Wikipedia:Move review

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

Administrator instructions

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.

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 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.

Instructions[edit]

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 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.

Steps to list a new review request[edit]

 
1.

Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page. Move review is a process that takes several days, sometimes weeks, to close. On the closer's talk page, you can probably resolve the matter much more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full, formal move 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 if needed, rm_section if needed, closer and closer_section with the post-move discussion information, 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-->
|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=
}}  ~~~~

If either the |closer= or |closer_section= parameter is omitted, the result will include "No discussion on closer's talk page". When

  • |closer= < closer's username > and
  • |closer_section= < section header on closer's talk page where there was discussion about the close >

are correctly filled in, the result will include a "Discussion with closer" link to that discussion.

If the |closer_section= link is to the section on the closer's talk page where the closer has only been notified of Move review (see step 3) and the closer has not actually discussed their close with another editor on their talk page, the result will include a "No discussion on closer's talk page" link to the Move review notice.

3.

If you have not done so already, inform the closer of the Move review discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:move review note|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
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: {{move review talk|date=27 February 2021}}. Do not tag the article.

5.

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

{{Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 February}}
6.

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 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 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.

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, 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 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[edit]

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.

MRV closer's decision RM closer's decision Move review closed as Status of RM after MRV close
1. Endorse Close Not Moved No Action Required Closed
2. Endorse Close Move to new title No Action Required Closed
3. Overturn Close Not Moved Option 1: (If RM consensus is unclear or significantly divided) Reopen and relist RM Open
Option 2: (If Consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RM Closed
4. Overturn Close Move to new title Move title back to pre-RM title, reopen and relist RM if appropriate Open
5. Relist Not Moved Reopen and relist RM Open
6. Relist Move to new title Move title to pre-RM title and reopen and relist RM Open

 

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Those that involve renames (Template:Cfr), for all other types of CFDs use deletion review.
  2. ^ Generally for those that don't involve any proposed or suggested deletion, where only the redirect's target was being discussed or if the redirect should be a disambiguation page, for other (even those that were retargeted where deletion was proposed or considered) use deletion review.

Active discussions[edit]

2021 February[edit]

2021 storming of the United States Capitol[edit]

2021 storming of the United States Capitol (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

This is going to be a long one. I first would like to point out the guide for closing RM's as a non admin, which states that a non-admin close should only occur if the consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period (seven days). I do not feel that this was "clear" in any way - there are many nuances in this RM (some of which the closer failed to take into account) that suggest that an admin closure would be better. Regardless, my primary concerns are not with the non-admin closure, but with the following:

  1. Following the previous RM, User:El C closed the RM and placed an arbitration discretionary sanction against discussion of "insurrection" for the page title for one month. Many (at least dozens) of editors in this RM were solely or primarily advocating for "insurrection" in the title. While no administrator stepped in during the RM to enforce this discretionary sanction, the closer of the discussion should've done their part to enforce the discretionary sanction by discounting/ignoring any !votes that wholly or primarily advocated for an "insurrection" title.
  2. Many (most?) !votes were based solely on original research. There were a plethora of !votes that, instead of providing any policy based reason to not accept the move request, simply stated in no uncertain terms that the editor felt that the title "wasn't accurate" or "was too lenient in describing the events". Some of these !votes overlap with those which should be prohibited per the ACDS against "insurrection", but many of them were of the form "riot isn't adequate because I don't feel it's accurate compared to storming" - which is not a policy based reason to not move the page and should be discounteed.
  3. Of those !votes that provided a policy based reason to move, a majority referenced WP:COMMONNAME. There were many analyses done of the common name, but virtually all of them led to the end result of "riot" being the most common name being used in news (not just headlines) at this time to describe the events of that day. The closer expressed that they felt that "concern that the title "riot" puts the emphasis on the wrong thing or incorrectly describes the subject of their article" was a valid reason to discount WP:COMMONNAME - it is not. The closer did not identify how the WP:COMMONNAME in this instance would violate any of the five criteria for naming an article - nor did a vast majority of editors who were arguing against "riot" as the name.
  4. The closer claimed in their response to my challenge that "Wikipedians absolutely get to decide what the subject of an article is" - which I don't disagree with. What Wikipedians don't get to do, however, is decide what the WP:COMMONNAME is for that subject. This shows that the closer considers that personal opinion as to the appropriate title may override common names - which shows they do not appreciate that Wikipedia follows reliable sources, not what Wikipedians "want" the subject to be.

