Wikipedia:Move review

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
"WP:MR" redirects here. For move requests, see Wikipedia:Requested moves. For the use of "Mr."/"Mrs."/Ms" in articles, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Subsequent use.
Formal review processes
For RfCs, community discussions,
and to review closes of other reviews:
Administrators' noticeboard

For bot-related matters:
Bots noticeboard

Evaluating consensus before closing:
Discussions for discussion


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]
Shortcut

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]
Shortcut

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

  • [Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because [explain rationale here] in closing this requested move discussion.
  • [Closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: [identify information here] and the discussion should be reopened and relisted.

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

Steps to list a new review request

[edit]
 
1.

Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page. Move review is a process that takes several days, sometimes weeks, to close. On the closer's talk page, you can probably resolve the matter much more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full, formal move review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, and you decide to request a review of the closure, please note in the review that you did first try discussing the matter with the closer. 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=21 October 2025}}. 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/2025 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

[edit]
Shortcut

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.

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]

Twitter

[edit]
Twitter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

The closure of the October 2025 requested move concerning Twitter → X (social network) should be overturned because it did not comply with Wikipedia’s move-discussion policies and practices.

1. Improper reliance on an undeclared and then self-declared “moratorium.” Wikipedia’s move process is governed by WP:RM and WP:CONSENSUS. Neither policy authorizes an administrator or closer to unilaterally impose a “moratorium.” A moratorium is not a recognized procedural status under RM policy. When the community occasionally agrees informally to defer further RMs, that must result from an explicit consensus among participants (see WP:CONSENSUS, § Determining consensus). In this case, no such discussion or agreement occurred.

2. Lack of consensus cannot be presumed to create a waiting period. Prior speedy closes (e.g., August 2025) cannot be treated as establishing consensus for a moratorium. A speedy close for procedural reasons is not a substantive decision on the merits and therefore cannot generate a binding waiting period (see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, ¶1; WP:RMCI, “Closures without discussion”). The August close prevented any community discussion, so the October request was the first opportunity in months for editors to present new sourcing and evidence.

3. The October request was procedurally valid under WP:RM. WP:RM provides that any editor may file a new requested move if new evidence or arguments exist. The October request included updated, objective data about how reliable sources refer to the subject. Nothing in WP:RM sets a fixed cooldown period between RMs.

4. Premature speedy close without discussion violated WP:RM and WP:ADMINACCT. Closers are expected to evaluate consensus based on discussion. Closing within hours and on the basis of a self-declared moratorium deprived the community of the opportunity to comment, contrary to the expectation that RMs remain open at least seven days. Administrative discretion must be exercised in line with community consensus, not in place of it (see WP:ADMINACCT).

5. Ongoing discussion indicates the absence of a settled consensus. The Twitter Talk page continues to host repeated debates about whether to move the article, even during the purported moratorium. The frequency of these requests and the volume of related discussion show that there is no stable consensus either for retaining the current title or for suspending further discussion. Treating the subject as under moratorium despite active, recurring debate is inconsistent with how Wikipedia normally handles high-profile, unsettled naming issues.

6. Remedy sought. The close should be overturned. The requested move should be reopened and allowed to run for the normal discussion period so that editors can evaluate the evidence and determine consensus under the standard WP:RM procedures.

7. Disclosure and Context.

I am the editor that made the October 2025 move request. The closer of the October 2025 request also closed the August 2025 request. It is not clear to me whether the same closer closing a subsequent request to enforce that closer’s own self-declared moratorium constitutes a conflict of interest per Wikipedia policies, but I thought it worth noting.

