Wikipedia:Move review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Move review is a process designed to formally discuss and evaluate a contested close of a requested move (RM) discussion 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 requesting a review, you should attempt to resolve any issues with the closer on their talk page.

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

What this process is not[edit]

This review process should be focused on the move discussion and the subsequent results of the move discussion, not on the person who closed the discussion. If you have ongoing concerns about a closer, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User. 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 requested 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), Titling Policy, Manual of Style and Naming Conventions, or Consensus Norms should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page.


Initiating move reviews[edit]


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

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

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

Steps to list a new review request[edit]


Before requesting a move review: Please attempt to discuss the matter with the discussion closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full 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.


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, xfd_page with the name of the move discussion page, and reason with the reason why the page move should be reviewed. For example:

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

|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.-->

Inform the administrator who moved the page by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:MRVnote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~

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: {{MRVdiscuss|date=2014 October 24}}


Nominations may also attach an {{mrv}} tag to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.


If the current month discussions are not already included in the discussion section below. Add the new log page to the top of the discussions section.

{{Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 October}}

The discussion with closer and notices required above are sufficient notification; you are not required to individually notify participants in the prior move discussion of the move review. However, if you individually notify any of them, you must individually notify all of them by posting a message about the move review on each participant's respective user talk page.


Commenting in a move review[edit]

In general, commenters should prefix their comments with either Endorse close (endorsing the original close) or Overturn close (opposing the original 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 administrator 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 Requested 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 Requested 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 Requested Move discussion.

Closing reviews[edit]

A nominated page should remain on Move Review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists to either endorse the close or overturn the close. If that consensus is to Overturn Close, the administrator 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. If the consensus is to Endorse Close, no further action is required on the article title. If the administrator 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"; administrators may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Move review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest MRV log page, if the closing administrator thinks that a different consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

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

Typical move review decision options[edit]

The following set of options represent the typical results of a Move Review decision, although complex Requested 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 Decision RM Closers Decision Article Title Action at RM Close (By RM Closer) Article Title Action at MRV Close (by MRV closer) Status of RM at MRV Close
1. Endorse Close Not Moved Not Moved No Action Required Closed
2. Endorse Close Move to new title Moved to New Title No Action Required Closed
3. Overturn Close Not Moved Not Moved Option 1: (If RM consensus is unclear or significantly divided) Reopen and relist RM
Option 2: (If Consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RM
Open or Closed as necessary
4. Overturn Close Move to new title Moved to New Title Move title back to pre-RM title, reopen and relist RM if appropriate Closed or Open and relisted as appropriate
5. Relist Not Moved Not Moved Reopen and relist RM Open
6. Relist Move to new title Moved to new title Move title to pre-RM title and reopen and relist RM Open
7. Don't Relist Not moved or moved Not Moved or Moved No Action Required Closed

Click to create a log page for next month (2014 November)

Active discussions[edit]

2014 October[edit]


Norleucine (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM)

