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.

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

Having reached an equal number of “Support” and “Oppose” positions, the page closer determined “no consensus” based solely on the preferences of the participants alone, without evaluating the arguments, the policy in question or giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community.

A discussion was opened with the closer, who offered no indication that they evaluated the arguments or the policy, only weighing in on the preferences of the participants with the following comment:

“This means to me that while they were not opposed to a discussion, they indicated that they would be an "oppose" in the discussion itself. Furthermore, while they did offer the endorsement, that doesn't mean they've necessarily switched their position. I don't see a strikethrough in the "oppose" word, nor any indication that they switched to "support".

To further underscore the closer’s unawareness of his duty to evaluate and consider the merits of the arguments, he rested his closure decision solely on the preference of the opposition with the following comment:

“Chaheel Riens is welcome to comment in my talkpage to clarify their stance, but at this time, I won't be changing my closure of the RM.”

The policy of (WP:RMCI) makes it abundantly clear that determining consensus goes far beyond the mere counting of “Oppose” and “Support” positions. They are bound include the evaluation of the arguments, as well as consider the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community when making a closure decision.

Additionally, (WP:RMCI) states that “A lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens.”

Although there was a lack of consensus among the participants, there was, however a clear indication from policy, as Wikipedia prioritizes the most common name as found in reliable, independent sources – which was argument for the page move request.

Therefore, I ask for a move review on the basis that the closer failed to adequately follow the “Determining consensus” policy outlined in (WP:RMCI). ~2025-34732-25 (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Courtesy relist due to low turnout. If the discussion stays as 1-1 with no clear consensus, though, the existing close is correct. For the nominator, closers evaluate consensus, not the merits. If your case is good, then you'll show it via getting editors to agree with your position, not asking for a supervote frm the closer. SnowFire (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Involved party* (WP:RMCI) Policy explicitly states that in a 1-1 or deadlocked scenario, the closer is to defer to a clear indication from policy to determine consensus. In this case, the policy of prioritizing the most common name as found in reliable, independent sources is the argument.

  It is only in the absence of a clear indication from policy that a deadlocked scenario results in a "no change".

  “A lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens.” ~2025-34732-25 (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am extremely tempted to strike my courtesy relist. 2025-34732-25, are you using an LLM to write this? If so, please stop immediately, LLMs are very bad at interpreting policy, just ask questions of humans instead with things you write directly (we'll respond). If not, then please cite exactly where this is coming from with a quote, as it sounds like you're just making stuff up. I can find nothing in RMCI (which is an essay anyway, if a good one) about 1:1 situations specifically and the only place it says "clear indication from policy" (which you've bolded) includes "no" in front of it, and it endorses a no consensus close, aka exactly what the closer did here!

  I'll humor you and respond to the substance anyway: Good faith arguments always cite policies. If you're really correct about the policy, you'll convince someone, anyone to agree with your position. SnowFire (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I can assure you I'm not an AI, and I appreciate you "humoring me". I have never gone through this process before, so please give me a little grace if I'm not 100% familiar with the etiquette. Anyway...

  Under Wikipedias "Determining consensus" section of the "Requested moves/Closing instructions", it states "If objections have been raised, then the discussion should be evaluated just like any other discussion on Wikipedia: lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens"

  The policy states that "lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens."

