Wikipedia:Move review

Skip to: Active discussions · Recent discussions · Archive · (purge cache)

Shortcuts WP:MR WP: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.

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

I and others would like an opportunity to comment on the discussion. I want the conversation re-opened to give more space and time for additional comments, and then re-evaluated based on a more complete discourse. The discussion on the talk page is not representative of the discourse, and it is apparent from other discussion including Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Now_that_the_main_article_has_been_moved_to_LGBTQ,_all_sub-articles_(including_the_Wikiproject)_can_follow_suit that there are people who have more to say and other people who want to give comment. The move from LGBT -> LGBTQ would affect 50,000 links, so is a very high impact change, but the move discussion lasted 10 days and included about 20 people, so was very small relative to the consequences. There were several previous move discussions, and participants in those discussions were not notified. Because this is such a complex move affecting so many articles, there is no reason to act in haste, and nothing would be lost by opening the discussion for a while longer to advertise it and let everyone say what they want to say. I do not object to the the move closure as an interpretation of the comments considered, but it is apparent now that thousands of articles are going to be affected that there are more people who would have commented, had they known the discussion was happening. It is problematic and an error that now that 10-day discussion is shutting down conversation as instead of debating the name, some people are arguing on the basis of the matter being settled on the basis of representative consensus discussion being reached. That small group was not the fullness of discussion. Thanks for considering. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse move (involved) of the one article, but support having an RFC regarding mass renaming additional articles and (especially) the wikiproject. lizthegrey (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Lizthegrey: Can you explain the difference? Should not all the articles have the same name? Bluerasberry (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Per @Tamzin below. They may not necessarily need to all follow in lockstep, and that's okay! lizthegrey (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support reopen of the main article rename and agree that the more widespread changes should be settled via an RFC. The matter of all the many, many categories affected and the tens of thousands of pages that would be impacted was not at any point discussed during the page move, but was only declared afterwards, and is now already in progress via speedy renames. If those categories are required by policy to be renamed to follow this page renaming then I think that more eyes are required on the original rename. With that in mind, I note the opener only notified one project when the intent was to enact widespread category changes with a broader impact. Projects like WP:HISTORY and WP:BIOGRAPHY would have a clear interest in such moves, so this is possible WP:VOTESTACKING. I believe the question of whether Wikipedia as a whole should blanket move all LGBT categories affecting all historical figures and events and organisations and so on to LGBTQ raises WP:BLPCAT issues and is a matter that should be settled via an RFC, not a single page move with minimal participation. Void if removed (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If I had a nickel for every time a GENSEX editor notified WP:LGBT of an LGBT-related discussion and was wrongly accused of canvassing in an XfD, I'd have two nickels.

  Let's be serious, now. What unique stake do these projects realistically hold in what language the catnames use? Do we need to notify WP:WikiProject Food on behalf of Category:LGBT chefs?

  Re BLPCAT, the term is a strict superset. Every LGB or T biography subject is also LGBT or Queer. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 10:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse move (involved) - as was outlined on both the actual RM, as well as the follow up courtesy notification I posted on WT following the closure of the RM that is referenced above. The outcome was proper and well in line with our policies, specifically WP:COMMONNAME. It is also wrongly stated on the duration, the move request was opened on the 14nd and closed on the 27th, two weeks (13 days) later, after being relisted once to allow more discussion on LGBTQ vs LGBTQ+ (as it was already pretty WP:SNOWBALL clear that the move was supported as it was in due process to that of last year that was already trending to LGBTQ and just needed one final datapoint, which arrived this year). The move was published beforehand on WT:LGBT (just as it has in prior years RMs on the topic, following convention) as well as being seen by many of the page watchers of the actual page. Several of the people that commented on the RM were also involved in the RM a year prior and it reflects the consensus of the wider community in line with our policies. This was also pointed out by the closing admin User:Dekimasu on their talk page User_talk:Dekimasu#LGBT_->_LGBTQ_move. As it appears the user wants to re-litigate the move, this move review itself may actually run short of WP:MRNOT as it does not appear that the there was improper process for this move other than their personal disagreement with the move as they have outlined on the Wikitalk page, which is specifically out of scope of a move-review. Raladic (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse move (involved) - per Raladic. I don't see here, or in the RM, or in the discussion at WT:LGBT, any actual policy-based arguments against the move, or the natural result that follows from the application of WP:CONSUB.--Trystan (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse move. - per the arguments here by Radalic and Trystan, and my own understanding. In the past, as some of you may remember, I boldly moved many pages from LGBT to LGBTQ, which was reversed because LGBT was not the consensus at the time (it was a clear learning experience, to say the least). This has changed. There has been continual discussion about this over the years, so this is nothing new. I strongly support this move and hope that others also follow suit. I can understand why some oppose this above and want this discussion to continue. But, I do not feel that is necessary at this time. I tend to not get involved in discussions like this, but I feel compelled to share my opinion here.--Historyday01 (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved; saw discussion at WT:LGBT). The discussion was well-attended by RM standards, and the closer correctly read the consensus. If there are concerns about how and when "LGBTQ" should be used in other articles' prose and bodies, then that's a matter for an RfC; but that's separate from what this article should be titled. Wishing a discussion had gone a different way is not a reason to reöpen it, and notifying the wikiproject most relevant to a discussion is very very very clearly, per policy and every noticeboard thread to consider the question, not canvassing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Like you, I saw the discussion first on WT:LGBT as well. As I noted in my comment, I tend to not get involved in discussions such as these, but I do get updates from the WikiProject all the time, and that's where I saw about this move. I agree with what you are saying here wholeheartedly. Historyday01 (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to elaborate, since I wrote the above in a hurry while waiting on a train platform. There are three related questions about the terminology of LGBT vs. LGBTQ vs. something else:

