Wikipedia talk:Move review/Archive 2018

Supervote MR closes

The last two closes at WP:MR are WP:Supervotes. The last because the closer implements her unilateral opinion not supported by anyone else in the discussion. The second last because he throws in a opinion not reflecting consensus evident in the discussion, aka judicial activism. This is a worry. Note that a supervote does not mean the facts of the closing statement are wrong, but that the closer has stated something that is not a reading of consensus from the discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you link the closes in question? Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

2nd last Wikipedia:Move_review#Involuntary_celibacy_(closed)

1st last Wikipedia:Move_review#Aloy_(Horizon_Zero_Dawn)_(closed)

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The Aloy one was a mess all around, I agree; fortunately the underlying question went away. You should just explain to the parties who messed up how you think they can do better in the future. I don't see what you're saying the problem is on the Incel case. Dicklyon (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Move review decisions

On the move review decision page, I suggest changing the table to this:

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 or moved	Not moved or moved	No Action Required	Closed
2. 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
3. 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
4. Relist	Not Moved	Not Moved	Reopen and relist RM	Open
5. Relist	Move to new title	Moved to new title	Move title to pre-RM title and reopen and relist RM	Open

The reason why is because the action taken on an Endorse close is the same regardless of whether the page has been moved. The don't relist decision should be removed because it is essentially the same as an endorse close.
2601:183:101:58D0:6857:8FD9:8A96:84E9 (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment What is Not moved or moved? Is it confused to other people, but I will leave other people comment. Hhkohh (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree, it is jargon, it confuses. It is not plain English. It was a bad idea added at WP:THREEOUTCOMES, and I think it needs changing. “Consensus to move”, “no consensus”, and “consensus to not move” are plain English statements. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Agree with you. BTW, the current table also has Not moved or moved. The current table is also too dull to me. Hhkohh (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Shouldn't "Move to new title" be "Move back to old title"? Also, please use lowercase ("Moved to new title", not "Moved to New Title", and "Not moved", not "Not Moved", and "No action required", not "No Action Required" and "If consensus", not "If Consensus"). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Some strikethrough above. I wasn't reading it correctly. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Based on your comments, how about changing the table to this? 2601:183:101:58D0:1D8C:72FD:CC7A:135 (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

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	Consensus to move / No consensus / Consensus to not move	Not moved / Moved to new title	No action required	Closed
2. Overturn close	No consensus / Consensus to not move	Not moved to new title	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 to new title and close RM	Open or closed as necessary
3. Overturn close	Consensus to move	Moved to new title	Move back to old title, reopen and relist RM if appropriate	Closed or open and relisted as appropriate
4. Relist	No consensus / Consensus to not move	Not moved to new title	Reopen and relist RM	Open
5. Relist	Consensus to move	Moved to new title	Move back to old title and reopen and relist RM	Open

Note:I have reverted IP changes because the discussion is not closed currently, let the discussion run at least 1 week. Hhkohh (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Non-admin closures

The instructions for closing a MRV discussion clearly say "an administrator..." throughout, which to me means that MRV discussions should not be closed by a non-admin. I am all in favour of non-admins conducting ordinary move closes, (and indeed I used to do many such myself before acquiring the mop) as this is beneficial for working throuh the backlog and helping them to build experience and track record ready for adminship. But for MRV it seems correct that it should be an admin, and preferably one very familiar with the RM process, because MRV is really the court of last appeal for move discussions and admins are those who have been explicitly endorsed by the community as having the experience and trust necessary to provide a fair and reasoned decision.

