Wikipedia:Move review

"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.

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:

• [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

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=17 April 2024}}. 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/2024 April}}
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.

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 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

 

Active discussions

2024 April

Today (Australian TV program)

Today (1982 TV program) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

This move request should be re-opened as closer wasn't able to take into account that the 1982 TV program is the obvious primary topic for "Today (Australian TV program)", which has aired for 44 years in comparison to the 1960 TV program's one year. I support the second move occurring, but the first move doesn't need to occur and this article should be reverted back to its original location at "Today (Australian TV program)", it is the most likely topic being referred to when readers search for this program. Happily888 (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse. You are suggesting an incremental improvement over the result of the last RM which indicates starting a new RM to further improve the names. There is no need to do anything with respect to the RM nominated here for review.—Alalch E. 12:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved). The close was reasonable based on the discussion that had occurred up to that point. I concur with Alalch that, if you're looking to change the title again (including back to the previous title), starting a new RM seems more likely to yield a productive discussion than reopening the prior RM would. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Digital enhanced cordless telecommunications

Digital enhanced cordless telecommunications (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

There were three people involved in the discussion. One person initally opposed the move but later changed their mind and supported. The other two people continued opposing it, of which one never replied to my comment. They stated their opinion for a title, based on incorrect reasoning which is not in line with the relevant Wikipedia policy. My point is: the common name of the subject is its abbreviation and the abbreviation is primarily used for this subject. I have proven this with various different shops and manufacturers as examples, and in discussion with the closer also Google Ngram and book titles. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse Unfortunately there was clearly no consensus to move, the examples were not convincing to those who participated in the discussion. Try again in a few months. SportingFlyer T·C 16:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Please take a look at the dates of the comments in this discussion. I provided the examples to the user YorkshireExpat, who agreed with me in the end. The last comment by an opposing user was 06:05, April 3rd. Most of the examples in the top discussions are from after that moment, so it is not unreasonable to assume the other users haven't seen them. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't believe that's a reason to overturn a lack of consensus, sorry. SportingFlyer T·C 03:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse. Start an RM at some point in the future by including all or most of those arguments in the nominating statement.—Alalch E. 21:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  That doesn't make much sense. You seem to think that the arguments hold merit, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY (WP:SNOW). Then why not reopen? Then I don't have to wait months and write everything again. PhotographyEdits (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, please let me try to show how sensible it is. This RM closure was a no-consensus decision. The longer one waits, the more likely one will build stronger arguments and successfully rename the article. If this RM were to be reopened, the liklihood is that it would still end in no consensus, so it would be better to wait and strengthen your rationale. There have been a few exceptions to this over the years, but not many. Sincerely hope this helps! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

My point is that the following about no-consensus is not true in this case:

> This may be because a discussion has fractured into several possible titles and none seem especially suitable, or simply because equally strong arguments and appeals to Wikipedia policy and outside sources were found on both sides

The policies cited by users opposing the move were either irrelevant (MOS:JARGON) or they cited a policy that actually supported my argument (MOS:ACROTITLE and WP:ARTSINGLE). PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse. < uninvolved > Good, reasonable decision. Again, editor PhotographyEdits, wait a few months and try again if you still think a title change is necessary. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved). The closer, BilledMammal, was correct to point out the sources cited in the RM (all apparently product listings) are unreliable. The information provided on the closer's talk page may be reliable, but needs to be presented at a future RM. (PS, I've gone ahead and informed BilledMammal about this discussion since the user who began it did not.) ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Opposition to Chavismo

Opposition to Chavismo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Reading Beans may have been unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: NoonIcarus, a user recently topic banned for POV pushing, who has been engaged in some page-move wars and who has forced their own titling on the project proposed a move only three months after their past proposal was opposed. As the previous discussion laid out, "Opposition to Chavismo" is actually less precise because there is both "Chavismo" and "Madurismo". Making the comparison to Opposition to Vladimir Putin in Russia and the other categories are a false equivalencies since the opposition has spanned over two presidencies and has not been against just one individual. The Venezuelan opposition (its common name in the English language) has been opposed to both presidencies.