  1. What to call the primary article on that topic
  2. What to call child articles and other articles that use the term descriptively (LGBT rights in the United States, LGBT history, etc.)
  3. What term to use in prose in articles.

  Question 1 is what this RM was held to settle. Question 3 is not part of the RM process: That's a question for MoS, or for informal guidance by WP:LGBT. Personally, going forward I intend to use "LGBTQ" in prose unless: that would be anachronistic; the statement in question specifically only applies to L, G, B, and T people; or the usage is part of a quote or an organization's name. But it's not within move review's jurisdiction to set any standard on that.

  But it's Question 2, I think, that has begotten this move review. So I'll note that, while there's a general expectation that child articles will have the same terminology as the parent article, that is not an absolute rule. For an article where LGBT is being used descriptively in the title, in most cases a summary move to add the Q, citing this move, would seem appropriate. But if there are specific cases where there's a valid objection (i.e. not just disagreeing with the main article's move, but more akin to the exceptions I raised above regarding Question 3), then of course it is just and proper to object to that move and send it to RM instead.

  That is to say, we have procedures for this: RM for cases where summary moves citing this one are possibly incorrect; RfC and informal consensus-building for the prose question. This MRV, though, can only address whether the RM was closed correctly, and it was. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 04:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer comments. I recognize that WP:MR is a less common process, but I was not informed of this review as required by the page instructions, nor of post-close discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, and the editor who initiated this request has never contacted me. However, to be clear, I was contacted about the close by a different editor and I have no objection to having the close reviewed. At my talk page, I made the following reply in response to Void if removed: "Thank you for your message. I do not believe that the consensus of the discussion was in question, that the neutrally worded WikiProject notification was inappropriate, or that the number of articles affected should prevent the community from renaming articles. I see little in the discussion that leads me to believe it represented an unrepresentative cross-section of the editorship or a local consensus. Whether the outcome of the move of the article should apply to particular other parts of the encyclopedia as a result of further discussion is something that again can be determined by the community. Since I find the outcome of the discussion clear, I do not intend to reopen it at this time. Of course you are free to question this at Wikipedia:Move review if necessary, and I'm sorry to have reached a conclusion with which you disagree." This still reflects my perspective.
  A small further point is the question of the duration of the discussion. As those familiar with the RM process will recognize, most RM discussions last one week. The discussion was open for significantly longer, and no new positions had been expressed for over 3.5 days when the close was made. There was significant policy-based discussion in the RM and a significant number of editors participated. We have not often found it to be the case that leaving discussions open longer, or reopening them, yields better results than closing discussions when the result is clear. More broadly, RfC should not be considered a process that supersedes RMs. As I wrote, the scope of the changes implied by the close can of course be determined in subsequent discussion by the community, but switching from an RM to an RfC to determine the title of LGBTQ after the discussion has closed would have the appearance of forum shopping. The process of using RM discussions to determine article titles has clear community support. Finally, I do not intend to relitigate the close further here. The editor who opened the request is welcome to discuss related topics with me in more detail on my talk page at any time (even though that hasn't happened so far) and I'd like to make it clear that my close is unrelated to any personal (or academic, etc.) views on this subject. Best, Dekimasuよ! 23:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved in the RM, though I have been working through the category renames). Tamzin says a lot of good, and I echo everything they said – in particular, while updating the words "LGBT" to "LGBTQ" in prose would be a matter for an RfC, moving articles is a matter for an RM. While I personally notify previous RM participants when I open repeat RMs, there is no policy mandating that anyone do so. Nor is only notifying the single most relevant WikiProject canvassing in any way, shape, or form. (Heck, I would guess that notifying a group of editors who openly associate under the Q-less WikiProject LGBT studies would make it more likely the RM would find consensus to exclude the Q.) Finally, it would be forum shopping to request an RfC just because you dislike the outcome of the RM. If you wish to reverse the move, open a new RM. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse move, reject the idea that move automatically means there's consensus for an immediate mass change everywhere else. Closer did not find consensus that it would, simply suggested it might. I think if the proposer had made that part of the RM, someone would have said, "Oh, wow, that's too big for us here. We're going to need broader community input". Raladic, did you have this in mind when you made the initial proposal? Valereee (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep, that's why I posted that note there after the close, to ensure that there is community awareness since the closer mentioned the likely follow up cleanup of subtopics, so I figured it would be wise to raise this point with the community after the move of the main topic in the most relevant forum being WT:LGBT.