For all of these reasons, I feel that the close should be overturned and re-closed by someone else, and at a minimum, the eventual close should be required to explain the !vote analysis in more detail. The title of this article is contentious and would greatly benefit from trying to find consensus in the current RM, rather than continuing to find "no consensus" in 50 RMs to follow. I firmly believe that there was likely at least a weak consensus for a move here when considering my points above and the analyses on the page, and discounting !votes that violated the AC/DS placed by El C, but I at a minimum think that the closer's argument that there was a consensus against "riot" is inaccurate and should be overturned. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Note of a forked discussion here. I addressed some of these points there. I don't have an endorse/overturn position; I don't particularly agree with the closing comment, but I do think there was no consensus to move. I also disagree with the idea that AC/DS (a system to manage conduct, sanctions implemented as unilateral admin actions) can be used to discount votes in an RfC. AC/DS, and ArbCom (the source of its authority), have no say in content decisions. The moratorium is legitimate, but I think it's distinct from whether opposes on the basis of another title being better is legitimate. That's tantamount to a forced compromise, which would be invalid. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Okay...? Do I refactor about how this isn't my first WP:ACDS-imposed move moratorium and how I doubt it's gonna be my last, and all the other things I said...? I guess I can just link to the diff. But I don't like having a split discussion happening like this. El_C 05:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    • It wasn't my intent to fork the discussion, because I felt they were separate (DS discussion versus move review) - but if you feel any of my comments are better on this page I give you whole permission to refactor any of mine to this page you feel need to be to keep discussion on topic - I obviously trust your judgement at this point El C :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • As I just noted on the article talk page, but maybe it bears repeating here: the venue to challenge logged ACDS action is WP:ARCA. El_C 05:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    That depends on if there's anything to challenge, El C. As far as I can see, your moratorium was to suspend moves to that title, but not as a means to discount oppose rationales for a different title's RM (which is how Berchanhimez has interpreted it). I don't think you're arguing that such opposes should be discounted per your restriction? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, what I'm saying that if you "disagree" with my ACDS action to the point that you wish to challenge it, ARCA is that-a-way. But, yes, again, the only thing the moratorium does is disallow launching a new RM about it before the moratorium lapses. However way a closer approaches closing a different RM isn't really something that they can invoke that ACDS action for, except in so far as that RM's outcome can't yet be to move to "insurrection." El_C 06:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@El C: I don't disagree with the concept of DS moratoriums at all. I do disagree with using them as means of discounting content comments in an existing discussion, but it looks like we're on the same page on that matter so there's nothing to challenge from my view. Was just left a bit confused as to your position by your response here to my comment (which I rephrased to address points #1 and #2 of the MR rationale). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, oops, I overlooked the part where you said: the moratorium is legitimate. Sorry about that! El_C 06:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, I doubt it'd do that much harm at this point for me to reveal that I, myself, believe "insurrection" to be the best title (by far). Which could have been gleaned from my choice of words in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Insurrectionists'_gallows. But, unfortunately, it didn't enjoy consensus in the Jan 16 RM, and that's that. El_C 06:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse the closing of this move request. I supported the move to riot, but it obviously didn't gain consensus. As for the points in the move review above: 1. Yes, some comments mentioned insurrection, but not a lot. Discounting them wouldn't change the outcome. 2 and 3. While I agree commenters should have explicitly pointed out which policy their arguments are based on and sometimes were a bit too subjective, I think most comments were reasonable. The thing is that we have not only WP:COMMONNAME, but also WP:CRITERIA: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency. Most comments didn't mention these criteria explicitly, but they applied them nonetheless. Example: "Riot" is not an all-encompassing description and fully-accurate description of what happened. Also there is precedent on Wikipedia for the use of the word storming. I think this is a valid appeal to the Naturalness, Precision and Consistency criteria. Of course, such judgements are always a bit subjective. Some comments were too subjective, but most were OK. 4. I disagree with that interpretation of what the closer wrote. In conclusion: Lots of reasonable and valid arguments were raised during the discussion, and not too many that could be deemed invalid. The discussion had run for about ten days, and there was clearly no consensus for "riot", and no clear consensus for any other option. Keeping the discussion open would have served no purpose. P.S.: @Berchanhimez: There is a link to https://bestmover.ae/ in your move review. What happened? Strange case of auto-completion? :-) — Chrisahn (talk)