Dustinscottc (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - Was this Move Review request composed using the assistance of artificial intelligence? I was about to write to overturn the moratorium and list the Requested Move, but I am first asking whether artificial intelligence was used. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I used artificial intelligence to format the text, since I find Wikipedia’s formatting, templates, etc. pretty infuriating. But the argument and the vast majority of the text is substantially my own. Dustinscottc (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this request was composed with the assistance of artificial intelligence, I will file a Move Review request. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn any moratorium, and
  • List a new Requested Move. The only issue is whether there is a valid moratorium in effect. I don't see a community consensus to impose a moratorium. If the discussion in March had shown a consensus for a moratorium, it would have run for six months to September and would have lapsed, but there wasn't discussion in March of a moratorium, and the closing admin at the time did not mention a moratorium. The moratorium appears to have been imposed in August, after a snowball closure rather than a full discussion. The closing and reclosing admin says that there is a procedure to overturn a moratorium, and is indicating that the procedure is Move Review, so here we are, not to review a move closure, but to review a moratorium on move requests, and it doesn't look like there was a consensus for a moratorium.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse the moratorium, declared at Talk:Twitter#Requested move 9 August 2025, on that day. A moratorium to last until 9 February 2026. Repeated RM discussions are not productive. From the talk page header:
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
Other discussions:
SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the last two RMs,
There is clearly consensus against the move, and the standard waiting time to re-test consensus is six months. The 9 August 2025 was too soon, SNOW opposed, and formalising the standard six months was the correct thing to do.
The role of administrator includes shutting down time-wasting discussions. User:Timrollpickering Was correct to do this, and correct to shut down the next too soon time-wasting RM. - SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. « uninvolved » We have to agree with the RM closer, editor Timrollpickering, and with editor SmokeyJoe above (thank you SJ, that looks like a lotta work). Excellent closure! Let the moratorium stand and move requesters should be trouted or worse. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 23:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    SmokeyJoe just copied and pasted the running tally that is on the article’s talk page, so I don’t think that required a lot of work. I’d be interested to know what other articles have placed a moratorium on RMs for effectively ten months when there is no stable consensus and a consistent failure to reach a consensus. Dustinscottc (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A talk page search would yield discussions where a moratorium is either in place or was or is being considered. I got more than 1600 results. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 01:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn’t answer my question. I’m aware that sometimes editors will declare a moratorium on RMs, but I asked about the circumstances. This is before we get to the bigger issue, which is, whether such a thing happens, should it happen? Is there any principled basis in policy for shutting down discussion when there is a failure to reach a consensus? Or (as is my view of the situation) does this practice amount to stonewalling and gaming consensus? Dustinscottc (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your question was "what other articles have placed a moratorium on RMs for effectively ten months when there is no stable consensus and a consistent failure to reach a consensus."? and I responded to you with the best help I could think of. So sorry if it fell short. Let me know if you find an answer. As for the rest, yes there are times when further discussion becomes disruptive due to editors not being able to drop the stick. Then other editors get cranky and grumpy while the whole situation deteriorates into a series of train wrecks. Good editors have learned to discern when this has happened as opposed to when it has not happened, and instead stonewalling and gaming the system is evident. Hope this helps! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 02:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, some times people can’t drop the stick, but that’s not what’s happening with the X/Twitter article. The entire controversy depends on facts that are constantly evolving, which requires periodic evaluation. Speed closing an RM and simultaneously declaring a moratorium without any community input as to whether and how long to implement it is stonewalling a legitimate, necessary discussion. Then acting as though the moratorium process has any official imprimatur requiring an appeal process—as opposed to what it actually is, which is a practice that some editors choose to follow—only magnifies the inherent problems with shutting down discussion in this manner. Dustinscottc (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's true that whether or not to go for or against a moratorium is a voluntary choice by editors, it's also true that to use a formal move request to challenge an existing, valid moratorium is disruptive. And how much more disruptive is it to take the closure of such a requested move to MRV? This review should be speedy-closed with multiple trouts for the whacking. Hopefully, it's a learning experience for those who just cannot drop the stick. I've been whacked a time or two myself. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 11:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How else is a moratorium supposed to be challenged? The closer in this case explicitly said that move review is the way to challenge it. It’s a good encapsulation of my point that moratorium is improper to begin with. It’s not a formalized process, and pretending like it is leads to further time wasting. Dustinscottc (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A moratorium is invoked for a specific reason: discussion has become too unwieldy to continue, and a waiting period is necessary so that editors who want change can strengthen their args. To challenge a moratorium is in my opinion exactly what leads to further waste of time. There is no deadline, so rather than challenge a moratorium, one should be patient and wait until it expires. An invoked moratorium is very rare and is only used on the most globally contentious subjects. I know I might as well be talking to a wall. You are convinced you are justified, and no amount of friendly urging will convince you otherwise. The pity is that even admins tend to give in and overturn such excellent closures. Why? That's easy. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. I guess I just got used to it after awhile, yet it's still a pity. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 15:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Set aside whether it has occurred in this case, but would you acknowledge that a moratorium at least could be used to stonewall? If that’s true, wouldn’t it be better to challenge such a stonewalling moratorium? Your view is untenable Dustinscottc (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, in fact I think that the disruptive challenge of a moratorium is an egregious form of stonewalling. That's all I'm going to say; I'm done with this except to repeat that endorsement of this valid and excellent closure is the only way this should end. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 22:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m at a complete loss for how engagement in the discussion is stonewalling but forced disengagement from the discussion is not. Declaring as much while citing an article that begins that stonewalling is a refusal to communicate baffles me. Dustinscottc (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll answer one more implied question. I'm not surprised that you're "at a complete loss" and so baffled, since as expected, you didn't quote the complete first sentence of the stonewalling article:
Stonewalling is a refusal to communicate or cooperate.
Not every refusal to communicate or to cooperate is stonewalling, of course. Refusal to cooperate with other editors by waiting for the moratorium to time itself out is a prime example of the stonewalling refusal to cooperate. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 00:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) this has been discussed ad nauseam, the same arguments brought up and rehashed over and over, and it doesn't look like the consensus on the matter is going to change in the short term. The moratorium is perfectly fine and saves editor time that would have otherwise been spent on fruitless discussion. JavaHurricane 04:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the moratorium and relist (uninvolved). Moratoriums need community consensus and can't just be imposed by an admin acting unilaterally—see Vanamonde93's closure at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 February#1948 Palestinian exodus for a good explanation of this. In this case the community might very well support a moratorium, as it did last year, but that's a conversation for the talk page. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The close and moratorium you link was a non-admin contentious “no consensus” close attempting to impose an extraordinary 12 month moratorium. The standard moratorium following “no consensus” is two months. That one was not ok. This one is textbook ok. True, the 2-month / 6-month standard moratorium are not written into policy, but they have been standard and accepted for a very long time. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it standard to speedy close an RM and then impose a moratorium for a further six months, meaning that discussion is effectively shut down for ten months? It has already been more than six months since the last RM that could demonstrate consensus or lack thereof, since the one in which this closer declared a moratorium (again, without seeking input before doing so) was only up for a few hours. Dustinscottc (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a standard expectation that you wait six months following a consensus close of an RM. It is not standard to announce this. The default moratorium is subject to being overridden by significant new information. Where there is a history of RMs lacking new information from one to the next, and where repeat RMs have become disruptive (a subjective call) it is common for an admin to declare a moratorium, of the standard six months, and this can be endorsed by speedy closing of a too soon next RM.
    I’m not sure where the ten months comes from.
    Moratoria of other, longer, durations need to be agreed in discussion. I think this happened with New York.
    Where previous RMs resulted in repeated “no consensus”, the default and accepted moratoria are less clear, not standard, and I suggest two months should be the default. Others have disagreed. However, it is for the admin to decide, which they do cause by case.
    One argument in favour of moratoria is that edits should use the time to prepare a comprehensive new nomination, discouraging knee-jerk same-again nominations. Another is that the RM audience gets bored and annoyed with too-frequent repeat RMs.
    - SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian genocide accusation (closed)