Overall, the "Opposition to Chavismo" title is inaccurate, "Opposition to Chavismo and Madurismo" is a mouthful and having two different articles would be an unnecessary content fork. The title Venezuelan opposition is more concise, precise and is the common name for the movement that opposes both Chavismo and Madurismo. Also, having an article move proposal on such a controversial topic being closed with no involvement is not recommended. The move discussion should be reopened and relisted. --WMrapids (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Reopen Since no one participated in the move discussion apart from the proposer, and the move is clearly controversial especially given the POV-pushing, we should treat this as a reverted unilateral page move and re-open the discussion to get a better consensus.

SportingFlyer T·C 03:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not oppose to this being reopened but calling it a reverted unilateral page move is uncalled-for; the supposed controversial move was opened for 2 weeks with no one supporting or opposing. Doesn't look so controversial to me. Best, Reading Beans 06:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Reopen (uninvolved): Whenever someone requests reopening a recent WP:RMNOMIN closure, the best practice is to reopen. Reopening is a better way to "help in establishing a consensus whether to move or not" (quoting the closer), since move review isn't a place for continuing the move discussion. And in light of Talk:Opposition to Chavismo#Requested move 22 November 2023 (which includes comments that would still appear to apply in opposition to the move even with edits to the article), this is not a good candidate for a WP:RMNOMIN closure as uncontested. (I will also note that the portion of the argument based on consistency with Spanish Wikipedia should have little weight since WP:CONSISTENT is not aimed at inter-language consistency.) SilverLocust 💬 22:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. Overturn. (Restore old title.) < uninvolved > In light of current events, the older title should be restored, and a fresh RM should only be opened if there are new and strong arguments to do so. The RM under review was opened only about 3 months after a not moved decision and so appears to have been out of process. Not unsympathetic toward the nom's well-made points; however, we are here to evaluate only the closure, which was reasonable and in accord with the closing instructions. Also would not be averse to reopening and relisting if MRV consensus deems it so. As it presently stands, though, this was (still) a good close! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC) 16:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  There's only one way it could have been closed, though, because there was only one participant, who is now topic-banned. The close itself was not the issue, the procedure was the issue... SportingFlyer T·C 22:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

When I see a close and agree that I would have reached the same conclusion, then I pretty much endorse. Consensus can change, and when there is no opposition for twice the time it should take to reach a conclusion, then I see it as a change of consensus probably due to complacency on the part of topic-tired editors. Ya snooze, ya lose. In terms of what this review board is here for, that was a good close, reasonable and in line with WP:RMCI. It should be endorsed, and editors who snoozed and now think it's wrong should wait several months and then try to move it back. There was plenty of time to oppose and supply a policy-based argument. In terms of this particular closure, consensus has changed for the present and should be honored. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 23:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a move discussion with only one !vote is not "consensus." This is no different procedurally than unilaterally moving the page using the Move tool, even if it is not the fault of the nominator, and then having someone else notice it was moved several weeks ago and reverting. I see absolutely no reason not to reopen this even if the proposer wasn't topic-banned. SportingFlyer T·C 23:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you've never closed a move request that was attended only by the nom. Over the years I've closed several like that. What makes this request any different? Editors had a full week plus a relisted week and then some. What would reopening accomplish? It might draw attention from those here at MRV, but if it takes two weeks and an MRV to change the consensus found by the closer, then there is something wrong with this picture. And I'm sorry right back to ya because a discussion with only one !vote is a consensus – even a page moved without discussion is a consensus until challenged. But wait! that's not the case is it. This consensus is the result of a formal move request. And now, after two weeks of complacency, one other editor opens an MRV? That may be enough for some, but it is not enough for me. This RM close should stand on its own as viable for now. ymmv. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't make any sense to me. An AfD with one participant is soft closed. I don't see why a RM should be treated any differently. And an RM by a user that's now topic banned shouldn't carry any weight at all. SportingFlyer T·C 03:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm genuinely sorry if my words seem cryptic to you. Like SJ below, and as I said before, I am not against what appears to be the probable outcome and consensus of this review. Perhaps there should be further immediate discussion? The close was good, and yet maybe you and others here are onto something. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

