Wikipedia:Move review: Difference between revisions
→Steps to list a new review request: Do not tag the mainspace article. |
|||
Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
| style="background:#E2FFE2; width: 5%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top;" | <big>'''4.'''</big> |
| style="background:#E2FFE2; width: 5%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top;" | <big>'''4.'''</big> |
||
| style="background:#E2FFE2; width:95%;" | |
| style="background:#E2FFE2; width:95%;" | |
||
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: <code><nowiki>{{move review talk|date=</nowiki>{{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> |
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: <code><nowiki>{{move review talk|date=</nowiki>{{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code>. Do not tag the mainspace article. |
||
|- |
|||
| style="background:#E2FFE2; width: 5%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top;" | <big>'''5.'''</big> |
|||
| style="background:#E2FFE2; width:95%;" | |
|||
Nominations may also attach an <code>'''{{tl|move review}}'''</code> tag to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion. |
|||
|- |
|- |
||
| style="background:#E2FFE2; width: 5%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top;" | <big>'''6.'''</big> |
| style="background:#E2FFE2; width: 5%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top;" | <big>'''6.'''</big> |
Revision as of 23:12, 2 November 2017
![]() |
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
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 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.
Instructions
Initiating move reviews
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
1. |
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. |
2. |
Follow this link to this month's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the contested move page, rm_page with the name of the move discussion page, and reason with the reason why the page move should be reviewed. For example: Copy this template skeleton for most pages: {{subst:move review list |page= |rm_page= <!--Not needed if the move discussion is on the talk page of the page--> |rm_section= <!--Name of the section with the move request.--> |reason= }} ~~~~ |
3. |
Inform the closer of the discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
4. |
Leave notice of the move review in the same section as, but outside of and above the closed original move discussion. Use the following template: |
6. |
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.
|
7. |
The discussion with closer and notices required above are sufficient notification; you are not required to individually notify participants in the prior move discussion of the move review. However, if you individually notify any of them, you must individually notify all of them by posting a message about the move review on each participant's respective user talk page. |
Commenting in a move review
In general, commenters should prefix their comments with either Endorse or Overturn (optionally stating an alternative close) followed by their reasoning. Generally, the rationale should be an analysis of whether the closer properly followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, whether it was within 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
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:move review top}} and {{subst:move review bottom}} to close such discussions.
Also add a result to the {{move review talk}}
template on the talk page where the original discussion took place, e.g. {{move review talk|date=April 24 2015|result=Closure endorsed}}
.
Typical move review decision options
The following set of options represent the typical results of a Move Review decision, although complex 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 |
Active discussions
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The concern regarding non-neutrality of a descriptive title WP:NPOVNAME and WP:NDESC was essentially ignored in the discussion, and was not considered by the closer. 129.68.81.71 (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Result was no consensus, but based primarily on sources, which seem not to reflect the basis on which the discussion was closed Edaham (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Page was moved before consensus was reached --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
User:BD2412 was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the RM: [identify information here] and the RM should be reopened and relisted. I do not know how to post this text: This RfM is extremely confusing and has gone on a long time, it is my fault. I do not think what was happening is clear. There are five active Support, including Admin User:Wbm1058, who earlier posted "I've been trying to maintain some neutrality so that I could credibly close this, but I've become too involved at this point not to take a position. Closing admin: Please do your best to filter out the noise and find the strongest arguments." He last posted here on 21 October 2017. On 21 October 2017 Admin User:Andrewa posted "Oppose" and we began to discuss by e-mail and on his talk page.. That discussion was ongoing and could have changed his position. When it closed he couldn't change his position after his first discussion. At the time of closure the Support had a strong case. A consensus may have reached before User:Andrewa opposed, and he might have changed his Oppose. I have so confused this RfM and it has gone so long that it is almost impossible to understand. But it was ongoing and a consensus was realistically at hand. I can't do this again and I think my problem is just that I made it illegible. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I would not object to an immediate, fresh RM. But this one was a mess. There is a fundamental issue barely touched on regarding consistency between the International Harvester article title and the titles of the vehicle articles. Andrewa (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
New arguments introduced in a similar discussion led to the reversal of the page move from "Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue" to "Anglican-Catholic dialogue". As in the Anglican dialogue article, both parties in the Lutheran dialogue refer to the "Roman Catholic Church" (Examples: "Catholic/Vatican", "Lutheran"). The closer of the Lutheran article move may wish to reconsider in light of the arguments raised against the original the Anglican move. –Zfish118⋉talk 20:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The RM was closed as a "procedural close" after weeks of input by numerous users which seems a waste of everyone's time. The closer stated that the "nomination could do with being bundled or at least be renominated with a more detailed rationale". The move in question was to make this one article's title consistent with other similar articles' titles; thus, there was nothing to bundle. As far as a more detailed rationale goes, I feel the policy rationales (WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:PRECISION) along with some stats that I provided were sufficient. (Is there a requirement that only the nominator can provide rationale for a move?) I am requesting a close of consensus or no consensus. Pinging the original nominator and the other participants as well. — AjaxSmack 00:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
BD2412 did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing this requested move.. The biggest problem with this move discussion is that there was widespread conflation of "Krakow" and "Kraków". The first one is widely used in English, and is about even with "Cracow" in academic and reference works. The later is barely used, and a lot of the supporting editors used the prevalence of "Krakow" for the modern city to argue for "Kraków" for the 19th-century Grand Duchy, which is a fallacious argument. In fact, some support votes only mentioned "Krakow" and not "Kraków", which means that despite writing "support", they didn't actually make an argument for renaming the article "Grand Duchy of Kraków". Academicoffee71 (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
| ||
---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | ||
Non-admin closer TheDoctorWho did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing this requested move.
I believe that any RM admin would have closed this as move, maybe to the first name suggested by the nom maybe not. Pinging Steel1943 and In ictu oculi, who also participated. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 02:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC) Followups: This is actually worse than I thought.
Just from a quick skim. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 07:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
| ||
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2024 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2023 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2022 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2021 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2020 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2019 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2018 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2017 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2016 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2015 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2014 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2013 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2012 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
![]() | Search Move review archives
| ![]() |