[edit]
  • Palestinian genocide accusation – my decision is to endorse original close, but relist – yes there are more supports than opposes in the original discussion, but I personally find the opposes slightly more convincing (the supports sometimes stray into political opinions, WP:NPOV) and WP:NOTAVOTE applies in any event. Therefore I think the original close as 'no consensus' is fine. However, the consensus below is that the matter should be re-listed, which we will do for a further 7 days. Unless more convincing arguments one way or the other emerge, I suspect it will be re-closed with the same 'no consensus' result. GiantSnowman 11:00, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Palestinian genocide accusation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

I believe there was consensus to move the page. The number of editors supporting the move was significantly greater than those opposing it, and most supporting comments cited relevant Wikipedia policies. However, the closer simply stated that “many support arguments are strong; however, the oppose rationales are much stronger and policy-based,” without explaining why the opposing arguments were stronger or identifying which specific policies informed that assessment. I asked the closer for clarification on their talk page, but the explanation remained the same.

Given the substantial participation and the fact that both sides presented policy-based arguments, a bare assertion that the opposes were “much stronger and policy-based” does not, in my view, provide an adequate rationale for a complex and high-profile RM discussion.

Because this is a contested and high-visibility topic, the discussion could reasonably have been allowed to continue for the full 30 days before closure.


Requested remedy :Overturn to **relist** (or reopen) for further discussion, or overturn to a **re-close with an expanded, policy-specific rationale** by an uninvolved closer that explicitly weighs the principal arguments and explains why one side outweighed the other in this case. Cinaroot (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


