Wikipedia:Move review
 |
| Formal review processes |
|---|
|
|
|
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: |
| Administrators' noticeboard |
| In bot-related matters: |
|
|
| Discussion about closes prior to closing: |
Move review is a process to formally discuss and evaluate a contested close of Wikipedia page move discussions, including requested moves (RM), categories for discussion discussions (CfD), and redirects for discussion discussions (RfD), to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.
Prior to submitting a review of a page move's close, please attempt to resolve any issues on the closer's talk page. See step one below.
While the page move close is under review, any involved editor is free to revert any undiscussed moves of a nominated page without those actions being considered a violation of Wikipedia:No wheel warring.
What this process is not
[edit]This review process should be focused on the move discussion and the subsequent results of the move discussion, not on the person who closed the discussion. If you have ongoing concerns about a closer, please consult with the closer or post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Move review requests which cast aspersions or otherwise attack other editors may be speedily closed.
Do not request a move review if someone has boldly moved a page and you disagree. Instead, attempt to discuss it with the editor, and if the matter continues to be unresolved, start a formal WP:RM discussion on the article's talk page.
Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a page move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion.
Disagreements with Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions (WP:RMCI), WP:Article titles, the Manual of Style, a naming convention or the community norm of consensus should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page.
CfDs[1] and RfDs can only be reviewed here if the relevant discussion was limited in scope to renaming; CfDs or RfDs[2] involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review.
Instructions
[edit]Initiating move reviews
[edit]Editors desiring to initiate a move review should follow the steps listed below. In the reason parameter, editors should limit their requests to one or both of the following reasons:
- [Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because [explain rationale here] in closing this requested move discussion.
- [Closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: [identify information here] and the discussion should be reopened and relisted.
Editors initiating a move review discussion should be familiar with the closing instructions provided in WP:RMCI.
Steps to list a new review request
[edit]| 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
are correctly filled in, the result will include a "Discussion with closer" link to that discussion. If the |
| 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:
|
| 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: |
| 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.
|
| 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]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]- ^ Those that involve renames (Template:Cfr), for all other types of CFDs use deletion review.
- ^ 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]Ethiopian Revolution (closed)
[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
In raising the matter with the closer, it would appear that the closer has determined no consensus on the basis of tied VOTES rather than the strength of argument viewed through the lens of P&G and evidence presented, which does not support that the title even reaches a simple majority of capitalisation in prose. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it. |
Draft:Hostile Government Takeover (2) (closed)
[edit]
| ||
|---|---|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
Draft:Hostile Government Takeover (2) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch)
accepted by toadetteedit. the sources used for notability are mentioned multiple times in the article. the other sources are used for prima facie evidence. it's possible this should only be a stub. however there is absolutely enough evidence to support notability. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
| ||
| The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it. |
- Syrian revolution (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)
This consensus was evaluated incorrectly. There is a clear numerical advantage, 12 to 5, in favor of moving the page to Syrian Revolution. Wikipedia is not a vote, but numerical advantage is one factor. More importantly, the arguments for capitalizing the name are strong. The common name as well as consistency with other articles carries significant weight. User:Goszei said the following:
When there is mixed capitalization in sources, as there is in this case (see ngrams), I think that the WP:TITLE criteria of consistency gains importance. I am unconvinced by arguments that Wikipedia itself made the capitalized form prominent, since it seems clear that over time the capitalized version of "[X] Revolution" gains in usage over the uncapitalized form, as the event becomes more established in historical memory. I consider the ngrams for Hungarian Revolution and Cuban Revolution as good evidence for how the ngrams for "Syrian Revolution" vs "Syrian revolution" will likely look farther in the future. There is also of course the criteria of recognizability, i.e. this article isn't about the idea of a revolution which is also Syrian (like socialist revolution), but a real event that happened in 2011–2024.
User:SilverLocust, who opposed, presented evidence in favor of moving:
Now, while that would normally mean this should be lowercase when there is mixed use in sources, MOS:CAPS has "exceptions for specific cases discussed below", including at MOS:CAPS § Military terms, where it says "Accepted names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, fronts, raids, actions, operations, and so forth are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in sources".
