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


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. To clarify: You absolutely MUST attempt to discuss the matter with the closer FIRST, and give them a few days to respond.


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
|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-->
}}  ~~~~

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.


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}} ~~~~

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=26 September 2023}}. Do not tag the article.


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/2023 September}}

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 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.

Closing reviews Edit

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. Move review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest MRV log page, if the MRV closer 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 Moved / Not moved No action required Closed
2. Overturn 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
Moved Move title back to pre-RM title, and reopen and relist RM if appropriate Open
3. Relist Moved / Not moved Reopen and relist RM and if moved, move title back to pre-RM title 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

2023 September Edit

List of spaghetti Westerns Edit

List of spaghetti Westerns (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

This is a NAC of an RM without a blatantly obvious consensus. Regardless of the result found by the closer, I think they should provide the community a clear explanation of their reasoning, if not in the closing comments themselves, then in the post-close discussion. Neither occurred in this case, despite ample opportunity. In a case of finding no consensus as was done here, it is customary for the closer to show they understand both sides by summarizing each, and how they believe the arguments from both sides were about equally strong in terms of basis in policy. Due to the absence of such explanation alone I think the close should be at least reverted and relisted to allow someone else to review and close it. Furthermore, Support did have a 60/40 advantage in numbers, and, more importantly of course, in my view had a much stronger argument, so I really think the close should be overturned. В²C 04:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After posting the above and all the notifications, I reviewed the discussion on MaterialWorks' talk page and finally realized what they meant by "this really should have been decided in the MRV". I was previously perplexed because of course MRVs occur after an RM closure. Well, I now see they were referring to the previous close, and felt that close should have gone to MRV and, apparently, this particular issue decided there. Well, as was explained in the RM discussion by BarrelProof me:
Yes, but that RM was for a large group of 17 articles; it was not focused on this particular article. See, e.g., WP:TRAINWRECK. The presence of the extra word "spaghetti" that identifies this distinct subgenre makes this topic a bit different from the others. This is the only one of those 17 articles in which the name of a subgenre appears somewhere that is not at the beginning of the article title, so it is the only one that produces a glaring difference in capitalization of the two words in a subgenre name in the article title.
I thought about a MRV. But this single letter capitalization in western was only one aspect of it. I decided focusing on just that one aspect in a new RM was the most efficient way to proceed.
So it made no sense to do a MRV of the entire TRAINWRECK previous RM about Spaghetti when I wanted to focus on only this one of the 17 Western. The closer did not seem to understand and appreciate at least this aspect of the proposal and discussion. --В²C 04:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you've got that wrong - the mention of RMV did not refer to the multimove discussion. I believe MaterialWorks was referring to the mention that the 30 August RM you opened should have been an RMV of the 24 July 2023 RM immediately above it. But they're welcome to clarify (and hopefully will). ButlerBlog (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doh! You’re right. I quoted correctly, but they were confused and that confused me. I should have caught that. Anyway, that previous RM was about lowercasing Spaghetti. There were !votes that addressed lowercasing Western also, enough for some to see a consensus on that too, but not enough for the closer. I thought since lowercasing Western wasn’t proposed in that RM that we didn’t get a definitive read on consensus about this particular issue; nothing an MRV was likely to resolve. So we needed a separate RM to focus on just that. Therefore taking into account the discussion in that previous RM, as the closer said they did in the post-RM discussion on their talk page, may distort what consensus is about that. And I did explain this in this RM too. Quote above fixed accordingly. Thank you. —-В²C 14:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, this should obviously be at "List of spaghetti westerns" per MOS:GENRECAPS. The term "western" here is not a proper name; "Western" with a capital W refers to Western culture as a whole, not the cowboys-and-Indians tiny little sliver of it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  09:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:SMcCandlish,"W refers to Western culture as a whole"? I don't think that's right. It refers to Western (genre). I don't think "tiny little sliver" is reasonable.