  • Overturn unless if closer gives a more thorough explanation - (uninvolved) actually reading through the args, I think no consensus is probably a valid outcome, and the close is almost good enough. However, the closer needs to give more information about why, as well as advice on why the move failed and how a future one could work? The close includes the line that the oppose argument is self-evident, but enough folks voted support that it clearly is not without spelling it out. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also think editors should be continued to debate for at least 30 days since it’s a highly contested topic. Unless the consensus is not going to change - it can be closed Cinaroot (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's the rule for RfCs. RMs "are typically processed after seven days". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, a similar move request for Gaza genocide ran for over two months (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1232356978#Requested_move_3_May_2024). Allowing at least 30 days for discussion here would ensure broader participation and a more comprehensive range of arguments on what is clearly a highly contested topic. Cinaroot (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist (involved) as inadequate summary for a strong majority to swallow, not as helpful as it should be based on result provided. If there is no consensus with such weighting of !votes there always needs to be a more substantial summary. Not providing a more thorough summary due to concern over being accused of a supervote[1] is a reason to avoid making closes altogether, if a closer does not have the stomach for that; it's not a good reason for omitting such a thorough summary, and then delaying in providing one only after a review is opened. This is therefore a waste of move review if the closer was willing to revert due to an inadequate summary, while also providing the summary too late to be able to amend the close.[2] As a heads up to any unaware closers out there, always assume a disgruntled participant is requesting you revert your close or will head to move review, this should be self-explanatory and should not require spelling out. As involved, I'm not going to !vote for overturned here (though not opposed either), and believe this review should realistically be procedurally closed after reverting by the seemingly willing closer. Ideally the closer is still willing to revert and we can move on. CNC (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @CNC I can't help but point out that irony of you !voting for a relist here when you requested this discussion be closed. [3] One should be forgiven for thinking your only reasoning for !voting that way is because the discussion did not result in the outcome you !voted for. estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically I mean "relist" without the "relist" bit, ie just let someone else close it without the need for a full review here, but it looks like we're past the point of self-reversion anyway so nevermind. I don't necessarily believe the wrong decision was made, however it's not clear based on the current close, so I wouldn't like to judge (also per involved). Otherwise don't worry the irony is not lost, that's why I didn't !vote to overturn; I have no issues with this being properly closed, so one is rightfully forgiven. Fortunately the irony won't be lost on any involved participants endorsing or overturning either, when it's a reflection of their original !vote, such as this double irony scenario you have presented. Also common place in these move reviews tbf, minus the multi-layered irony, so no judgement. Why this hasn't been split into Involved/Uninvolved participants yet is questionable. Edit: Also needs ARBPIA notice, one that references the 1,000 word limit if it exists, since this is a formal discussion. Better sooner than later. CNC (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) Closure was requested, here. It seems that the nominator does not understand that requested move discussions only last 7 days by default, not 30 days like RfCs. Additionally, the vast majority of support !votes did not cite policy and simply cited the rationales of other editors, namely the nominator, Cinaroot, and @Jason Macker, the latter of whom did not reference any policy in their comment. The nominator opines that WP:NPOV does not require us to equally weigh denialist or minority view (sounds incredibly like WP:POVPUSHING to me) and provides no evidence to suggest what the majority and minority viewpoints are. Other supporters simply provided POV-based comments, such as The systematic decades long killing of Palestinians is no doubt a genocide and This is not correct, as a roughly equal, if not greater, amount of scholars and reliable sources consider the Palestinian genocide to be a real genocide. The closer was correct to disregard these comments and consequentially their !votes as lacking basis in-policy. Of course, some editors did raise justifiable WP:CONSISTENT and WP:CONCISE arguments, which I think it would have been appropriate for the closer to at least acknowledge. However, the overall idea of the oppose !voters seems to be that framing the title as "genocide" without sources (a failure of WP:VERIFIABILITY) is a WP:NPOV violation. In my opinion, the closer very appropriately weighed these two policy-based opinions. While support for the move may have had more !votes, the concerns of those opposed (myself among them) are simply too great. In summation, I agree with the closer's assessment that the oppose !voters policy basis was stronger, though perhaps not much stronger. --estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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. Cinaroot (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read my comment? I barely mentioned my opinion. "Rehashing the discussion" means to remake your argument, which I did not do. Rather, I summed up the contents of the discussion and gave my analysis as to whether the closer was correct. This is exactly the point of move review. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not the closer. You are an involved editor. You are trying to provide a rationale for the closure. The issue here is that the closer didn't close the move correctly as they didn't explain the rationale. The closer themselves is open to relist and withdraw their close. It needs to be relisted or admin or editor with experience to close it. That’s it. Cinaroot (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (uninvolved) This is a WP:BADNAC. This is a highly contentious discussion that was not suitable for a non-administrator like PE to close. It should be left to be closed by an admin or if possible by a panel of admins. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - this is a strong case for Overturn . i didn't know about this. Cinaroot (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly disagree with this theory. It was a WP:RMPMC which should be as good as. CNC (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not for highly contentious topics like the Israel-Palestine topic, especially as charged a move request as this. This is the kind of contentious move request that really requires an admin to give a proper, thorough close that properly addresses the arguments made in the discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wiki policies often conflict each other. I think WP:BADNAC clearly supersedes. Cinaroot (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The rule at RM is that "any experienced and uninvolved editor in good standing may close any RM debate". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Im not disputing that - i'm saying this close ( contentious ) require's an admin touch. Cinaroot (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Each to their own. I'd trust an experienced page mover over an inexperienced admin any day of the week (no offence intended to newbie admins here), and the closer is not short on experience either. Whether the close is any good is a different topic. BADNAC is an essay, as is RMCLOSE, there is no superseding to be done here. CNC (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to go go off-topic. How exactly can an admin be inexperienced? They are elected by the community after a vetting process. Yes they can mistakes - but they represent the best of Wikipedians. Cinaroot (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins don't have experience at RM by default whereas page movers do have this. Also as a reference point. I otherwise wish they all did represent the best of Wikipedians I agree. CNC (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe WP:RMPMC rights can be granted by any administrator, whereas administrators must go through a community vetting process. Not commenting on any individual's competency/suitability, but worth noting that they are not the same. إيان (talk) 07:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and re-close (uninvolved). Maybe the outcome is right and maybe it's wrong, but closers have to be able to articulate why they gave the !votes the weight they did. We don't have that here, either in the closure or in the talk page follow-up—just an unexplained assertion that one side's arguments were stronger. As for I did not go into detail in my closing statement, because almost every time I do so, I am accused of casting a "supervote", I continue to think the first sentence of this comment is the only fair response. Giving an adequate explanation isn't optional. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Extraordinary Writ Is there a way to request input from uninvolved, experienced administrators or editors? I don’t think it’s appropriate for editors involved in this dispute to participate in the voting here. Cinaroot (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of uninvolved editors who watch these sorts of discussions, several of whom have already commented. Involved editors are allowed to participate, but since everyone has to disclose whether they're involved, the closer can factor all of that in when evaluating consensus. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (involved), I believe that a longer debate period would help strengthen consensus. People are saying that RMs don't last that long, and yeah, that's for most RMs. Most RMs are not about topics of such a large scale, large pertinence to our time period, and so contentious. I believe more debate would help avoid further conflict (we can always WP:IAR and the Gaza genocide RM has set such a precedent in Palestinian topics). The closer did not explain their reasoning at all, one can expect even the most WP:SNOW of WP:MfDs to have better summaries, obviously this is not such a light case, with it being much more debated and much more divisive. Competence is required, and this closure wasn't made very competently. Also, some sufficient time should be provided to do reviews of what reliable sources say about the genocide, that time was not provided. Even though the nominator should've had a summarized table of what sources say, they did not. I myself was going to nominate the PGA article to be moved to Palestinian genocide but I decided to wait to compile the views or sources first. If this is closed now, a moratorium will be set in place for 6 months which is absolutely unfair because the arguments were quite closely matched and a clear policy-based consensus was not yet reached.
If this is not overturned then I would insist on not having a moratorium. Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 21:07, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved), I was in the process of closing this discussion, actually. Despite numerical majority, discussions are closed based on the strength of policy-based arguments, especially in a context like this one, and not vote count. Opposing side makes a stronger case that the article's scope is broader than Gaza, and reliable sources do not support labelling the entire history as "Palestinian genocide". Supporters' consistency arguments are valid, but they don't overcome the NPOV/precision concerns. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. « uninvolved closer of RM » I do thank very much the endorsers of this RM closure! I read the move request again and, while I mentioned on my talk page the strong, policy-based oppose args of NPOV, PRECISE and that the current title is as CONCISE as it possibly should be, the "concise" rationale was instrumental in my decision. Several opposers mentioned that the proposed title is too narrow compared with the much wider scope of the article. That was a deal breaker. While the strong oppose args did not warrant a firm "not moved" decision, they did allow for a reasonable "no-consensus" one in line with the closing instructions. That also lets editors pursue other suggested titles much sooner, such as "Palestinian genocide allegations" and "Palestinian genocide question". Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 11:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved). Textbook case of WP:NOTAVOTE. A substantial majority voted to move, yet their arguments were so weak and ungrounded in policy that it would be possible to overturn to not moved. Most of them were rooted in the fallacy that the Gaza genocide RFC consensus means that we can state the Palestinian genocide – since 1948 or even before, against those in not only the Gaza Strip, but also Israel and the West Bank – which is a much wider scope than the Gaza Strip since 2023, which was determined to have a scholarly consensus to call it genocide in wikivoice. Here's an analysis of all the supporting votes:
    • Following the extensive RFC on the Gaza genocide, Wikipedia now recognizes the Gaza genocide as genocide WP:VOICE. If Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, then by extension it has committed genocide against Palestinians. Retaining the word "accusations" in the title is misleading, as it casts doubt where a broad consensus already exists among scholars, human rights organizations, and international bodies recognizing these actions as genocide. More cautious or qualified wording such as "accusations" can still be included within the body of the article when discussing genocide accusations in past conflicts, but the title itself should reflect the current state of reliable sources and scholarly consensus.
      Further,WP:NPOV does not require us to give equal weight to denialist or minority views. Article title should also be WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT       (from nom, Cinaroot)