I think there are a number of problems with this decision not to move Norleucine, boiling down mainly to a Wikipedia policy that is either being misapplied here, or perhaps, doesn't apply. Scientists have gotten together to decide how to systematically name compounds. Having done so, they have specifically recognized that commonly used names should be retained where appropriate. Thus, the 20 common amino acids as one example, retain their naming in practice. Scientists have, in the case of amino acids, defined the term nor as a prefix for a common amino acid name indicating that the nor version is one methylene group shorter than the normal version of the amino acid. Unfortunately, norleucine and norvaline, two previously used terms, now become misnomers. The scientists were certainly aware of this at the time. If they had wanted to make an exception for these compounds, they would have. They didn't. I was the only argument for moving the article, a number of others weighed in to the contrary. As best as I can tell, most of their arguments against were "just because". The only argument that seemed to hold any sway with the editor who rejected the move request was the idea that one can search google scholar, count the scientific articles that still use norleucine, and use this as a proxy for how "common" that term is. Unfortunately, this argument, made by someone claming to teach chemistry, I believe, is entirely specious. This contributor no doubt took as motivation, recent efforts to roughly quantify the "consensus" around global warming by counting articles published confirming the phenomena, and those contesting it. Of course, in that case, one is counting articles that even by their titles, can instantly be seen to be landing on one side of an argument or the other. In addition, these articles are each directly addressing the argument being measured by this proxy. None of the articles using norleucine is discussing the topic norleucine. None of them are addressing the naming convention. They are merely articles about experiments where the compound was used for some purpose. Counting these articles as though they are in support of or against using the term, would be the equivalent of counting all articles using the term climate change and deciding that since they outnumber those using the term global warming that climate change is the more appropriate term. This of course is pseudo-scientific reasoning, as there is no reason to believe any of these articles are intending to address the issue of what to name climate disruption. Ooops...I created another. See how easy that is? As I pointed out repeatedly, apparently to deaf ears, norleucine as a term can only find its way into peer reviewed articles solely by mistake. If the issue is noticed and addressed in review, the term would have to be changed to the systematic name. Thus, the use of norleucine is not, in any way, an effort to maintain the use of a preferred common name. It is not in any way a conscious choice by anyone to use that name in preference to the systematic name. Nobody searching norleucine will be in any way disrupted. They will land on the same page and see "redirected from norleucine". Why the histrionics then? Go read some of what stands for argument on the talk page. Either the substance of the argument matters, or sheer numbers do. When I addressed this with the editor who closed it, they all but admitted that a weight of numbers puts a higher burden on me. In other words, the argument doesn't matter. As long as you are well outnumbered, and nobody else cares enough to weigh in on your side, you will almost always lose. Good luck improving wikipedia with that attitude. If you question my arguments, by all means, email the editors of a few prominent biochemistry journals and ask them if an author would be allowed to keep using norleucine if the appropriate naming convention was pointed out during the review process (I provided the appropriate reference source to the rule in the original debate). If they say yes, then wiki can keep to its rigid, immovable bureaucracy, I will go away and weep for science. I certainly won't waste any more of my time trying to improve this site knowing that the substance of an argument will almost always take a back seat to a community of like minded nitpickers and contrarians with transparent feelings of ownership over this site guiding their behavior. Life is too short to spend hour upon hour arguing minutae with people who have no intention of ever being swayed by any argument.