    • Was added by a spam acct (twice), I reverted once but I am on mobile internet which is spotty right now and find it hard to revert and reply. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I should have checked the history. I'll report the spammers at WP:ANV. I hope they'll be blocked quickly. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • sigh Endorse as closer. First, thanks to Berchanhimez for a polite and really well-organized MRV request. It makes it extremely easy to respond to the points he raises. I sincerely, sincerely mean it: thank you. I will answer the four points directly.
  1. Following the previous RM, User:El C closed the RM and placed an arbitration discretionary sanction against discussion of "insurrection" for the page title for one month. Many (at least dozens) of editors in this RM were solely or primarily advocating for "insurrection" in the title. While no administrator stepped in during the RM to enforce this discretionary sanction, the closer of the discussion should've done their part to enforce the discretionary sanction by discounting/ignoring any !votes that wholly or primarily advocated for an "insurrection" title. The move request I closed was from 2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol to 2021 United States Capitol riot. I am not being snarky here when I say I have no idea what this deal about "insurrection" in the title is. "Insurrection" wasn't proposed and it wasn't considered by the vast majority of the responders. I did not consider it as a viable option, either. It ain't my fault if discussions about "insurrection" happened that weren't supposed to take place - I ain't the talk page police, I just closed a move request.
  2. Many (most?) !votes were based solely on original research. There were a plethora of !votes that, instead of providing any policy based reason to not accept the move request, simply stated in no uncertain terms that the editor felt that the title "wasn't accurate" or "was too lenient in describing the events". Some of these !votes overlap with those which should be prohibited per the ACDS against "insurrection", but many of them were of the form "riot isn't adequate because I don't feel it's accurate compared to storming" - which is not a policy based reason to not move the page and should be discounteed. Okay, this one is easy. WP:OR talks about how we can't include original research in our articles. It has nothing to do with discussions on a talk page. Read it. Of course we have to do original research on talk pages! That's how we figure out what to title pages. Even that useful table of Google hits was original research. The editor in question literally researched for himself what the sources say. He was the original one to research it. Everything we do on talk pages, practically, is original research. This is why original research on talk pages is not even mentioned in WP:OR. Actually, strike that. It is mentioned. I am literally going to quote from the literal lede of Wikipedia:No original research: "(This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.)"
  3. Of those !votes that provided a policy based reason to move, a majority referenced WP:COMMONNAME. There were many analyses done of the common name, but virtually all of them led to the end result of "riot" being the most common name being used in news (not just headlines) at this time to describe the events of that day. The closer expressed that they felt that "concern that the title "riot" puts the emphasis on the wrong thing or incorrectly describes the subject of their article" was a valid reason to discount WP:COMMONNAME - it is not. The closer did not identify how the WP:COMMONNAME in this instance would violate any of the five criteria for naming an article - nor did a vast majority of editors who were arguing against "riot" as the name. Umm, the fact that I didn't include a big blue link to a titling policy shouldn't bother anyone, but in case it does, the nutshell of WP:AT reads "Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent." These are wise words, enterprising men quote 'em; don't act surprised, you guys, 'cuz I wrote 'em. Look at the fourth of those five criteria: precise. An article title that is not precise is not a good article title. I guess I shouldn't assume that everyone has read WP:AT's nutshell, but I don't think a close of an RM has to cite them specifically. When I said that editors claimed that the subject was "incorrectly describe(d)", I guess I probably should've added "which of course violates WP:AT's prescription of 'precise' article titles, as alluded to by multiple editors below". My apologies.
  4. The closer claimed in their response to my challenge that "Wikipedians absolutely get to decide what the subject of an article is" - which I don't disagree with. What Wikipedians don't get to do, however, is decide what the WP:COMMONNAME is for that subject. This shows that the closer considers that personal opinion as to the appropriate title may override common names - which shows they do not appreciate that Wikipedia follows reliable sources, not what Wikipedians "want" the subject to be. Umm, yes, yes we do. We do that all the time all over Wikipedia on talk pages, figuring out what the primary topic is, how to best title the articles, etc. Appropriate titles according to WP:AT overriding what the literal most common name is? It's very normal.
