does not resolve which naming framework is being applied consistently.

  Taken together these positions do not clearly establish a dominant policy-based or source-based naming principle. Rather, they reflect differing interpretations of how the event relates to a season, along with practical or speculative considerations. This is precisely the ambiguity that the original closure itself acknowledged.

  On the other side, the arguments supporting inclusion of 2026 in the title do not operate independently or selectively. Rather, they form a consistent and mutually reinforcing framework grounded in established Wikipedia naming practice. These arguments collectively rely on:

  • Standard naming of single sporting events by the year they are held.
  • Consistency with comparable Super Cup and sporting event articles.
  • Avoidance of reader confusion when an event occurs in a different calendar year than the qualifying competitions.
  • Alignment with broader naming criteria such as precision, clarity, and recognizability.

  Each of these considerations supports the same structural principle: that article titles should reflect the temporal identity of the event itself, not solely the competitions that qualified participants.

  Importantly, these are not competing rationales but complementary ones. Policy-based naming practice, cross-article consistency, reader clarity and precedent across multiple sports all converge toward the same outcome. The presence of alternative acceptable formats (such as dual-year titles) further reinforces that seasonal attribution alone was not determinative in practice. Taken together, the arguments supporting a 2026-based title represent a coherent and internally consistent interpretation of Wikipedia naming principles, rather than isolated or preference-based positions. Additionally, the closure noted competing frameworks (policy interpretation versus source interpretation) and recognized that both had strengths and limitations. When a close explicitly identifies unresolved tension between governing principles, this suggests that the discussion may not have produced a clearly settled naming standard, but rather a balancing decision in the face of ongoing ambiguity. It is also relevant that alternative formulations (including dual-year attribution) were considered during the discussion but not implemented due to lack of consensus. That, again, indicates that the core issue of how to resolve seasonal attribution versus event identity that remained unsettled rather than decisively resolved in favor of a single-year interpretation. Where governing naming principles remain unresolved, closures typically reflect stability judgments rather than consensus determinations. For these reasons, the central question of this review is not whether some editors preferred "2025", but whether a clearly reasoned, policy-grounded consensus specifically establishing that title was demonstrated. The question is therefore not which interpretation is preferable, but whether the record demonstrates a clearly established naming principle sufficient to support a consensus-based close. Given the acknowledged ambiguity in sources, competing interpretive frameworks, and the nature of the supporting arguments, that determination may benefit from further clarification.

  Thank you for your consideration and sorry for the long text. BEN917 (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thank you for a summation that does well to challenge the closure itself and not the closer in particular. This makes me wonder if, had you brought this to my talk page first before opening this move review, we may have been able to avoid a review? Water under the bridge, and now I must say that the "numbers" of editors come into play only as a minor factor, the major factor being the arguments and their strength. It was the strength of the arguments in this requested move survey that led to the consensus to use 2025 in this article's title. Nothing more, nothing less. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 12:10, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I understand that you evaluated the strength of the arguments rather than the number of participants. My difficulty is not with the outcome itself, but with how the level of consensus is characterized. From the discussion record, there appears to have been persistent structural ambiguity between competing naming frameworks, along with consideration of unresolved alternatives. In that context, the result seems consistent with a stability or balancing determination rather than a clearly convergent policy-based consensus. I may be misunderstanding your threshold for identifying consensus, but I would appreciate any further clarification on how the discussion demonstrated a sufficiently resolved naming principle rather than an ongoing interpretive tension. Best regards! BEN917 (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. (involved) There were two possible outcomes from this RM. The first one, and probably correct, given that there wasn't agreement among participants would would have been to close as "no consensus". Thus the title should have remained at Greek Super Cup 2025. The second option, which had policy support in the discussion, would have been to move to 2026 Greek Super Cup, since the event occurred in, you know, 2026. Not 2025. And sourcing didn't favour a 2025 title. In the end, the closer chose a title that wasn't really favoured by anybody; to move in this fashion there should have been a consensus to do so. Either revert back to the old title or do the complete move as requested.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with the procedural concern outlined above. I would also like to note that, in the discussion, I made a proposal stating that in the event of "no consensus" the article would be moved to "2025 Greek Super Cup" and this did not appear to meet any objection. However, the closing statement does not seem to indicate whether this possible outcome was considered when evaluating consensus. BEN917 (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know what political support you're talking about, since most articles about the Super Cup take into account the purpose of the event and not the time it was held. Official sources also support 2025 https://www.epo.gr/el/arthra/betsson-super-cup-ixeres-oti, https://www.worldfootball.net/competition/co1428/greece-supercup/records-winners-list/#google_vignette, https://www.epo.gr/el/arthra/prokiryxi-diagonismoy-gia-ta-tileoptika-dikaiomata-toy-super-cup The Turkish Super Cup, the French Super Cup and many others the same...2025. I honestly don't understand on what basis the discussion about this issue continues. Πούμα (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  And to prove that the issue should remain titled 2025 Greek Super Cup, I also submit the official UEFA source https://www.uefa.com/news-media/news/026c-12f4fbf5c900-0141f81a615f-1000--uefa-super-cup-the-competition-that-found-its-place/ which clearly says: Initially featuring the respective holders of the European Cup and now-defunct European Cup Winners' Cup, it is now contested by the winners of the previous season's UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League.

  As with the development of the European Cup, the Super Cup's launch was fuelled by the eternal debate over who could lay claim to the title of 'best club team in Europe.

  I think there is no better proof and no further discussion is needed on this. Πούμα (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2026 (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