  The word ALONG here in this statement is requiring that having "no clear indication from policy and conventions" is a requisite for a "no change" vote. If it was just a "lack of consensus among participants" leading to a "no change" vote, no mention of policy would have been given. I am arguing that the closer here ignored that the fact that the argument "for" the change was citing clear policy while the opposition's argument had no basis in policy. The closer had a duty here to explain that he evaluated the arguments, which he did not. ~2025-34732-25 (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said before, if your argument is so powerful, you'll get editors agreeing with it at the RM discussion. Otherwise, your argument (procedurally) reduces to "I should win because I'm right." But 90% of contested RMs involve both sides saying that they're right and citing policies. The lines you're citing are about discarding votes from a Reddit brigade or meatpuppets or people who are clearly tuned out of Wikipedia standards and policies. (But per later !votes below, you seem to have talked yourself into getting the closure entirely endorsed. It's good to recognize who is on your side here - a relist would have given you another bite at the apple to convince even one other editor, which probably isn't going to happen now.) SnowFire (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. « uninvolved » I agree with editor SnowFire that this RM closure is correct, also reasonable and actually supported by and in line with closing instructions. Involved editors can spend a few months strengthening their rationales if they like. I disagree with the part about "low turnout". There is no minimum turnout required (per WP:RMNOMIN). After two relists, editor Jeffrey34555's close was spot on! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Involved party: If editor Jeffrey34555's was "in line with the closing instructions", where did the editor explain his evaluation of the arguments as (WP:RMCI) policy dictates? ~2025-34732-25 (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The closer's explanation on their talk page was sufficient imho; if you choose not to agree, then that is up to you. I would have closed it the same way, and reviewers here also appear to agree with the closer. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 21:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist and publicize the Requested Move at appropriate WikiProjects, including WikiProject Guitarists. (Do not advertise it at the equipment task force of that WikiProject. The last post to the task page of that task force was six years ago.) There was nothing wrong with the closure, which really was No Consensus, but if a Requested Move proves contentious with very little participation, more participation may be helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved) per SnowFire, and don't relist as that would merely vindicate the nominator's WP:BLUDGEONING and give them another outlet to do so. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I acknowledge that I am unfamiliar with the etiquette here and I apologize for that, but it looks your vote here is punishment for that rather than on the merits of the argument. ~2025-34732-25 (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure (uninvolved, neutral on the move), and don't relist. It's tragic to be right and unable to change Wikipedia, but this WP:POLSHOP wastes time that could be spent researching the evidence and reaching out to other editors. However, I'm troubled that the opening comment accuses an editor of not following policy, the merits, or consensus, when that doesn't seem to be a reasonable interpretation of what happened. Also troubled by obvious misstatements of WP policy, agree the nomination looks AI-written, and concerned the user's account confusingly looks like the new temporary account format. --Edwin Herdman (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ed, I'm not an AI. I don't think its unreasonable at all for a closing editor to explain his evaluation of the arguments, as the only statements he made regarding the closing were on the opposing positions of the parties and whether or not the opposer could be persuaded to change their vote. With no mention of the arguments or the policy by the closer, you somehow found it "troubling" that I had an issue with that? Really?

  I would also like you to explain what "obvious" misstatements where made in my opening statement. Thanks. ~2025-34732-25 (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Can this subpage of DRV be semiprotected for a week? I think we have heard enough from the unregistered editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Robert McClenon: I've seen several new usernames that are of the form "~nnnn-nnnnn-nn" lately, and I don't think they are unregistered. They just follow an unfamiliar numerical format. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 21:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: Those are the new WP:TEMP accounts. They got rid of IPs earlier this month and this is how anonymous users are identified from now on. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are unregistered editors that are now auto-assigned temporary (90-day max) accounts to hide their geolocation from all but admins. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you SJ and IN for that; I was unaware. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 08:43, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I referred the numbered user as an unregistered editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unregistered account don’t belong in projectspace. If they have a registered account, they are SOCKING by not using it. If they have not registered, they should do so, because projectspace discussions require accountability. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have struck my Relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Good close of a messy discussion that started from a weak nomination. Advise unregistered editors that if they want to persuade other editors, they will get more credibility if they WP:register. Do not allow a renomination for two months, from the close of this MRV. Use that time to develop an evidence-based persuasive nomination if you want to try again. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MS NOW (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

InfiniteNexus (talk · contribs) has objected to my WP:SNOW closure of the RM. I am bringing it here myself for review, as a result of discussion at Talk:MS NOW rather than at my user talk.

For context, MSNBC rebranded to MS NOW this past Saturday. It provoked a cut/paste rename and a brief move war, until I move-protected for a short time and suggested that the issue be discussed. This was taken as a request for a formal move discussion, which I had not intended, and one was opened. After a day, there was effectively unanimous agreement for the move, with 20 raw supports, and one dissent that appeared to be motivated by contrarianism, along with a consensus that the move discussion was unnecessary and uncontroversial. The prime consensus amounted to "why are we even having this discussion?" I neither initiated nor participated in the discussion, and had removed the move protection the day before with no further issues.