  @Bluerasberry, raised ideological objections (he appears to continue to raise these now at Talk:Queer#International_use_for_pre-modern_sexual_minorities), it doesn't appear that there are policy based objections raised and another admin @HouseBlaster has begun the Category moves, following the note after a few days as well.

So, without trying to pre-empt anything of this MR, just as I noted above, I followed the community agreement that was established over the years (since I've followed it closely and was also involved in prior year MR on the point) that we would first move the main topic when the time and data to support it comes and then, appropriate sub-topics can follow suit, just as @Tamzin noted above. Raladic (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raladic, but if you already had in mind you intended to then assume it meant something much bigger, why didn't you mention that in your proposal? It feels like you left out something pretty major: you were in fact proposing a MOS default for Wikipedia. Valereee (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As OwenBlacker stated below, this has been the going pattern for years of this RM discussions of LGBT -> LGBTQ across the entirety of the related article space. Many times sub-articles, the main article, the Wikiproject ([1]) would be moved or a discussion on that talk page or an RM and the consensus has always been that when the time comes, and the data supports it the main article can move.

After that time of the main article actually moving, with community support (which is what the note is for, afterwards to ensure anyone who wasn't already aware), the sub-articles can follow per our standard policies with the support of the community. More contentious ones maybe with a separate RM discussion, such as has already happened and was started by another user here for LGBTQ culture and LGBTQ community and some others may probably be boldly moved.

I don't think it was any secret, at least not to the involved editing community who has been active on the Wikiproject or on LGBTQ related articles as it has been an ongoing discussion for years with a new discussion popping up every few months and someone would re-iterate that same point I just summarized (even the opener of the MR was aware of it since 2021 and has participated in the "we'll do it when the time comes and data supports it" mantra auto-reply on the Wikiproject), almost like it was an internalized mantra of the related editing community at this point. Raladic (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Involved comment The closer correctly read the consensus at Talk:LGBTQ, but it should also be noted that no specific consensus was found for mass-moving pages. This move review is based on a faulty premise that moving the article LGBT (which is about the initialism) to LGBTQ would necessarily mean that all articles should use LGBTQ. Consistency is part of our article naming criteria, but it's just one criterion out of many that we consider when choosing an article name. There are always going to be articles where consistency is not as important as some other criterion (one example is LGBTI history of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, which has used LGBTI long before the pagemove). Articles should be RM-ed one by one when consensus will not necessarily clear (as has already happened). ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 00:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the move, but the closer's conclusion that this move means everything can radiate outwards was broader than the discussion at hand, which simply appeared to be about the title of this page. However, this move can be used as evidence that this is the common term - it appears the objection is that it may not be the common term universally for all related topics, which needs to be discussed further. SportingFlyer T·C 06:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Very briefly, what you said is in fact what I wrote above (e.g. "the scope of the changes implied by the close can of course be determined in subsequent discussion by the community") and in the close. I did not write here or elsewhere that the result should be used to "radiate everything outwards" without discussion. I am sure there are many cases where discussion (or simply not proposing a title change) is warranted, and there are probably others in which the clear consensus in the original discussion here is likely to indicate that moves would be uncontroversial. Dekimasuよ! 07:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, involved. MR exists for when a closer or the community make a mistake, not so editors who missed the window of discussion can get the last word in an otherwise well-attended and discussion showing strong consensus. The argument presented is not P&G, but that we should right great wrongs and use the proposer's favorite term instead. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 10:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm here, Dekimasu, you observed a "significant minority" in favor of LGBTQ+ (my favorite term). Could you elaborate on what swayed the discussion toward its current outcome? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 10:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse move, involved. This was probably the 3rd or 4th RM discussion on recognising that "LGBTQ" or "LGBTQ+" is the most widely-used current term in English and, while it might not have been clearly stated in the latest discussion, that we were discussing renaming the standard term for the sexuality-and-gender community across enwiki was explicitly clear in at least one of the previous 2 discussions. For the sake of consistency, we should replicate the page-name change across categories. For the sake of the more-recent COMMONNAME we should rename from LGBT to LGBTQ.

I would have hoped that the notification on WT:WikiProject LGBT studies should have ben sufficient. (I don't remember if it was also mentioned on WMLGBT+'s Telegram chat.) That said, if we do need to review (because too many people were unaware of the most-recent RM discussion), then we should explicitly include the scope of all related pages and categories, for the sake of consistency. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 12:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (uninvolved, though I have recently closed a RM that was predicated on this). I think closure was appropriate, and the concern about mass renaming of articles can be tackled on a case by case basis where appropriate and that large scale changes can be addressed by appropriate RFC, but this is not the venue to dispute the concerns raised by the appellant here. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2024 (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