So even if the phrase Syrian Revolution isn't consistently capitalized even mid-sentence, it is usually capitalized (more than 50%). Therefore, the consensus was evaluated incorrectly. The prevalence of the capitalized form in sources combined with the guidelines of capitalizing proper names and consistency with American Revolution and French Revolution, the capitalized form Syrian Revolution is the proper title for the page. Mast303 (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- Closer note - I had hoped that my detailed close rationale at the RM and also the discussion I've had with interested editors at my talk page would have satisfied doubts about this, but it seems not. Participants in this MRV are welcome to read both those things to see why I closed the way I did. But for a very brief summary, I'll just say here that WP:NOTAVOTE and Wikipedia's version of WP:CONSENSUS are clear that strength of arguments trumps head counting and that while it's rare to close against the numbers, sometimes it does happen if the evidence presented by the minority is sufficiently persuasive. In this case, it was clearly presented via ngram and other sourcing that the bar for capitalization outlined in MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS simply was not met. Thus the support !votes could almost entirely be disregarded as without merit. As for the consistency argument mentioned above, a quick look at Category:21st-century revolutions shows that there is no consistency at all, the cases are treated individually. There isn't too much more to say about it. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn and treat as proper name. There is no issue about the interpretation of policies and guidelines. There is agreement that a closer is required to consider strength of arguments as well as counting heads. So when may a closer find a consensus that disregards a clear numerical majority? That should be done if the minority position was clearly supported by policies and guidelines. But there is no dispute about what the guideline says. The policy says that sentence case and not title case is to be used, and that words other than the first word are capitalized if they are part of a proper name. Whether Syrian Revolution is a proper name is not a matter of the interpretation of policies and guidelines. There is agreement on what the policies and guidelines say. The issue of whether Syrian Revolution is a proper name is not a matter of the interpretation of the guidelines. That is a matter of the assessment of what reliable sources call the war, and a clear majority of editors agree that the name Syrian Revolution is used as a proper name. The closer is mistaken in thinking that there is an issue of interpretation of policy. The article should be moved. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: thanks for your comment here, and most of what you've written here seems spot on, up to and including "That is a matter of the assessment of what reliable sources call the war". But that's the crux of the matter. Reliable sources are completely split on this - some say Syrian Revolution while others say Syrian revolution, in apparently a roughly 50/50 split. That was clearly evidenced in the discussion by those in opposition. You then go on to say that "a clear majority of editors agree that the name Syrian Revolution is used as a proper name", essentially taking the decision away from the reliable sources themselves, or any sort of requirement to provide evidence, and handing it back to individual editors' opinions about what reliable sources say, which is effectively little more than WP:NOTAVOTE again. To disregard clearly set-out and unambiguous evidence against the move just because a majority of voters don't feel that evidence meets their personal definition of a proper name would be a complete change to years of Wikipedia discussions and consensus on this issue and it would require a far wider forum than this individual RM to effect such a change in guidance. — Amakuru (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. « uninvolved » This closure is reasonable and in line with closing instructions. Perhaps someday when the title is a proper name in a strong majority of reliable sources, then it will be changed. Guidelines are specific and clear, so this close should be upheld. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 04:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn (involved). As the closer !voted oppose on Talk:Iranian revolution, they are clearly involved and therefore the closure is a supervote. I will note that the NCCAPS guideline that the close and the opposers rely on is currently under fire at the village pump. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 21:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn (uninvolved) as per Chicdat, the closer is (barely) involved. Additionally, consensus is for "Syrian Revolution." Feeglgeef (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn to moved. The closer is involved here, given their participation in two related RMs at Talk:Iranian revolution. The consensus to move in the RM at hand here seems clear, despite the walls of text put up in opposition. Note that I did not participate in this RM, but did participate in one of the Iranian revolution ones. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
- Instead of focusing on ad hominem questions such as whether I am "involved" because I participated in a discussion on a different article, how about addressing the actual underlying issues raised here? You say the "consensus is clear" but that is only if you favour either counting heads or applying a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The sitewide guideline is crystal clear here, and as a closer my job is to view the discussion through the lens of the guideline and the evidence presented, not to count how many people who happen to like title case have turned up at the discussion. Believe it or not, I don't have a strong personal opinion on title case vs sentence case, only that we should follow our own guidelines on it and be consistent. If Chicdat is successful in their bid mentioned above to change the guideline on how titles are capitalised then I would amend my own position and would of course have closed this RM differently. But until then I'd appreciate it if you'd state why my close was wrong in case I've missed something. — Amakuru (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
- It's not an ad hominem to say you're involved here. As an admin, you should know better. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it is ad hominem. You're objecting because of the identity of the closer, not because of the substance of the close, which is expressly forbidden by the instructions at WP:MRV, which say "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". You still haven't said anything about that despite me asking you directly above. — Amakuru (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, I find the accusation of involvement ridiculous. SportingFlyer T·C 12:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Also for the record, I second editor SportingFlyer's find along with some added ridicularity. Admins are scarce these days, so vomiting up involvement in this type of case is less than enlightening. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it is ad hominem. You're objecting because of the identity of the closer, not because of the substance of the close, which is expressly forbidden by the instructions at WP:MRV, which say "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". You still haven't said anything about that despite me asking you directly above. — Amakuru (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
- It's not an ad hominem to say you're involved here. As an admin, you should know better. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
- Instead of focusing on ad hominem questions such as whether I am "involved" because I participated in a discussion on a different article, how about addressing the actual underlying issues raised here? You say the "consensus is clear" but that is only if you favour either counting heads or applying a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The sitewide guideline is crystal clear here, and as a closer my job is to view the discussion through the lens of the guideline and the evidence presented, not to count how many people who happen to like title case have turned up at the discussion. Believe it or not, I don't have a strong personal opinion on title case vs sentence case, only that we should follow our own guidelines on it and be consistent. If Chicdat is successful in their bid mentioned above to change the guideline on how titles are capitalised then I would amend my own position and would of course have closed this RM differently. But until then I'd appreciate it if you'd state why my close was wrong in case I've missed something. — Amakuru (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn (involved)
- "Syrian Revolution" is the commonly used name in English language; and the overwhelming majority of editors favoured the title "Syrian Revolution".