I therefore closed the discussion as a SNOW consensus, and went ahead and moved it myself per the apparent consensus, posting at AN with a request for a little help with the banner, resolved by bot, and categories. InfiniteNexus appears to believe that he could have offered a conclusive argument against the move based on COMMONNAME, and that none of the 21 respondents offered a policy-based reasoning. I recognize that the early close appears to have prevented them from presenting their argument. I therefore suggest that the discussion be reopened to allow time for any such views to be aired, but I do not endorse overturning the move at this time, since that appears to me to be potentially disruptive and certainly confusing. Acroterion (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note that what appears to be the most clearly applicable policy, WP:NAMECHANGES fits the situation quite closely, and was cited early on. That many commenters said some form of “per above” but did not specify a blue linked policy has more to do with avoidance of or unfamiliarity with wiki jargon. Not everybody knows, or should be expected to know the critical importance of employing all caps bluelinks. Acroterion (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and reopen for discussion. The request appears to have been open for less than 24 hours over a weekend, and few comments made any substantive points. I understand that reverting the change may be disruptive, but all of these processes skew heavily toward preservation of the status quo, and the quick move changed the status quo. If the decision is to not overturn but reopen discussion, it should be made clear that a failure to reach a consensus on the move would preserve the status quo ante, meaning that no consensus would revert the article to MSNBC. (I have not been involved in this article, but I have been involved in a similar request and became aware of this review from that article). Dustinscottc (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Acroterion, thank you for opening this MR, though I must say this is the first time I've seen a closer self-appeal their own close. I don't know if I am "permitted" to cast a !vote given that this MR was opened on my behalf. First, I must disagree with the assertion that overturning the move at this time [...] appears [...] to be potentially disruptive and certainly confusing. If this MR finds consensus that the RM close was improper, the article should be moved back to the status quo ante of MSNBC prior to reopening the RM. If that discussion, by any chance, fails to reach a consensus, then the article should remain at its original title of MSNBC as per the usual procedure. This is the most conservative approach for readers' convenience and will deter other editors from prematurely moving related categories and templates.
  Acroterion has summarized my arguments well for why this close (which was performed in less than 24 hours) was premature and ill-advised. Indeed, there was near-unanimous agreement from twenty-odd editors, but as Acroterion noted, almost all of the !votes boiled down to the claim that an article should automatically be moved whenever it undergoes an "official" name change, along with a bunch of "per WP:EVERYONEELSE"'s that do not really add anything. Editors familar with WP:AT should immediately recognize that this claim is false and demonstrates a poor understanding of PAGs; a large number of poor arguments (or, more accurately, a poor argument repeated many times) does not magically turn into a strong argument. None of the !votes except the first one even attempts to make an actual, meaningful policy-based argument (while another !vote did cite policy, it provided no further explanation, so WP:JUSTA), so I maintain they should have been discarded or at least given less weight per WP:NHC.
  Copy-and-pasting part of my comment from earlier, WP:RELIST explicitly states that discussions that lack arguments based on policy should not be closed, while WP:RMCIDC states: Any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it. I will save a more detailed analysis of the applicable PAGs for the RM if and when it reopens, but the most important ones are WP:COMMONNAME and its supplement WP:OFFICIALNAME; WP:NAMECHANGES; and WP:CRYSTAL. The closer should have been aware of these PAGs and noticed that hardly any participants seemed to even be aware of them. There is plenty of precedent to point to as well, with the prime examples being Twitter ("X") and Kanye West ("Ye"), but also Dunkin' Donuts ("Dunkin'"), Blackwater (company) ("Constellis"), Grauman's Chinese Theatre ("TCL Chinese Theatre"), Turkey ("Türkiye"), etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Self-requests for review aren’t uncommon in other regions of WP, and to me are something to be encouraged, even if the standard template doesn’t really fit the circumstance. In any case, I’m glad you feel that I summarized your position appropriately. Acroterion (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding your comment above, it's not about the uppercase blue links. "Policy-based" means that an argument is consistent with PAGs; the linking part is optional. However, this was not the case here, as only one !vote attempted to make an argument that "MS NOW" has already (after less than a week) overtaken "MSNBC" as the most widely recognizable name of this network to the general public. I personally find this argument absurd, but at least they made an effort insteas of saying "it should be moved right away because it is official", which directly contradicts PAGs. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Do not reopen. The close was obvious. If everyone was wrong, start a new RM, make a clean start with a new discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Allow an early non-immediate renomination. Not a relist. The substance of arguments here belong at RM, not MRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, do not reopen. This is a straightforward WP:NAMECHANGES case where the new name is clearly going to stick as it doesn't incur some of the issues of other "common name beats new name" cases above. Even if you don't agree, per the RM, an overwhelming amount of other editors do agree. In the unlikely case of everyone still calling the network "MSNBC" in a few months, open a COMMONNAME RM the other direction, but I'd be pretty surprised if that happens. SnowFire (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So we're OK with making WP:CRYSTALBALL predictions about what the common name might be now? Wikipedia does not lead, we follow. The concept of Wikipedia being a WP:LAGGING indicator can be extended here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You are correct of course, but it depends on how fuzzy the vision in the crystal ball is; the cited NAMECHANGES guideline includes a "common sense" proviso. Ignoring this specific case for a moment, if "A" changes its name to "B", if we are 99% confident that news sources will preferentially use "B" in the future rather than "A", we absolutely can make the change on the spot. If it's more like 50/50, we don't. If it's 80/20, then it's borderline and will be a coin flip on who shows up to the consensus discussion.