Now of course, if the MRV is open-and-shut, because the decision is unanimous and/or policy is crystal clear, it would be fine per WP:IAR for non-admins to close. But the reason I mention this is because there was a move review closed by a non-admin Winged Blades of Godric this morning, which does not seem crystal clear or unanimous. I raised several points objecting to the rationale used by those endorsing, and I think the fairest outcome would have been a relist so that I could go back and make my points about style in the RM and have them discussed fully. Instead, WBG closed as endorse, with no explanation or indication that they had read the arguments in the MRV, and even imposed a moratorium of a "considerable span of time" on what is really at best a no-consensus close. I have raised the issue on their talk page, so I hope they will reverse or reconsider their close, but I'm mentioning it here too just to get some more opinions. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Think that maybe there is more opinions come there. Hhkohh (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• I think there has been a slightly worrying rash of adventurous NAC closings of RMs that is now spilling into MRV. I think the WP:NAC articulated standards should be expected at RM the same as XfD, and that WP:RMNAC needs to be harmonized, meaning tightened, back to the WP:NAC standard. MRV closes, like DRV closes, should be even more cautiously closed. We’ve had these discussions at WT:DRV, and most feel that for the ceremony of finality, an admin is required, although notable expert nonadmin closers, namely User:S Marshall, continued to be well accepted. Admin closes carry more weight because only admins have passed the baptism of fire of RfA where ability to call a consensus is explicitly examined. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• As a former admin and occasional MRV/DRV closer, I did not stop performing these closures after becoming a non-admin. I simply avoid performing closures where their implementation requires admin tools or which seem exceptionally contentious. I've not had a closure questioned yet, even though the letter of the DRV/MRV guidelines make no mention of NACs. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 13:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This comment is about MRV NACs in general and not about this specific discussion, for the record. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 13:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• There's usually perspective problems when someone state:--the fairest outcome would have been a relist so that I could go back and make my points about style in the RM and have them discussed fully.At any case, best of wishes for the re-close of this MRV........ ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

For one, my views are pretty similar to Ben...~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: perhaps I didn't make my point very well and sounded arrogant above, but I said "so I could go back and make my points" because that's what I meant. I missed this RM, and as TonyBallioni made in his comments at the MRV, I had added some extra context to it that hadn't been made in the RM itself. Usually if it comes to light that there are points of discussion that were not made before the close, it's sensible to relist because there is no WP:DEADLINE, and the goal is to get the right result for the Wikipedia, not for individual editors to "win" or "lose" the discussion. I always accept it when the community feels a different way about something than I do, but if that happens I at least like to understand why. In this case, it seems like the discussion has settled for Kshmr as the name of the article, but for reasons that aren't obvious to me. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Failure to attempt to discuss the matter with the discussion closer

In the current MR, User:Paine Ellsworth makes some valid points about MR nominations that were launched without an attempt to discuss the matter with the discussion closer. I made some counter-points, but I think the discussion is worth continuing. It may well be beneficial sometimes to closed "procedurally close" and speedily send the nom to the closer's talk page. I think this may be a good idea when the following apply:

• The MRV nomination is not particularly persuasive, makes vague points, or asks questions appropriate to be answered informally.
• The nomination is fresh (it should be quickly done)
• The MRV nominator makes no statement that they deliberately did not follow the recommendation to discuss with the closer.

Possibly good reasons not to have a discussion with the closer may include:

• There was a post-RM discussion by others that more-or-less covered everything;
• The closer indicated that challenges should go direct to MRV.
• Any kind of interaction ban.

Where there is a good reason not to discuss the matter with the closer, it should be mentioned.

Example minimal discussions with closers are:

• Can you please elaborate on your close at talk:article. (preferably state what you don't understand)
• That close was surprising, would you mind reconsidering it? (preferably state what exactly you found surprising)

I suggest that a closer (and the closer's talk page stalkers) should be allowed at least 24 hours to respond. I'm yet to see a move review that had to be urgently listed.

I personally don't have strong feelings on this. Discussing first with the close is good WP:Etiquette, but if the MRV is already initiated, the closer can readily reply gently and informally in the MRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

An interesting question would be how often a challenge on the closer's talk page results in any sort of change of decision, and how often it results in the person querying the close being satisfied. If an MRV discussion is almost always the outcome anyway, then the discussion on the closer's page seems a superfluous step.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The reason that informal closer-talk-page discussion is advised is that the inquirer can get an answer and potential satisfaction so much quicker that way. Anyway, that's why it makes sense to me. Bypassing that step and going straight to a formal MRV means that the outcome might be delayed by several days or weeks. It seems to me that inquirers would jump at the chance to possibly get answers and satisfaction within a few hours rather than wait for an MRV to close. So it puzzles me that editors almost always seem to want to zip straight to an MRV. That's what I don't get.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's often because they see the line "Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request" in the introduction at WP:RM and come straight here, without reviewing further documentation here to understand what "contest the outcome" means in this context. I think revising the wording of the line at WP:RM might be helpful. Dekimasuよ! 21:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

That's agreeable and has been done.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  00:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Support this bold improvement. Not convinced the wording is perfect yet but definitely addresses a problem. Andrewa (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a good question. I'd suspect it would be far more commmon that a Move Review that had no chance anyway was avoided rather than that the decision was varied by the closer, but that's a guess. Of course MRs are generally raised by people who disagree with the result, so perhaps satisfied is too much to hope for. Andrewa (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• This bold improvement is probably impressive to people likely to frequent WT:MR, and few others.