RE: MOS:GENRECAPS, and MOS in general, I think you tend to overcorrecting to achieve a style consistency that never existed. But if you're right, the styling error should be corrected at base articles, not obscure narrow focus list articles. I.e, at Western (genre), why is "Western" capitalised throughout? Are Wikipedians and the sources they use all wrong? A more extreme example of styling at odds to the MOS is found at Go (game). I suggest that it is not a good idea to write a rule that fits most cases, and then force it apply to all cases. That is not English. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can't have it both ways. If we mass-RM them, people pitch a fit about alleged differences between the types of titles. Then if we don't mass-RM them, people will object that they should be mass-RMed so as not to create even a temporary inconsistency. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. It doesn't matter at all from which end of the article list we start doing the cleanup, as long as it gets started and done. PS: Yes, Go (game) is a weird exception, and is one that probably should not exist; rather we should be italicizing is as non-English with {{Italic title}} and in the prose with {{lang|zh-Latn|go}}. The only reason an exception was made is because of the potential confusion with the English verb [to] go. The existence of one exception, that barely squeaked by after a great deal of debate, but which has a clear clarity rationale, is no reason to willy-nilly create more exceptions, that do not have such a rationale, but are a bunch of WP:ILIKEIT noise from people who like to capitalize genres despite us having a rule to not capitalize genres.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  09:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Was there a lot of debate on Go? Can you point?
I only thought Go was more extreme than Western because "go" is an even more common word than "western". Both might deserve exception do the sentence being able to be misread.
You may be right about using italics. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not saying Mass RM them, but that style changes should start at the base articles. The editors interested in fixing this perceived problem should start with editing Western (genre), not start with an RM on List of spaghetti Westerns. Using the RM process to drive editing consensus is a bad way to work. It's almost a reason to reject such RMs procedurally. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Capitalization is really a terrible way to make a distinction. Italics, at least in theory, signal that stress should be placed on the italicized word when reading aloud. Capitalization has zero impact on spoken language, which is the root of all language. ~TPW 13:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Capitalization can completely change the meaning as well as the pronunciation of certain words. Otherwise people would Polish their silverware and speak polish. Station1 (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (ec) Overturn for an experienced closer to reclose. I think "no consensus" is probably correct, but I more strongly think that NAC-ers should NOT be closing highly contested moves with detailed arguments going both ways with a closing statement of containing no meaningful explanation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn per SmokeyJoe. Dicklyon (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You need to identify yourself as "involved". ButlerBlog (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. Closure was more than reasonable and in line with WP:RMCI. MW is experienced enough for this type of close. I would have closed this RM the exact same way, as both supporters and opposers had good strong arguments, yet there were not enough of each to overcome the other in spite of the nom's belief otherwise. Good close! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse The closure looks fine, and the fact that the closer is not an admin is not a valid argument per the closing instructions, which state, assuming the criteria above are met, the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure, found at WP:RMNAC. In addition, it states specifically, While non-admins should be cautious...when closing discussions where significant contentious debate among participants is unresolved, any experienced and uninvolved editor in good standing may close any RM debate. Good close by an experienced user. EggRoll97 (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn per SmokeyJoe. It is not so much that this was an non-admin close but it failed to give a closing statement of any detail where, in the circumstances, a detailed statement was reasonably required. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You need to identify yourself as "involved". ButlerBlog (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. I agree it's best to recap the key points when closing; however, the finding of no consensus in this case seems appropriate given the debate, and anyone else would probably conclude the same, so that lack by itself doesn't seem like sufficient reason to overturn. (And nor does the closer's status as a non-admin, per RMNAC.) Would simply encourage the closer to elaborate in future. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. (specially for the RM closer, MaterialWorks) Seems the most important complaint here is that you left too concise a closing statement. This complaint has also been made against one or two of my closures. Please consider adding more information to this RM's closing statement. One reason is to make it easier for editors who come along later and read the RM. So for "posterity's" sake, please go back in and add explanatory info to your closing statement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think I'll wait until this MRV is finished to do so. – MaterialWorks 12:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Better late than never. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 21:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might be better not to modify the statement after the MRV is closed, since modifying the closing statement after the MRV is closed could cause additional questioning of whether the new statement is appropriate or not. In principle, an MRV is a review of a closure, so the closure should not change unilaterally after it has been reviewed. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To modify, or not to modify, that is the question. I could just put it under a subsection below the archived discussion. – MaterialWorks 00:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MaterialWorks, if you intend to modify the close now, it is perfectly reasonable for you to modify the closed discussion as the closer provided this is clearly indicated. It might also be added as an addendum subsection outside the close. While either would work, I am inclined to the former, since that would make it an intrinsic part of the close (as it should be) and it would be quite discrete from any further discussion that might arise from the amendment. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree. It is perfectly reasonable to modify the close NOW. It is also perfectly reasonable to revert your close, which you could have / should have done immediately on discovering that you close was challenged.