  Okay, back to this specific case. The company doesn't have rights to the "NBC" name any more, and this is a public-facing name, not an official corporate title buried in paperwork at the stock exchange. It's possible that in the very short term, news articles might use "MS NOW (formerly MSNBC)" for clarity, but it'd be subjectively very surprising to use the old name. We have some evidence of this: when other TV networks change names, the new name is just used. Here's an article calling the TV network "SyFy" a year or two after the rebrand from "The Sci-Fi Channel". It would be deeply confusing to keep referring to the old name when the name of the channel is normally quiet prominent. Given this, I'm confident that we're closer to the 99% case than the 50% case. (And if you disagree, that's fine, but that's just "Oppose" vote worthy. This isn't a procedural issue worthy of Move Review, if the consensus was clear that others think the facts are in the pro-move direction.) For the record, I did not participate in the original RM, but 21-1 with solid arguments is a classic case of a SNOW close, and it'd still be SNOW if it was 21-2. SnowFire (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is a reasonable assumption that (1) most readers are familiar with the name "MSNBC", (2) most readers may not be aware that "MSNBC" has changed its name to "MS NOW", and (3) most readers may not be familiar with the name "MS NOW". Therefore, "MS NOW" fails the first criterion of WP:CRITERIA, which states: Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. The only instances where I have seen the common-sense proviso of NAMECHANGES come into play is when a new King or Pope is crowned or elected, because it is a reasonable assumption that (1) most readers are not familiar with the former name of the King or Pope, (2) most readers are likely aware that a new King or Pope has been crowned or elected, (3) most readers will likely be acquainted with the new name of the King or Pope, and (4) simply out of respect, it is highly unlikely anyone would continue to refer to them by their old name. Alternatively, if a name was never well-known to begin with, then it doesn't matter because either the former or current name would be equally commonly recognizable. With all that being said, all this should be reserved for discussion in the RM if it is reopened; what matters is that only one !vote made the common-name argument you presented. That is not consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Not long ago I closed a similar discussion as not moved that was skewed in favor of the page move to a title that was used in only one source that was not a news piece about the name change. My close was overturned here at MR. Since I have yet to see any evidence in this case that the new name is "used routinely" (per NAMECHANGES) in reliable, secondary sources (plural), then I lean toward IN's camp. However, since this kind of move request appears to be cloudy and gray here at MR, then both IN and I might be wrong to pursue it. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 05:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me ask you this: if this discussion had not been closed in less than 24 hours, might you or others have weighed in with this examination of NAMECHANGES? If so, that is further evidence that the premature close prevented such essential discussion from taking place, instead relying on non–policy-based arguments that amount to WP:IJUSTLIKEIT, without any regard for what title benefits readers most. I will remind editors here that in addition to a misreading of consensus, another reason for overturning/reopening an RM is if the "[closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion". In this case, the information that was not discussed would be our WP:PAGs. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've learned that in cases like this, anything's possible. I chose to close IAW the article titles policy and was overturned here at MRV. You are here to fight the same fight, that the policy's community consensus has to override any local consensus. Just look how well that's turning out again, here at review. Editors are endorsing against the policy, and I'm not surprised. As clear as the policy is, this particular issue still appears to be sorely unresolved. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 20:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (uninvolved, but I would have voted to move). Wikipedia is about community consensus, not about following rules to the letter. There was a clear SNOW consensus to move the page. There have been many times where moves have been made before I personally have had the oppertunity to vote, but that has nothing to do with the clear consensus in the discussion. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and comment from another passer-by who would have voted to move, and is not convinced this discussion is essential: This name change was announced back in October. It isn't mandatory that concerns be raised in timely fashion, but they are no longer timely. The article cleanly redirects from "MSNBC" to "MS NOW," which is not disruptive to people searching for MSNBC. A move back to the old name could be disruptive to editors trying to respond to the name change, and possibly to readers. The weight of verifiable evidence before us is that the name change was long planned, announced, happened, and has remained. The closest thing to a factual assertion in favor of reviewing or opposing the move is that it is "a reasonable assumption" that "most readers may not be aware" of the name change, but I do not see any verifiable sourcing for that claim. I wouldn't agree that finding such evidence would be sufficient to make the issue timely again, but it would seem more productive than spending more time trying to roll the WP:SNOW uphill both ways through a hot place :) --Edwin Herdman (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but allow an immediate Requested Move to move it back. That is, endorse the quick rename, and allow discussion to see if the reverse name has support. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (involved) - The SNOW close was justified here following the complete avalanche of support. If it was any less unanimous, I would have opposed, but I think it was clear at the point of closure that it would be moved with no well-argued opposition. Z E T A^C 16:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I will add that one of the points in the RM raised by Nathan Obral was that this seemed like needless bureaucracy - which I agree with, and opening additional discussion only reinforces that. Z E T A^C 16:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR. This move shouldn't be controversial and too much time has already been spent on it. Jessintime (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – OK, I can see where this is headed. It's unfortunate that some editors believe a bunch of !votes that neither cite nor conform to policy somehow constitute "consensus". If this RM is upheld, we are going to have some explaining to do if we allow MSNBC to be moved immediately after its rebrand whereas we still have not moved Twitter (and various other articles, some of which I listed at the end of my initial comment) after two-and-a-half years. Funny enough, Twitter was also recently discussed on MR after it was nominated at RM for the 13th time, with a very different outcome. In a world where everything is highly politicized and polarized, I am sure you can see why this might cause some PR problems. Regardless of intent and whether such claims are valid, at the end of the day, it's all about optics, and this is not a good look. Already, we have editors complaining about our apparent double standard due to our inconsistent application of policy. Should we capitulate to pressure from online trolls? Of course not — but it would be unfair to cast all criticism as trolling, and again, consider the optics. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1) WP:NAMECHANGES is policy and was correctly referenced by several of the supporters in the move request; the first support noted several reliable sources were using the name already. 2) Sources are still using the name Twitter [1] [2]. Jessintime (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The first source mainly refers to Twitter before the name change, and the second source uses X throughout the body. The rename, I believe, attracted a lot more political attention than this, and it resulted in fragmented usage - it was bound to be controversial. Z E T A^C 00:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources are still using the name Twitter – Exactly, and there is an equal probability that the same will be true for MSNBC two years from now. Could I be wrong? Sure. But any attempts to predict whether "MS NOW" will replace "MSNBC" as the common name (defined as "a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize") in the future are a flagrant violation of WP:CRYSTAL, another policy that was never examined in the RM. It is impossible to identify common usage so early on, when the dust has not settled on the name change. I will add that in some of the more recent RMs, some editors have pointed out that there is growing evidence for "X" possibly becoming the common name in reliable sources, but "Twitter" continues to definitively be the most common name for readers. This may open up a can of worms, but perhaps there is some conflict between what makes a name "common" as described in WP:CRITERIA (which emphasizes catering to readers) and WP:COMMONNAME (which emphasizes following sources). On Wikipedia, our principal purpose is to serve readers: does using a name that is common in sources but unrecognizable by the general public adhere to that? InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand that it is likely politically biased, at least in some part. I don't really have strong political opinions myself regarding US politics, but Twitter/X is a social media platform, which is vastly different (one could say polar opposite) from MSNBC/MS NOW, which is MSM. "Tweet" is still a widely used term, and while I'm neutral on moving that article, xAI (company) exists at that title. Personally, I think long, drawn out debates are draining and time-wasting to both editors and readers, if you look at the talk page banners on the Twitter article. It's, imo, better to leave it as is for now, and another RM could be started if an editor wishes in a few