A few points in reply:

(1) WP:SILENCE for two weeks isn't a stable consensus, just a "presumed" consensus. See, for example, WP:SOFTDELETE. It would be aberrant if that counted as a stable consensus only in RMs (in contrast to content editing, deletion, and bold moves).

(2) If the closer had seen the previous RM with opposition, I would consider it unreasonable to close the move as "uncontested" without the participants in the previous RM having been pinged. (And even if the closer wasn't aware of the previous RM, that would still be a reason to reopen under the second bulletpoint of WP:IMR.)

(3) There is no reason to wait several months to continue a minimally-attended discussion. If that were an actual requirement, it would be all the more reason to reopen this RM. SilverLocust 💬 00:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree to disagree. Close was good and should be endorsed. This consensus at a formal move request was to move to the proposed article title. The longer editors wait to open a fresh RM, the better their chance of success. Recommended wait time is minimum one year – I cut that in half to six months to give the nom the benefit of the doubt. Good close. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC) 16:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Although I lean to preferring the current title, per the balance of statements on that talk page after stripping the blocked user’s statements, restoring the old title on the basis of the March RM being too soon after the November RM, is nit unreasonable. However, noting the blocked user was all over the November RM, I would call this a “no concensus” situation and recommend a fresh RM at two months. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Relist / Reopen / Allow an immediate fresh RM. Nothing wrong with the close, but the nom has reasonable points that weren’t discussed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

move back to the old title, and discourage a fresh RM for two months. No criticism of the close, but with ArbCom being involved, a central editor now topic banned, another sock-blocked, it’s a mess and a pause would be helpful. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Reopen. (Uninvolved, though I closed an earlier RM on this article.) I'm normally a big proponent of WP:RMNOMIN, but in this case, the proposed move almost exactly duplicated an RM that was rejected by consensus just a few months ago. Consensus can change, true, but if nobody but the nominator has commented then I don't think we have enough evidence to determine whether consensus has changed on this topic. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Allow immediate renomination [Move to the previous name per the rest of this discussion.12:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)]. Editors who would have seen the nomination and would find no reason to object (and did not !vote, presumably) under a premise that the rationale, based on the equivalencies drawn, seems fine, were not introduced to the facts properly, because, indeed, the Venezuelan government =/= Chavismo. Calling anyone who opposes the current government as anti-Chavista implies an essentialized notion of the government as embodying Chavismo, which is obviously questionable. It is actually original research. Under these circumstances it can't be said with sufficient certainty that the decision reached was a good decision. RMs exist to provide the community with time and structure to reach a good decision. The process does not exist for the sake of process. The nominating statement in the reviewed RM is probably not conducive to making the best decision. Therefore, instead of reopening, allow an interested editor to start a brand new RM that is not based on questionable equivalencies.—Alalch E. 20:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Please note that the nominator of this review has been blocked indefinitely. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  That was unexpected. I still think allowing immediate renomination might make sense considering the new discussion on the talk page and the fact this is or was at ArbCom. SportingFlyer T·C 22:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Blocked by User:Primefac with the allegation that he used multiple accounts abusively. Primefac might have a helpful comment, but my leaning is to note that WMrapids (talk · contribs) is the sole driver for reopening/ relisting, others merely supporting, and so for practical reasons at least this should be closed, with the standard moratorium of six months before a fresh RM, unless another editor in good standing speaks up soon and want to pick up the nom’s cause. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  @SmokeyJoe, I think enough editors have spoken for relist/reopen for that to speak for itself. This discussion should be assessed on its merits, not who started it. TarnishedPath^talk 02:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  Noting also that this RM was started a little over 3 months after the previous one. TarnishedPath^talk 02:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  A relist or reopen needs at least one person who will champion the new arguments. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  others merely supporting that's... kind of how nominations work? If there was unanimous opposition to this proposal, sure, close it and let someone else re-file down the line, but "procedurally closed because people are agreeing with a now-blocked user" is one of the weirdest takes I've seen in a while. Primefac (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  To attempt to clarify, and speaking for myself, I supported the MRV nom because he had new arguments. But I am not personally persuaded by the arguments. And noting now that he began by arguing editor behavioural problems, and is now blocked for “abusive” sockpuppetry, this MRV is severely tainted. Unless someone really believes the nom’s 2nd paragraph arguments and is prepared to argue them in the reopened RM, I don’t think the RM should be reopened.