I don't think there's much left to be said. The discussion was heated, yes (though not that heated--people were generally on their best behavior), but the consensus was really clear. People thought "riot" wasn't specific enough, so they rejected it despite it being a more common term. (By the way, when you search for "thesaurus specific one of the words you get is that famous word "precise" Face-smile.svg) Red Slash 00:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Comments: After all this, I'd like to add that the reasoning given here by the closer just further makes me feel it may have been a supervote. The vast majority of people arguing for "insurrection" or "storming" were doing so based on personal opinion, not based on the article titles policy. The job of a closer is not to judge which outcome is most policy-compliant - that's the job of the people in the discussion. The job of the closer is to summarize arguments and find (if any does) the one with the community's consensus. That is not done by simply saying "hmm, this small group of people made this argument, and a ton of other people also like this outcome but for obviously non-policy based reasons, so lump them together". At a bare minimum, I don't think there was a consensus against "riot" at all - because over half of the arguments against "riot" were made based on overtly political/biased/non-policy based reasoning such as "it's white-washing" or similar.
This brings me to my second point - this is getting close to being closed, with really only one person other than the closer themselves who commented in depth (and one other comment of "neither agree nor disagree" from PR). This discussion would really be helped by someone outside coming in - but alas I doubt even people who frequent move review would touch this with a long long pole. That's one of the problems in this topic area - people are afraid to step in for various reasons - but in this case I really do think some more opinions and views would be useful. I accept that my point about the DS applying is not accurate, however, I still do believe that !votes for "insurrection" were not appropriately weighted for policy-basis and my other points as well still stand. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I think this MR is tainted by sheer length and a couple of invalid arguments (such as the DS one). I don’t really think either title (current or proposed) is unambiguously more compliant with the article titles policy, from my previous skim of the discussion. Certainly not to the degree to be discounting enough votes to reach a consensus to move. I think people on that article are suffering from RM fatigue at this point, with 3 RMs back to back for different titles and people trying to force a new title through. This is a case where a moratorium would be helpful, and waiting for RS’ to converge and written literature and expert analysis to become available for a more calm, collected and evidence based discussion some months down the line. An admin should really invoke AP2 and implement such after this current (4th? 5th?) RM closes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. <uninvolved> Go with the closer on this one. Interesting how, when the closer is terse, editors say the closer didn't expound enough, and then when the closer expounds enough, some editors call it a supervote. See no supervote and the closure is acceptable. Agree with the "wait and see" attitude of editors in the RM discussion. It appears that sources are still up in the air about what to call Trump's decidedly worst day as President of the United States of America. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 08:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    • If terse mean inadequate explanation, and an explanation means supervote, then non admins shouldn’t close it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Maybe, but I've seen the attitude applied to admin closures, too. Too terse, not enough; adequately explained, supervote. Sometimes even admins "can't win". Curious that I didn't mention nacs, but you apparently assumed that's what I meant. Explains a lot! Face-smile.svg P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 00:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
        • In a difficult case, an almost-consensus to a rough-consensus, the closing explanation makes all the difference, and requires skills. Bad judgements, and poor explanations, in my long experience at review forums, has a definite correlation with non-admin closers. There are exceptions to the correlations on both sides, but when talking about old admins with poor skills of distilling and summarizing a discussion, they tend as a rule to know their limitations, or at least don't make the same mistake twice. Old admins returning from inactivity used to get into trouble, but these days inactive admins are procedurally desysopped. Some old NAC-ers are excellent closers. In this case, something tells me he used to be shockingly immature, and I have noted over several years a strong improvement in reliably good closes of difficult cases. The real problems are new ambitious Wikipedians who don't know their limits, and respond to complaints with things like "but I am allowed". In large part I assumed NACs because you frequently speak to NAC issues. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. <uninvolved.> Good close. No Supervote. Inconceivable to argue there was a consensus to move as proposed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 misinformation (closed)[edit]

Archive[edit]

Archives, by year and month
Year 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


See also[edit]