months or later to determine a clearer consensus. Z E T A^C 23:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If we're concerned about optics, this is an argument that we should move Twitter -> X, not that we shouldn't move the MSN?? page. (That said, the arguments for staying at the title 'Twitter' on day 1 after the switch were much stronger than here, so it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison - it wasn't clear that change was going to be more than a passing fad soon reversed, and "X" has much more confusion potential and other topics potentially on that spot. Nothing is competing for the name "MS NOW" and it's extremely unlikely the network will ever reverse the name.) SnowFire (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looking at one of the first comments, I was thinking we can easily provide examples where a renaming almost took effect immediately: Now (Turkish TV channel) (known as Fox between 2007 and 2024), Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (originally Prince Andrew, Duke of York until 20 days ago), etc. I do understand that we have to adhere to the common name policy but it is actually interesting to witness how biased all of us can be when it comes to renaming or not renaming certain pages. I personally would endorse this, if we were to actually push forward with renaming Twitter, Dunkin' Donuts, Blackwater (company), etc. Additionally, I see no issues with how the editor in question closed the RM. There was overwhelming support for renaming. It's just a question of whether that support is enough to override a policy but then again I think we usually make decisions by consensus here. Keivan.f^Talk 06:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I did mention that Popes and royals are, as far as I know, the only cases that fall under the exception discussed at NAMECHANGES because no educated person in their right mind would continue to call them by their former names, simply out of respect (though even for royals, it has not always been uncontroversial). I don't know how that Turkish TV channel fell under the radar, but I imagine hardly any editors or sources paid attention to that rebranding given that it is not a well-known name in the English-speaking world. "Consensus" cannot override policy (WP:CONLEVEL) unless you're choosing to invoke IAR, in which case there must be something about a situation that is so unique that it warrants special treatment because our PAGs did not consider such a scenario. What are the grounds for such an exception here? But as I have said repeated, there was no consensus here to begin with because consensus is defined by the strongest and most prevalent policy-based argument, not by the number of raw votes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I cannot speak on behalf of all the users that took part in the RM and voted but the reasonable assumption is that they were aware of our policies. The reasoning is probably something along the lines of "MS NOW is the common name at the moment", which could be true since online sources usually do have a habit of changing the way they refer to a certain subject when a name change takes place. We, however, do not have the freedoms of a news website in renaming our pages because we have to take into consideration the history of each given subject. But if every single website is now universally referring to this channel as MS NOW then you could argue that this is the common name going forward without a doubt. I do agree that further debate on this topic is necessary but I just didn't see a strong appetite against renaming the page. The results could be different in a subsequent RM. Keivan.f^Talk 07:42, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  '"Consensus" cannot override policy' is not what [WP:CONLEVEL] says. The underlying principle, straight from the Arbitration Committee, is that "local consensus" cannot override "global consensus to edit in a certain way." Therefore, I believe: Policies are products of the consensus-building process and subject to interpretation and review, including review of specific cases. If consensus and policies clash, consensus is generally preferred (this is also a popular interpretation of IAR's meaning). Unfortunately, it's not totally clear what counts as "global consensus," but I can say what doesn't: On the "Consensus" page, check the list of "Pitfalls and errors," including "Forum shopping and admin shopping." I mention this sympathetically. It looks like a Catch-22 to an editor who believes their argument is correct, but ordinary policies overriding consensus would be more absurd. We all end up on the wrong side of that trade now and then. Dismissing "raw votes" isn't a sufficient reply either - the discussion-closing process judges consensus and must cite some support. So far, I haven't seen specific counterexamples to consider against the clear consensus from the times this question has been considered. That said, it sounds like there are at least a few editors open to the idea of discussing related policy. I hope the goal of those discussions is focused on generally improving the rule, not supporting a particular outcome. --Edwin Herdman (talk) 19:26, 24 November 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