Wikipedia:Move review

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

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 and RfDs can only be reviewed here if the relevant discussion was limited in scope to renaming; CfDs or RfDs involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Instructions

Initiating move reviews

Editors desiring to initiate a move review should follow the steps listed below. In the reason parameter, editors should limit their requests to one or both of the following reasons:

Editors initiating a move review discussion should be familiar with the closing instructions provided in WP:RMCI.

Steps to list a new review request

 
1.

Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the 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.

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=26 October 2026}}. 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/2026 October}}
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

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

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.

Alternatively, the opener of a move review can withdraw it if and only if unanimous opposition is obvious or the discussion has not had any comments yet. A review that was initiated via block evasion may be closed at any time.

Also, add a result to the {{move review talk}} template on the talk page where the original discussion took place, e.g. {{move review talk|date=April 24 2015|result=Closure endorsed}}.

Typical move review decision options

The following set of options represent the typical results of a move review decision, although complex 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 decisionRM closer's decisionMove review closed asStatus of RM after MRV close
1. EndorseMoved / Not movedNo action requiredClosed
2. Overturn Not movedOption 1: (If RM consensus is unclear or significantly divided) Reopen and relist RMOpen
Option 2: (If consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RMClosed
MovedMove title back to pre-RM title, and reopen and relist RM if appropriateOpen
3. RelistMoved / Not movedReopen and relist RM and if moved, move title back to pre-RM titleOpen

 

Notes

  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

2026 October

NBT Bank Arena (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
NBT Bank Arena (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

I believe that this discussion was closed before a consensus was truly established (WP:BADNAC). Additionally, the closer cited me in their rationale, but I believe, at least from my perspective, that they misinterpreted what my actual viewpoint was. (Note: here is a more direct link to the discussion I left on the closer's talk page. Red0ctober22 (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

  • Endorse (uninvolved). The discussion probably should have been closed as "no consensus" rather than "not moved," but that's splitting hairs. The discussion was already open for two weeks so there was no need to relist it for a second time. And for anyone who shouts BADNAC (in general, not just this discussion), note that "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" per WP:MRNOT. Jessintime (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist (uninvolved) WP:BADNAC where the opposes were extremely weak and counted over the stronger support argument, essentially ignoring WP:NOTAVOTE. It was no consensus at best, and could've been relisted once or twice more to establish a stronger consensus, which it still ought to be. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:21, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
    Sorry, was busy and forgot to check, and, I am aware of WP:NOTAVOTE. I did not believe the support argument was as strong as claimed. Robloxguest3 (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist (uninvolved). No clear rationale for the finding of consensus. As Zxcvbnm notes above, the support argument was stronger—in particular, note the replies to Conyo's oppose, raising a substantive counterargument against the source analysis used to justify an oppose. A no-consensus close would have been arguable, but I think outright consensus against moving is outside of the range of plausible readings of the discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:31, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Overturn due to the closer failing to respond at User talk:Robloxguest3/Disputed moves#Your closure of the NBT Bank Arena move discussion. Closers are subject to WP:ADMINACCT, if you can’t do that, don’t close discussions, certainly not contested discussion.
    It is appropriate to review the conduct of the closer at MRV.
    Overturn for someone else to close. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
    True, but if you think about it, even if you think you have time, sometimes life has other plans and you get busy all of the sudden. Robloxguest3 (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Closer comment reading the discussion, I was wrong. Of course. Don't know what I was thinking. Please close this move review. trout Self-trout Robloxguest3 (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.

Whale tail

Whale tail (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

I believe that the no consensus close of the discussion was a WP:BADNAC. While I brought up my concerns on the user's talk page, they were unresponsive. My concern is that the discussion could have still been relisted again multiple times and wasn't, there was no need to close it right away assuming there was in fact no consensus. I also believe the oppose arguments were weaker and refuted, which the closure did not acknowledge. Discussions are not a vote and the merits of the arguments must be considered. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:27, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  • Weak reopen. In terms of general principles, I don't think the closer did anything wrong. Based on the content of the discussion at that time, I view "no consensus" as a reasonable read of the discussion; additionally, WP:RMRELIST advises us to usually avoid relisting discussions more than once, so I don't think the closer inherently erred by closing the discussion rather than relisting a second time. My concern is mainly that the discussion was still reasonably active at the time of closing—there were comments from multiple users just three hours before the closure. In these circumstances, I think it would have been better to let the discussion sit another day or two and see if the latest comments helped swing consensus in one direction or the other, rather than closing it right away. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:56, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
    Shifting to endorse given the passage of time. Reopening a recently closed RM may help ongoing strands of discussion be explored more fully, but the longer a discussion has been closed, the more stable the new status quo becomes, and the more dramatic of a change it becomes to reopen it. Like I mentioned in my original comment, I don't think the closer erred in their read of the discussion that existed at the time; my concern was just that they had been too quick to find a lack of consensus while the discussion was ongoing. However, the longer the RM sits closed, the less likely it becomes that participants will be able to productively pick up and continue the same discussion they had been carrying out pre-closure, and so the less is gained by reopening the discussion. In the wake of this shift, I think it's now better to let the no-consensus result sit. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:10, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
    I find the idea that the outcome of a discussion should change just because we spent too long deciding what it should be unreasonable. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Archive

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2026 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2025 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

See also