  Further, talk page progress, at Talk:Opposition to Chavismo#New title "Opposition to Chavismo" + LEDE language, does not to support a return to the prior title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  The initiator of the conversation you linked even noted they would have likely opposed the name change. SportingFlyer T·C 16:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  User:WMrapids consistently opposed the move. Do I misunderstand your point? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  In fact both participants in that thread have indicated that they are not fans of the move. TarnishedPath^talk 01:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  That is not a good argument. It was started out of process. TarnishedPath^talk 13:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Relist / Reopen Move to previous article name (uninvolved) Given the severe lack of involvement in the RM and how soon that it was barely over 3 months it was after the previous RM which did have more involvement and which arrived at a completely different close it would be best to reopen to allow a more fuller consensus to form the RM was completely out of process and the result should be overturned. TarnishedPath^talk 02:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  If you discount the contributions from the now blocked abusive sockpuppeteer, the prior RM, Talk:Opposition to Chavismo#Requested move 22 November 2023, reads very differently. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm having a hard time seeing how anyone could read that RM as resulting in a move even without WMRapids. TarnishedPath^talk 01:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ok. I support restoring the old title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  Likewise. I should have stated move to previous name to start with given the RM was out of process. TarnishedPath^talk 00:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  Opening a new RM was not "out of process". There isn't some automatic WP:MORATORIUM created every time a requested move is closed with a consensus, particularly not one that lasts for four months, which was the amount of time between these two RMs. And the nominator plausibly asserted a change in circumstances. SilverLocust 💬 17:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Here at MRV if a RM that resulted in a clear moved or not moved outcome is followed in less than a year by another RM, it is considered out of process unless there are significant new arguments or old arguments have been strengthened. With no consensus decisions an RM is out of process if it begins less than three months after the decision. Waiting times are pretty arbitrary and based on past experience of successes or failures of the new RMs. "Out of process" is just a description – nothing's etched in stone. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

While you have previously called these out of process RMs a number of times, that shouldn't be conflated with what "is considered out of process" by MRV commenters generally (or ). As you know, RMCI includes an observation that successful re-requests generally take place at least 3 months after the previous one, but that is just a description of likelihood of success, not a procedural waiting period (however flexible) for a re-request to be a valid RM process. Re-requests are often quickly rejected by commenters and WP:SNOW closed as having very little chance of getting a different outcome, but they shouldn't be procedurally closed as invalid process absent an express moratorium (or a consensus to change that observation into a procedural waiting period). SilverLocust 💬 08:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of your disagreement on the term "out of process", NoonIcarus listing an RM barely three months after they'd had the previous RM that they'd listed not moved would be considered by many to be disruptive. It's not a stretch to call it "out of process". TarnishedPath^talk 12:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Archive

Archives, by year and month

Year	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

• Category:Pages at move review
• Category:Closed move reviews
• Wikipedia:Deletion review
• Subpages of this page