Many chemical compounds have strange names, and some of these names are misnomers or could be readily misinterpreted. The question at hand is whether Wikipedia is the appropriate forum to be doctrinaire and "right great wrongs" (not that the isoleucine issue is a particularly great wrong).
You seem to be mischaracterising my arguments as some Quixotic quest to right a great wrong. That amounts to not much more than a clever version of a naked ad hominem. Please read the original debate. I made great pains to point out that even if ignoring IUPAC might be the norm, in this particular case we are dealing with an actual MISNOMER. Nor actually has a definition, for the same compounds (amino acids), that is not consistent with norleucine and norvaline. If you tell me in your materials and methods you used norleucine, and you don't list where the compound was purchased (not uncommon, I can provide an example), then I have no immediate idea what you actually used. I can assume, but then we scientists aren't supposed to do that, are we? This is not about "enforcing" the nomenclature, as so many responses continually assert. It is solely about precision and accuracy. If Wikipedia cannot rise to that low bar, then you people will never be taken seriously as a resource. Please explain to me how anyone ignorant of this topic would even recognize that it is a misnomer and that nor means something else? Indeed, I added a small edit about this in the body of the text, it was obliterated. How is Wikipedia destroyed by readers learning something by being redirected to the appropriate, short, systematic name? Finally, as a chemist, perhaps you are unaware that in biochemistry, "common" names are more often than not, actually defined. IUPAC specifically considered which common names should remain and which (like Norleucine) should go. The Wikipedia policy on common names may work for the humanities. It may even work for the vast majority of the time in the sciences. It does not work in this instance. We are literally arguing over whether a page that will be discovered by anyone searching Norleucine or the systematic name should be called by one or the other? The difference being, the status quo leaves the reader with zero understanding of the naming; that it is a misnomer; that nor actually has a meaning for amino acid names; etc. etc. while in the opposite case, they are immediately, and succinctly advised of all these issues and can choose whether they wish to further educate themselves on any or all parts of it. Hmmm...Wiki is this...Wiki should do that...Wiki shouldn't do this...very common in replies to me on this topic. Here's mine: Wikipedia, if it claims to be an encyclopedia, should actually inform accurately on a topic as succinctly and precisely as possible before anything else. Everything else is window dressing and style. As I've just pointed out, the typical style in this case, obliterates the commitment to accuracy and precision. (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
About the comment " this argument, made by someone claming to teach chemistry, I believe, is entirely specious" The Chemistry project is a relatively active project, populated by many editors, some of whom are professional chemists or know a lot about the area, and some in fact are teachers/professors.
I don't understand why you wrote this? Is it meant to be an admonishment of some sort because I question the credentials of another? Please address the argument I made about why it is specious. I thought it was clear, perhaps not. I am a biochemist with over 20 years experience. I'm trying not to take offense at the repeated innuendo that I should demure to people who claim to be experts in the field, whose credentials I now question, not out of naked self interest, but because they have demonstrated a seeming lack of rigour in their supposed field of expertise. (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
About the comment "Scientists have gotten together to decide how to systematically name compounds." First of all the project routinely does not follow recommendations of IUPAC, a respected international organization that advises on nomenclature. We often go with the prevailing nomenclature for reasons of accessibility and common usage. Isoleucine and isovaline are routinely used terms (in a fairly narrow area), with precise meanings (see structures on their pages. Yes, the nomenclature is slightly strange, as it is for myriad other chemical entities.. Experience shows that occasionally editors do get very exercised about nomenclature. Some might think that we chemists are or should be highly attentive to systematic nomenclature. That view is very naive. There is a lot of culture and tradition at work, for good or for worse.
I've addressed at length that what you say above is incorrect in the case of norleucine and norvaline (those are the compounds you meant?). This is not about scientists choosing to use a common term they prefer. It is sloppiness in the peer review process, and ignorance among those who use these terms, almost invariably not experts in chemistry or biochemistry. Further, Nle is currently named in the article as the abbreviation. No such abbreviation exists. I'm sure various authors in papers have used Nle as an abbreviation they've defined themselves. That hardly makes it the equivalent of defined abbreviations like Ala or Gly. That is the impression given at the moment though. Considering what you've written here as a chemistry expert, should I expect to get argument on changing this as well? The article is worse off now than before as people apparently are taking all opportunity to solidify Norleucine as some common term in use. Not the case. The person using the compound, ignorant of the naming conventions writes down what was on the label from Sigma. Simple as that. And then, I might add, forgets to name the supplier in the Materials and Methods compounding their error. Unless it is challenged in peer review, which it should be, it doesn't get changed. I would have to disgree with you that any of this amounts to a collective movement to maintain a cherished common name. (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
In terms of behavior, editors are routinely conceding points to others (i.e. losing small battles) for the sake of the core mission. So if the aggrieved editor above is really keen to not "waste any more of my time", then one suggestion is that he/she focus on content vs getting hung up on nomenclature. Also, sometimes it is a good idea just to walk away from a topic that gets into one's crawl.
I don't like your characterization of me and my approach. Hopefully I won't give offense by suggesting you take your own advice and focus on the substance of my arguments rather than your incorrect perceptions of me? It is my hope to contribute to this site. As I've pointed out, quite strongly I believe...if you and yours want to focus on minutae and immovable bureaucracy supported by a like-minded internet community with feelings of ownership here, you are creating exactly the scenario you just outlined. Less concern for content, more for the wrapper. Ironic then that you are so quick to focus solely on how you read me to be "aggrieved". From my perspective, it is you that is focused on, and indeed, wedded to the nomenclature, incapable of moving, no matter the SUBSTANCE (pardon the emphasis) of the argument. It matters not to me whether a common name or systematic name is used, except in the rare instance where an overt misunderstanding occurs from use of the common. This is one of those thankfully rare instances. And yet, I'm stuck in endless argument. If some of that frustration shows through, it isn't my commitment to the minutae of nomenclature. It is dismay that I am becoming increasingly convinced that despite having some science expertise to commit to improving the site, I cannot spare literally months to this type of insanity. If I seem devoted to this cause, it is because I believe this instance has shown a flaw in the bureaucracy (all bureaucracies have them). If reasonable argument cannot overcome the inertia of the possessive internet community underlying this site, on what I see as a topic that should cause almost no argument at all, then I think I have a right to feel frustrated. If you find that offensive, I 'm sorry, but I like the idea of Wikipedia. I'm not sure the reality exists in the same universe as the ideal though. (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