      • If you actually read the article, you can see that the scope is much greater than just the Gaza genocide. There is no scholarly consensus that a 1948–present genocide has occurred against the Palestinians.
    • The only other article on Wikipedia that I could find that uses the word "accusation" in the title in a similar fashion is 2014 Santa Ana kidnapping accusation. It's not even clear why that article is given such a title. In any case, this demonstrates how rare such a title is, and I don't see a compelling reason as to why this article needs to have "accusation" in its title, especially when considering that articles such as Black genocide and Transgender genocide exist. So, I call for removal of the word "accusation" from the article's title, and thus the article be moved to Palestinian genocide. (Copy of what I wrote in the previous section above) (from JasonMacker)
      • Yes, as a WP:BARTENDER option, moving this article to a title that doesn't have "accusation" in the title may be the best option. I and several other opposers supported moving it somewhere else if not to the proposed title. The many back-and-forth replies to this vote are good arguments against this, and convincingly refute it.
    • If there is a scholarly consensus
      I would point out this is where a major contradiction occurs. Here you start framing the comparison of this page to Black genocide and Transgender genocide ones as if there exists a completely mysterious expected form the scholarly consensus would take, which seems to be, for the sake of scoring a point, denying the already self-admitted Gaza genocide as a discrete event within the overall Palestinian genocide.       (from Lumbering in thought)
      • Cdjp1 responded, There is not a scholarly consensus that there is a Palestinian genocide covering the period from the Nakba to present. which refutes every support vote in the whole discussion in fact.
    • The systematic decades long killing of Palestinians is no doubt a genocide. Supporting per aforementioned points as well (from The Rim of the Sky)
      • No evidence is given to support this, which means that it's simply an editor's opinion. The "aforementioned points" have all been refuted.
    • in view of the convincing arguments @JasonMacker and @Cinaroot have proffered. (from Scientelensia)
      • Again, no new points, ungrounded in policy, JasonMacker and Cinaroot's arguments have been refuted.
    • The next three support votes are of a very similar mold.
    • per JasonMacker & Cinaroot. The word “accusation” here is an unnecessary hedge that casts doubt. The move to Palestinian genocide aligns with policy, precedent and consistency across Wikipedia. (from Ulubatli Hasan)
      • There is doubt on whether the actual scope of the article is a genocide – in fact, the opposite view is a substantial majority. No policies have been given, and as explained above, Black genocide and Transgender genocide are different cases.
    • WP:SPADE. As Wikipedia formally recognizes the Gaza genocide it makes no sense to refer to mere "accusations". (from JJARichardson)
      • Once again, this vote focuses on the Gaza genocide, which is fundamentally different from the Palestinian genocide.
    • The aim is not to commit genocide against "Gazans", but against what Gazans are: Palestinians. If the article on genocide occurring in Gaza was moved, this one should naturally be moved as well, and even more so than that one. Also as per Cinaroot and JasonMacker. (from Yahàwotçã)
      • It is true that Gazans are Palestinians, however, a large number of Palestinians also live in Israel and the West Bank, and no one is committing genocide agains them. No policies or guidelines are cited, nor is any evidence given of the big allegation about the "aim" of Israel.
    • per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT.
      Genocides which are not entirely recognized and disputed like the Holodomor genocide, Trans genocide, Black genocide in the United States and Genocide of Uyghurs are either are the name of the page or redirect to it. The Bosnian genocide was infamously not recognized by the ICJ, but we still name the article that way. Is it correct to do this? Yes, because genocide here is the most common name, academics writing papers about such do not disambiguate it within the text, so why should we? If we are to apply WP:CONSISTENT, a page called "Palestinian genocide accusation" should contain content similar to Holodomor genocide question.
      The UN definition of genocide is comically narrow, and it was purposefully made this way to make sure things like the Bengal famine of 1943, Atrocities in the Congo Free State, etc. were not considered genocide, so we can't treat their metric as the end-all be-all of genocide metrics.
      Currently, the doubt which this page castes makes it seem like the case for a genocide against Palestinians is as trustworthy, or only marginally more, as a case for White genocide which redirects to White genocide conspiracy theory or Hindu genocide, which redirects to Persecution of Hindus or Afghan genocide, which redirects to Atrocity crimes in the Soviet–Afghan War
      Also, people are using WP:NPOV to defend the current naming. This is not correct, as a roughly equal, if not greater, amount of scholars and reliable sources consider the Palestinian genocide to be a real genocide. Therefore, this current title unnecessarily casts doubt on the Palestinian genocide, and favors Israel. If it were moved to Palestinian genocide, would it be neutral? Yes, a non-neutral name would be something like "Israeli genocide against the Palestinians". Even disregarding this, the most common and consistent name should be used, which is Palestinian genocide.       (from Easternsahara)
      • Criticisms of the UN definition of genocide notwithstanding, this support vote, which offers the only bit of evidence presented by a their side, is refuted by the replies by Cdjp1, which actually provide full evidence that the "Palestinian genocide" view is nothing more than a minority.
    • The next three supports echo the refuted votes of JasonMacker, Cinaroot, and Easternsahara.
    • per nom and WP:COMMONNAME due to the Gaza genocide. I don't see this as necessarily confirming a Palestinian genocide in wikivoice like the RfC, that would be a different story; however I do this as justifying the common name, because Palestinians are well documented within Gaza to be experiencing a genocide, which is effectively a child article of this one. Whether the entire allegation of genocide since the conflict began is accurate or not is seemingly irrelevant to article naming convention that applies. The latter can be determined via another length RfC if deemed necessary. To summarise, even a bit of genocide since 2023 is enough for a move here based on due and notable content. (from CommunityNotesContributor)
      • This still gives no evidence for "Palestinian genocide" being the common name, and does not address the NPOV concerns. It also needlessly conflates the Gaza genocide since 2023 with a historiographical framework of broader genocide since 1948.