Perhaps, Template:Move review links should me modified to include the link to the discussion with the closer. NB I am not much in favour that the discussion *must* be on the closer's user_talk page, often, a subsection immediately following the closed&boxed RM discussion is a better place. If it is not a question of personal understanding, but of relevance to the topic, the article talk page is where comments relevant to the topic belong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, but that's the point exactly... that discussion does not belong on the article talk page, because the merits of the move are not under discussion. That would be rediscussing the RM itself, which is explicitly what MR is not. And a perennial problem is that people try to make it that.

Modifying that template to encourage following the existing procedure sounds a better idea. Andrewa (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

To editors SmokeyJoe, Amakuru, Dekimasu and Andrewa: there is code in the {{Move review list/sandbox}} that adds two parameters, |closer= and |closer_section=, so nominators can show where they discussed the result with the closer. This would work well for the vast majority of MRs, even multiples as long as the same editor closed all the RMs. The listing would look like this:

WP:Example

WP:Example (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

(reason for this move review)

If the |closer= parameter is omitted or left blank, the listing could be same as now:

WP:Example

WP:Example (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

(reason for this move review)

Suggestions are welcome.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  18:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:Example

WP:Example (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (No discussion on closer's talk page)

(reason for this move review)

Above is an alternative example from the sandbox of a case where there was no discussion with the closer (|closer= omitted or left blank).  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

To editors SmokeyJoe, Amakuru, Dekimasu and Andrewa: please note that the sandbox has been altered. The closer info is now at the end of the links rather than at the beginning. Is that better?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  12:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Looks good. Let’s see if it works. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! If nobody objects, I'll implement in a few days.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  12:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  07:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Failure to communcate pre-MR, and speedy closing the MR

Following my post at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2018_October#Nanjing_Massacre, I think it needs follow-up here, and possible modification of the MR process.

I wrote: "... I note that the closer, В²C, agreed to a relist/re-open, and really what should have happened was a request put to him directly BEFORE this came to MR. It is bad that it came prematurely to MR. It is bad this became bogged down in MR procedure after the closer agreed to relist. How can we fix this process problem?"

In my opinion, the close was overreach (others say it was fine). An early run of opinion was for a relist/reopen. The closer even agreed with that, fairly early in his discussion. This really should be routine, an NAC borderline overreach relisted on request. The complainant then promptly makes the important points in the RM discussion.

In this case, there was no approach to the closer (that I have found). Should have the MR nomination been speedy closed on this basis, as I think User:Paine Ellsworth supports above? When the RM closer essentially agreed to the MR nominator's request, should the MR have been closed at that point? I think there was nothing left to review, but the discussion had become so heavy that I suspect the old experienced respected closers preferred to stay out of the horrid mess, if they were reading it at all. One idea I have is that the RM closer could/should request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure for the Move Review to be closed. I think:

The RM closer should have special standing to request, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, an immediate WP:Move review close for either of the two reasons:

(a) failure of the nominator to discuss the problem with the closer; or

(b) the RM closer agrees to accede to the request.

If there are no other important matters in the mix requiring resolution, the review should be closed, surely? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

If we altered the process as you suggest, I think that would encourage more unhappy editors to go straight to MR without a discussion with the closer. Is that what we want? In other words, you're talking about a remedy for a scenario (MR file without discussion with closer) that thankfully rarely occurs, but, if remedied as you suggest, would ironically probably cause such scenarios to occur more often. Unintended consequences? --В²C ☎ 00:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, do look for unintended consequences. Modify my idea. No, the idea is that it is not good to have unhappy editors go straight to MR, but for them to slow down a bit, and get things clarified. My idea here is not addressing the encouragement of editors to talk nicely and informally first, but what to do with a MR discussion that has, or is in the process of, blowing up out of control, and out of proportion. In that discussion, you appear to want to accede to the request, but no one knows what to do about it except wait for the discussion to run out of air. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• В²C, I really don't see how an WP:MR encouragement for an RM closer to do a WP:RfCl to speedy close a inappropriate/concluded MR discussion will discourage an unhappy RM participant (or not-yet-participant) from posting their problem on the closer's talk page. Maybe you could explain.