--Smokefoot (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Endorse. I opposed at the RM. The IP may be right, but arguments cross the Wikipedia:No original research line. This amino acid is called by this name, and if it was called wrong, secondary sources supporting that need to be provided. This is not a website for correcting the real world. Wikipedia reproduces what is reported in the real world. Someone in the real world publishing a criticism of of a misnaming would be very interesting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Let Norleucine stand. The term norleucine appears in the titles or abstracts of about 100 publication since 2013, per a search of Chemical Abstracts today. It is mentioned in 194 publications in this time frame. End of story. The second sentence of norleucine gives a completely normal (unused though) name. If this editor is so wound up by this pin prick, then it is just as well that they are not contributing content. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse. consensus was clear. Mostly !voting to say that if the name is a misnomer and that can be sourced / cited it seems that it should be mentioned in the article itself and not just a reference as is currently done. It's possible that is a wiki-text coding error and the <ref> is at the wrong place. PaleAqua (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse: per the page instructions, "Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a requested move discussion." Dekimasuよ! 15:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Sex Tape (film)[edit]

Sex Tape (film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM)

I don't normally contest closes when there's clearly consensus of lack thereof, even if I nominate them, but I don't feel that was the case with this close. Granted, I understand that discussions are not a vote, but the discussion was 4 vs. 1 with the 4 (including myself) supporting some sort of change. Also, I do agree that relisting this discussion wouldn't have received any more votes, but that doesn't mean that I agree with the close. All four supporters made a care I regards to the change, and one even sort of expressed their concern regarding the only oppose vote (not me). So, I hope this review results in a different result than what I think is a clear lack of a lack of consensus. Steel1943 (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment from closer. First, I wouldn't mind at all if this were overturned, but you could have asked me about this beforehand. Anyway, there were several reasons I closed this request the way I did. First, as I noted, I did not read clear consensus in the discussion. I do not think this was a "4-1" !vote as you suggest. Three editors total mentioned WP:DIFFCAPS as a reason to support, one of whom did so despite explicitly not being happy with DIFFCAPS. One editor outright opposed the move on similar grounds, although this was not a strong argument in light of the divergence from WP:DIFFCAPS. Another editor effectively opposed the move by opposing the removal of "(film)." And as far as I could tell, the IP editor's comment did not directly have any relevance to the discussion. Finally, the move request was open for over a month and was the oldest one on the WP:RM page. If it was a cut-and-dried case of consensus, it would have been closed a long time ago. This was another indication to me that there was "no clear consensus," which is how I closed the request. It's not a way I normally write closes; I normally choose among "consensus to move," "no consensus to move," and "consensus not to move." But I felt it was appropriate in this case, and I'm not sure move review is a better option than simply waiting for consensus to change. I'm certainly open to advice on how I could have done better here, for future reference. Dekimasuよ! 01:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
(I'm fine with WP:DIFFCAPS, and I'm scared of closing quite a few discussions in the RM backlog for fear that they will all end up on move review no matter how they are closed. I have a feeling that's why there are still discussions from early September there. Dekimasuよ! 02:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC) )