    • This rename would make the article consistent with similar articles where there is not yet academic nor legal consensus on the accuracy of the label, such as trans genocide, Black genocide, and Native American genocide in the United States. The article can continue to note ongoing debates, but the present title format seems to be quite uncommon, only otherwise being used for the current Russo-Ukrainian war (Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War) and the current war on Gaza (previously, Gaza genocide had a title like this before being renamed). The cases where it would make sense to retain such titles, I think, are ones that are reasonably discredited, such as allegations of genocide in Donbas and allegations of genocide in the October 7 attacks as ideologically motivated, state propaganda, or contradictory to the scientific consensus that "genocides are almost invariably perpetrated by states genocides are almost invariably perpetrated by states."
      I understand that there is raised caution surrounding ongoing events, especially those aided by world powers such as the US and Russia, but each of these do have reasonably credible arguments and solid debate on the subject.       (from LaborHorizontal)
    • per nom. WP:SKYISBLUE. (from Bastun)
      • The nom's vote has been refuted, and SKYISBLUE is an essay on when to cite sources.
    • per nom. In relation to the presence of accusations of past genocide (going back to 1948) on the article, I find it would be at least appropriate to, failing this move, label the title as accusations, plural; even if it describes an overarching situation or state of affairs, the labeling of it being a single grand "accusation" is unusual by Wikipedia standards, as well as being wholly unnecessary and confusing for me, the reader. Per comments above, articles like transgender genocide exist and are not called "transgender genocide accusation(s)"; "genocide", although singular, makes much more sense to apply to contexts such as this, especially when there is large consensus as to the designation of it being considered as such. (from Theki)
      • Except that there is no large consensus. The misconception here is the misapplication of the Gaza genocide RFC consensus to call the entire scope of this article genocide. The "accusations" point is another strike against the current title of this article, which should be changed, although where, I don't know and is not the point of this discussion.
  • Thus, my analysis of the discussion is that all the supporting arguments have been convincingly refuted by the opposers. The two pieces of evidence given in support of moving the page were an ngram (refuted as evidence by Cdjp1) and a Google Scholar search which would literally include results for "Palestinian genocide accusation" within it. I believe that, considering how incredibly weak the arguments were for moving, that it would not be a stretch to overturn to not moved. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (involved) Excuse me, but what? I woke up this morning to see the RM closed, but with a result of no consensus... how? As someone who was the first to reply to the RM (as support), I think that there needs to be a review of what actually happened at the RM. First, there is an accusation that I didn't explicitly cite policy. For my initial comment, that is true, but I was directly relying on WP:CRITERIA, and because this is such a core policy with respect to article titles, I assumed that experienced editors, especially in the I/P content area, would understand what I meant when I referenced how there are few, if any, articles that use the word accusation in the title in this way. Not a single one of the editors who voted "oppose" cited the highly relevant core policy of WP:CRITERIA. In fact, when I asked one user (User:estar8806) explicitly ("Are those also statements of fact? Can you reference any Wikipedia policy that agrees with you on this? Why is there literally just one other article that uses the word "accusation" in the article title if it's so straightforward to justify having it in the title?"), they replied by stating that "And the simple fact of the matter is that consistency is a remote concern when discussing a non-neutral title." Notice the wording here. They argue that WP:CONSISTENCY, a core Wikipedia policy about article titles, is a "remote concern." What's shocking about this disregard of Wikipedia policy is that the cited policy of the editor, WP:NPOV, is a broad policy that covers all of the content of Wikipedia. Yes, of course it is relevant to choosing an article title, but the policy page Wikipedia:Article titles is clearly more specific and relevant to a move discussion. And, there is a specific section of WP:TITLE that directly discusses NPOV in titles (WP:NPOVTITLE). So, the citing of a broad policy that mostly focuses on article content rather than article titles, when there is a specific Wikipedia policy that directly covers NPOV in article titles, demonstrates an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policy. And so I articulated this in the move discussion, and... I didn't receive any replies that disagreed with me, and then the move discussion closed. In any case, let's look at all of the arguments presented by oppose voters (I can be exhaustive because there are so few of them).
  • Besides estar, the next one is by User:Chicdat. They do not explicitly cite a Wikipedia policy, although it's implied that there is no scholarly consensus for the title "Palestinian genocide." The problem with this argument is that article titles do not require a scholarly consensus, as evidenced by Transgender genocide and Black genocide. What titles should have is explained in WP:TITLE, specifically WP:CRITERIA. Notice that "scholarly consensus" is not one of the five characteristics listed. Similar to estar, this argument is primarily relying on Wikipedia policy towards content, not article titles. Scholarly consensus would be an example of WP:V. That is an important Wikipedia policy, but not directly relevant to a move discussion. We know that this is a different topic, because WP:V has a "Content policies" navigation box that lists Wikipedia:Article titles as its own entry (it's almost as though article titles are a core part of content policy that needs its own specific content policy page rather than it being sufficient to be merely covered by WP:V and WP:NPOV). So this objection, just like estar's objection, fails to cite the most important & directly relevant policy for article titles, which makes the argumentation weak.
  • User:LivinAWestLife also does not cite any policy, and it's not really clear what rationale they are presenting for their opposition. They are saying that Gaza genocide as a topic is distinct from Palestinian genocide. Yes, that is true, mainly because Gaza genocide is a subset of Palestinian genocide. But they don't explicitly make the case for why we should choose Palestinian genocide accusation over Palestinian genocide.
  • User:Cdjp1 also does not explicitly mention a policy (other than responding to the mention of NPOV by the RM initiator). Like Chicdat, they focus on scholarly consensus, which is not one of the five WP:CRITERIA for article titles.
  • Finally, User:EvansHallBear expresses their opposition by stating per estar8806 and Cdjp1. As established, neither of those editors directly cites the specific Wikipedia policy related to article titles WP:TITLE. In fact, none of the editors who voted oppose cited the most relevant Wikipedia policy. Instead, just like estar and cdjp, EvansHallBear discusses scholarly consensus.