And then, even if unhappy people more routinely (NB they already do routinely) come straight to MR, is there really a big problem with this? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

To editor SmokeyJoe: I do support speedy-closing an MR that has not been pre-discussed, but only with full endorsement of the close. Anything else would foster results we do not want, as suggested by В²C. Unfortunately, it might take a few bogged down MRs for editors to learn the obvious benefits of first discussing the RM result on the closer's talk page. We do not really need to modify the process to fix this problem. We just need to find good, effective ways to enforce the process as it now exists. Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  07:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid, User:Paine Ellsworth, I don't understand you response either. Surely, encouraging the RM closer to take responsibility to as for the close of a premature MR *is* an important part of enforcing the "ask the closer first" step? And I have no idea why you would think that past bogged down discussions will influence future premature MR nominations, noting that they don't come from MR regulars. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

To editor SmokeyJoe: maybe what is needed actually would be a change in the process? Suppose, rather than closing the MR, it is temporarily suspended pending discussion with the closer? Then, if that discussion results in resolution, the MR can be closed, if not, the suspension is lifted and the MR commences. Do you think that would work? Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  23:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. A slight variation is to require initiation of discussion with closer prior to opening an MR, and the consequence for failing to do so is automatic suspension of said MR (by anyone) until such discussion is attempted. Then if said discussion with closer leads to resolution then prematurely opened MR can be closed/deleted; otherwise it can be continued. --В²C ☎ 00:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose "automatic" suspension. It would be an administrative action, requiring a WP:UNINVOLVED human, and the place to ask for it is WP:RfCl. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Poor choice of word on my part. How about pre-authorized? My point is failure to contact the closer first makes that MR as subject to suspension as any unilateral edit to article content is subject to Reverting per BRD. --В²C ☎ 17:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Rather than a policy/guideline solution, as those are already quite clear, I think we should take a technical approach. I would suggest the creation of some sort of edit filter that is triggered when one files an MR (i.e. uses the MR template), which checks whether one spoke to the closer on his or her talk page, and displays a warning if one hasn't. I'm certain this can be done...similar to how such an edit filter is used for DS alerts. RGloucester — ☎ 17:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I've requested such a filter at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. If this can be done, I think it will help...someone that defies such a warning does so at their own peril... RGloucester — ☎ 01:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Another related issue is when the contested RM resulted in a move, what happens if the closer agrees to reopen/relist? Do all those moves have to be reversed? If they're not, then the re-opened RM discussion is confusing. If the move was A→B and the RM is reopened at Talk:B that's confusing. It's no big deal to reverse the move if the move in question involved only one article (and its talk page), but perhaps there are several dozen subtopics too. Then what? --В²C ☎ 00:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this the correct place to request a review of a category move?

I'm trying to decide the correct location to request the review of a category move. WP:DRV and WP:MR have both been suggested. I would think this is the correct location but it seems this is for articles not categories. Any help would be appreciated. Springee (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Note well that neither reviews the actual move so much as the closing descision and maybe a check on the process around the discussion.

If no deletion occurred, or should have occurred, WP:DRV might be less receptive. WP:Move review in theory should be receptive to a category retiring decision issue, but it may be a very good idea to advertise at WT:CfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Here is the situation. A category was moved based on a 4:0 consensus but with very limited notification. I was only aware of this after the CfM was closed. I opened a follow up CfM with wider advertisement and participation. It resulted in a no consensus closing. Based on that I believe the original closing was flawed based on insufficient community input. The evidence being to the no consensus when a wider audience was notified. I'm just not sure which Venus handles this sort of question. When you say advertise at CfD, do you mean post there after starting a discussion here or do you mean ask this same location question there? Springee (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Advertise at WT:CfD any formal category discussion.

For practice, why don’t you go to Wikipedia:Move_review#World_Heritage_site and help build a consensus on the question being reviewed. It is similar to your cars automobiles question. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd definitely say request review at WP:DRV. WP:MRV is a relatively newer process solely to review closes of WP:RMs while DRV is for "disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions" which covers any discussions at WP:CFD. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 26#Category:Cars?

Not a deletion discussion, but a rename discussion, so a request for review should go to WP:MR.