It is not reasonable for you to stick it out, implicitly insisting on your close being correct while also agreeing that it needs fixing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done. – MaterialWorks 16:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That’s more words, but not impressive.
  • Weighing in this RM, the previous one, and the multi-move discussion, I could not find a consensus for this change. Wordy, and about yourself, not the discussion.
  • While there is a slightly higher amount of support !votes, both sides presented strong arguments, which were not enough to overturn each other, wordy, no substance, is begging “why not?” Mayby why not is coming …
  • As noted by Schierbecker in the previous discussion, …. You’re quoting from another discussion, not the one you’re closing. Your point should have been a !vote, not a closing summary. Did participants in the discussion cite Schierbecker?
  • Your last sentence cites CONSISTENT, which was mentioned by multiple participants. The closing statement would do better to comment on how many participants cited CONSISTENT and how strong their points were.
  • You cited “the multi-move discussion”. This should be linked.
SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Paine? Too concise? Please check the meaning of concise versus brief. Concise is a good quality, which is not the same as brief. Concise means the necessary information has been stated in a minimum of words. This close was not "too concise". It was "too brief". It was so brief that it looks like any closer can come along and close arbitrarily. -- SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
:>) Semantics? My own NC closes are usually a tiny bit more precise and explanatory. But for decisive consensus to move or not move, unless the outcome is outside the box, my closes have usually been about as brief as this one. My closes should probably be reviewed more often – guess I've been lucky? ;>) (gotta go, I've a Dr's appt.) P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse (involved). SmokeyJoe did point out the "no consensus" is probably correct, so I'm not sure I see a point to overturn other than MaterialWorks (or someone else) clarifying the close? I get the reasoning behind the suggestion, but if MaterialWorks is correct (and there are endorsers who would concur with that), what does that do for the optics of their judgement in future RMs? The only other "overturns" have come from involved editors. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. I am wary that the rationale for reviewing this close is a bit shaky. It does not matter what the percentage breakdown was in the original discussion, because we do not vote. I think that stems from the practice of using the word "!vote" as a weird shorthand for something which is the opposite of a vote. When the human brains sees the word "vote," the human brain gets ready to vote. With the lack of detail in that close, it's possible that the closer counted opinions rather than weighing them. As I noted during that discussion, "appeals to emotion regarding capital letters shouldn't be given any weight. If the suggestion of 'spaghetti western' hadn't been firmly rejected by a minority of editors in the prior discussion, perhaps this one wouldn't be necessary at all." If one were to discount the personal preferences expressed, it's possible that another outcome may have been reached.~TPW 13:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Let's not conflate the undisputed fact that we do not simply count the votes to determine discussion outcomes (per WP:NOTVOTE), with the notion that counts do not matter at all. The distribution of opinions should always be a consideration, not completely ignored. In this case the 60/40 distribution does not determine the outcome, but it should be a consideration, especially since the 60 side had strong policy-based arguments. Nothing shaky about that at all. --В²C 16:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What does the "Support" expressed by TPW mean? Is that an "Endorse"? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think I’ve found a second root cause for this mess.
The first is that the push for decapitalisation should have been made at Western (genre), which will not involve RM. RM has been misused to push MOS development sidestepping the root article.
The second is that User:BD2412 mis-closed Talk:List of Western subgenres#Requested move 12 July 2023. That was not a “no consensus to move” but a “consensus to not move”. Going for the weaker “no consensus” opened the door for the unsatisfied lowercase proponents to pursue their battle in other, more obscure, places.
SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: There is a very clear absence of consensus in favor of the move proposed in the previous discussion, but certainly not a clear consensus in opposition to any such move in this field. BD2412 T 22:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That statement is true. I think there was a rough consensus to not move. The proponents (MOS MOS MOS!) faced MOS counter arguments plus non-MOS counter arguments that the proponents didn’t answer. The discussion ran its course. Unfortunately, many read “no consensus” as an invitation to try again. They went somewhere else and didn’t sufficiently tie back to the recent failure. Your words “no consensus to move at this time” implies that a consensus may be found at a random different time.
You didn’t summarise why consensus wasn’t found, and that is a root cause for quickly repeated non-productive discussions in increasingly obscure places that are hoped to show a image of consensus due to the other side being exhausted.
If the MOS proponents are right, and not hypercorrecting, then they should fix Western (genre). SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Archives, by year and month
Year 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

See also Edit