So, here are all of the Wikipedia policies presented by contributors who stated Oppose:

  • WP:NPOV (explicitly), WP:PRECISION (explicitly), and WP:V (implicitly). Of these policies, only one of them (WP:PRECISION) is directly related to article titles. When I confronted a user and pointed out this omission, they dismissed it, calling it a "remote concern." This solves the mystery of why the closer of the RM didn't actually present the policies and arguments of the different sides of this move discussion: Because there isn't really much there.

Compare this with the policy presented by support-voting users. I cannot name every user because there are too many of them, but for involved editors, please don't think that I am leaving out your username here due to disregard:

In conclusion, this RM closure was clearly improper, and the closer did not properly cite policies and arguments presented in the RM, because, in my opinion, there wasn't really a credible case to be made that the result was no consensus, and the arguments presented by oppose-voting users clearly were limited by the fact that there were so few oppose voters, and none of them, other than estar's brief mention of WP:PRECISION, were directly related to Wikipedia's policies on article titles.--JasonMacker (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The scholarly consensus is related to COMMONNAME, and per the breakdown of the Google Scholar results, it shows that in fact "Palestinian genocide" is not a common name for any of the events discussed, bar possibly the Gaza genocide, let alone for the entirety of the period discussed in the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that were true (I disagree), the purpose of Move Review is to discuss the closure of a move discussion. Here, the issue is the policies cited by support, compounded by the numerical majority of support users, clearly were not surpassed by the policies cited by oppose users, who were fewer in number. This means that the closing user's statement that the discussion reached "no consensus" is clearly untrue, and the RM was improperly closed. The closing user did not cite any actual Wikipedia policy in their explanation, only vaguely referencing "arguments" presented by both sides. The closure should be overturned. JasonMacker (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my !vote immediately above where I refuted every supporting vote. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 16:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a move review. Refuting support votes belongs in an actual move discussion. What is being discussed here is the improper closure that failed to explain the relevant Wikipedia policies and the strengths of each view in the RM. JasonMacker (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a general reminder that each participant here is limited to 1,000 words, excepting quotes and citations. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse - I have no clue how you close this as anything but "no consensus" when there's very obviously, uhh, no consensus here. Red Slash 17:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You sound like the closer. Big words - no explanations. This vote should be discarded. Cinaroot (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Consensus" is a big word to you? Dang man Red Slash 16:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really happy with the notion of overturning a closure merely because the closing statement was insufficient; outcome is what we should be looking at. MRV shouldn't be used as a bureaucratic slap on the wrist for closers whose closing statements are too brief.
  • Reading through the discussion, I'm strongly inclined to agree with estar's comment here and with estar in the ensuing argument, since JM's arguments seem to me to be not based in policy. In the rest of the discussion, I am deeply underwhelmed by the supporters' arguments, some of whom offer no policy or rely on the nom's statement which, in my opinion, falls afoul of WP:PRECISION (if I understand the argument correctly). Cdjp1's comment is, in my opinion, a fine analysis of the situation.
  • Overall, I endorse the outcome of no consensus, as many of the support !votes provide very weak arguments, and, while they are outnumbered, I think the opposers offer a more cogent, policy-based point of view. There's no clear consensus here.
  • If I were to have this closed differently, it would certainly not be as "moved". Cremastra (talk · contribs) 21:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused by your response here. What specifically is my argument, and how in the world is it not based on policy? Are we just going to pretend that WP:CRITERIA is not a part of Wikipedia policy? JasonMacker (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You use WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments and ignore WP:PRECISION. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So again, are you just going to ignore that the main thrust of my argument is based on WP:CRITERIA? Why is this so difficult to acknowledge? Bringing up "precision" as a counterargument just demonstrates that you have never read WP:CRITERIA, because one of the criteria is literally precision. So how can you honestly claim that I'm ignoring precision when the literal Wikipedia policy I'm citing directly mentions it? JasonMacker (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist (uninvolved) - I don't like to overturn a close of No Consensus when there really is No Consensus, but I don't like to ignore a substantial vote count without an explanation about strength of arguments beyond saying that they were stronger. Another week or longer to see if there is a trend, or if the strength of arguments improves, is the most appropriate answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist (uninvolved). Let the discussion continue and let an admin close this clearly contentious RM. Some1 (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the closer has indicated they are willing to have the discussion relisted, I see no reason not to relist. I do not, however, see how the close is "clearly improper". Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:48, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.

Archive

[edit]
Archives, by year and month
Year 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

[edit]
The current Wikipedia time is:
02:29, Tuesday, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!