Have you read and followed the advice at WP:RENOM? I advise you to read it slowly. That CfD was a quite defensible “no consensus”, neither DRV nor MR would overturn it, and starting from the CfD you look to be WP:badgering. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I'm not trying to dispute the Nov 19th conclusion. I agree with it. My concern is the Oct 22nd closing [[1]] that moved the category from Automobiles to Cars. It involved just 4 editors and no effort to notify impacted articles/projects. My assertion is that the consensus of just 4 editors didn't reflect a wider consensus based on the second CfM. I was told I picked the wrong venue the first time ie I should have just asked for a name change review. However, then, just as now I don't know the correct venue for the discussion. Springee (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

At DRV I would !vote “speedy close, no deletion issue”. At MRV I would !vote “Endorse, wait six months and then consider trying again”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, when I get a chance in the next few days I will open a discussion here. Springee (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

MR does not do consider CFDs, only RMs. Not once in its history has it ever reviewed a CfD. It's right in the header of the page. Go to DRV. RGloucester — ☎ 06:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Nothing was deleted and this never involved a CfD. Springee (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

This never involved a CfD? The 22 October discussion was a CfD, as was the newer one. RGloucester — ☎ 16:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed CfD was category for deletion. Regardless, this was a move so this appears to be the place. Please stop bludgeoning every discussion. Springee (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that anything opened here will be speedily closed. WP:DRV is the venue for categories. Look at the move review page, read the instructions. Only reviews of WP:RMs are done here. RGloucester — ☎ 19:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

User:RGloucester has repeated this a few times in a few places. I disagree. WP:MR is very well suited to host a review of a category rename discussion and close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Whether it is suited or not is a different question from the one I was answering. It may well be suited to do so, but up until now, never has, and the WP:MR page clearly states that its purview is restricted to WP:RMs. Look through the archives. DRV has always held reviews for CfD discussions, including those that do not result in deletion. You can see that at least as far back as 2006 (one example - Category:Limited-access roads), this has been the case. I agree that this is a bit strange, but that's how the system works at present. Feel free to propose a change to that system. Until such a change comes into effect, DRV is the correct venue for reviewing CfD closings. RGloucester — ☎ 21:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I think, moving forward, category rename discussions not involving deletion, needing review, should go to WP:MR. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with SmokeyJoe, any CFD that involves a rename should go to MR, since its the same as a RM. DR is for deletions and merges/redirecting. Likewise I'd suggest that RFDs that don't involve deletion should go to MR (example). I think CFD kept renames in because the same bots deal with them as do the deletions/merges. With RFD a redirect can only point to 1 target so in the example of Beds it is over the target then MR deals better with that. If and AFD resulted in a rename (other than one to user/draftspace or to widen the scope of the page) then I'd say MR would be a better venue, although searching for AFDs that have been closed as move doesn't show any. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe and Crouch, Swale: I understand the rationale, and the idea appeals to me as well, but how do we avoid future debates about the appropriate venue based on the degree to which a discussion does or does not involve deletion? To what extent does deletion have to be discussed or supported at CfD, in order for the venue to shift from MR to DRV, and who will decide each time? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Black Falcon. If the discussion touched on the question of deletion, got to DRV, if deletion was not on the cards (i.e. rename only), it is not for DRV.

I don't think it is matter of great consequence, but DRV is "deletion review", and it should be for discussion resulting in deletion, or that arguably should have resulted in deletion. This is similar to what the essay Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection was written for, on the issue of whether "merge and redirect" results at AfD should have their challenges entertained at WP:DRV, where I maintained, and others agree, the answer was "no" if the issue didn't involve deletion. Pseudo-deletion by redirection marks the line where DRV is the venue for review.

Generally, DRV is the highest level venue for questions of content, and its high importance is tempered by the narrowness of the core question, to delete, or not to delete. Whether a category is titled "cars" or "automobiles" really is not critical question for Wikipedia, even if the strength of opinions voiced might seem to imply otherwise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

With CFD generally if it involves a {{Cfd}}, {{Cfm}}, {{Cfs}} or a {{Cfl}} then its a question of deletion. If its a {{Cfr}} then its the move process. With RFD it can be more complicated in that there may be discussion on both retargeting and deletion. However maybe to avoid complication we should just keep things as they are. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I intend to open a formal RfC on whether to expand the scope of MR. RGloucester — ☎ 21:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)