  • @Dekimasu: Thank you for your input regarding the close. But yeah, I saw that this was the last move discussion in the page as well, so I knew its days were numbered, so to speak. I didn't feel that it was right for me, the nominator, to ask you about this close on your talk page without it seeming like I was either trying to push my POV or seemed like I was trying to beat a dead horse. And also, I understand your point about the WP:DIFFCAPS concern; there at those who are completely for it, those completely against it, and those who try to interpret it with the good faith that tried to go into its premise. Unfortunately, in my experiences, well, I used to be in the first group, but now I try to be in the last group (as best as I can be, that is.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn. I echo that this should have been discussed with the closer first before coming here, while understanding the concern. I also read the vote count as 3 support, 1 oppose, and 1 other option. Reading the arguments seems the support arguments of, especially using WP:DIFFCAPS are much stronger than the oppose argument. Arguments that cite existing policies and guidelines are stronger than those that state opinions against per WP:CONLIMITED. (Note I personally dislike DIFFCAPS and actually agree with Necrothesp, and wish that wikipedia URLs were case insensitive allowing for tittle case to be used for article titles, and sentence case for links.) PaleAqua (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Seems to be a clear consensus in favor of the move. -- Calidum 04:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I have to disagree with Calidum, the alleged consensus was not "clear". If there was a consensus, I would call it "just barely a consensus" or a "rough consensus", but I read the discussion as not quite convincing, easily within admin discretion to have called "no consensus" through to "rough consensus to move", but not stronger. I read in that discussion that reasons for the move strongly rely on a WP:AT policy section, "WP:DIFFCAPS" titled "Using minor details to naturally disambiguate articles", and I also read bursting out from between the lines a lack strong support for this DIFFCAPS, as if it is supported because it is policy but not because it has good reason. This weakness of the policy section is also evident in it self-referentially using the "often heavily debated". So, "per DIFFCAPS" is very weak, DIFFCAPS is directly criticized. On the other hand, both Steel1943 and Cúchullain gave good substantive reason beyond "per DIFFCAPS", and a counter argument, Necrothesp's "Capitals really aren't enough to disambiguate in most cases" is very difficult to weigh. More participants might have been nice. Another admin might well-justifiably have closed as "rough consensus to move". Admin discretion must be given some weight. A discussion on WP:DIFFCAPS is in order. I recommend that Steel1943 try again after two months after the close of this discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: With all due respect, I don't see how consensus regarding this discussion is going to change or gain any additional attention after two months. To compare my point to another process performed on Wikipedia, it is not as though the article is trying to change its attitude and try to run for a second WP:RFA after input from other editors. In addition, as the closer and I mentioned, this discussion had not had additional input for over two weeks prior to its close, and before it was closed, it was sitting at the very bottom of WP:RM's backlog. So, I just don't see the benefit or change that will happen if this move discussion is initiated again at a later time. Steel1943 (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Then why are you pushing so hard? If the proposal can't garner more support than it did, then why is it a worthwhile question? I oppose the use of administrative review to push through something that fails due to lack of interest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: Eh, now that you put it that way... if no one responds to the next discussion when it is started... well, I don't exactly exactly support lack of a discussion equalling consensus, but I get your point. Steel1943 (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
In my view, a simple rename proposal was derailed by Necrothesp's policy-nullifying statement, and Red Slash's liquid support. Cúchullain and Necrothesp have basically stated opposing views. I think DIFFCAPS is in need of validification on the policy talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse – there was no consensus to move and there's no consensus to interpret WP:DIFFCAPS as saying that differentiating titles by caps alone is a good idea; that section specifically says that doing so is "heavily debated". The current disambiguated title is not violating policy as some would have us believe. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Chitram Bhalare Vichitram (closed)[edit]


January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December

See also[edit]