- Moreover, this is the "Syrian Revolution". No other protests or uprisings that erupted in Syria in recent history have been widely described as a "Syrian revolution". Hence, the title "Syrian Revolution" is more precise, more recognizable and is a clearer title to readers who want to know about this particular historical event.
- Additionally, pages about other revolutions have capitalized titles. (Eg: Rose Revolution, Orange Revolution, Tulip Revolution, 2018 Armenian Revolution, Revolutions of 1989, Cedar Revolution, 2010 Kyrgyz Revolution, July Revolution (Bangladesh), Chechen Revolution, Log Revolution, Velvet Revolution, Romanian Revolution, etc.)
- It's extremely inconsistent to lowercase "Revolution" solely in the Syrian case. It also gives off biased POV vibes; particularly to Syrian readers of the page. This was an important event in Syrian historiography and it cannot be portrayed as insignificant. Syrian Revolution was the most significant uprising of the Arab Spring revolutions and an important historical event; and this revolution's impact resonated across the region and beyond. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
- The decision to capitalise it or not is dictated by our guideline WP:NCCAPS, not by how "important" you think it is. And the consistency argument has been completely debunked too - there are numerous revolutions using lower case. If WP:NOTAVOTE is to have any value then sometimes the "overwhelming majority" of contributors do not carry the day, in a case where the evidence and guideline applicability is as clear cut as it is here. — Amakuru (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn to uppercase (involved)
- Syrian Revolution is the WP:COMMONNAME. As Chicdat notes, the closer is involved. As Shadowwarrior8 notes, both WP:PRECISE and WP:CONSISTENCY favor the Syrian Revolution spelling. --Plumber (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse (uninvolved) Ah yes, the capitalisation wars. Most of those supporting claim that it's a proper name without actually proving it, but those opposing are the ones actually citing policy and showing their work. AjaxSmack and Goszei probably had the best arguments in support, but AjaxSmack's was rebutted through showing academic articles do not consistently capitalise it, and Goszei appeals to the future instead of the present. Good close. SportingFlyer T·C 12:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn to uppercase (involved), per Chicdat and others. The uppercasing here is proven in several ways. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse (uninvolved). First, we shouldn't overturn a close solely because the closer was involved (WP:NOTBURO), which seems to be the position of Chicdat and Feeglgeef above. Second, nine or ten of the support !votes can and should reasonably be discounted by the closer for (in decreasing order of severity): coming from a locked sock, containing demonstrably false claims ("All other "Revolution" is capitalised", "every other revolution page capitalizing the word Revolution"), containing reasoning counter to policy ("The capitalized version is more common and used throughout the article" – WP:WINRS), containing no policy-based reasoning ("Sources use the capped version so we should use it too. The whole "lowercase everything" crusade is getting tiresome." – this user did later make a policy-based claim, but one which likely falls under the "demonstrably false" category), consisting solely of a dogmatic recitation of part of a guideline while omiting another, equally important part ("proper names are to be capitalized"), or having no reasoning beyond "per user". Third, even though we are not supposed to be relitigating the arguments here, I still have yet to see evidence that this term is always capitalized in sources. Only four editors in the RM presented/analyzed evidence in this regard and none found that the bar set by NCCAPS is met. At this MRV, no editors have presented evidence in this regard, despite several continuing to claim that sources show the name is overwhelmingly capitalized. Toadspike [Talk] 22:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- NCCAPS is not what matters here. What matters is the "usually capitalized" guidance in MOS:MILTERMS, which is a significantly lower bar than the frankly weird NCCAPS guideline. The name is usually, if not consistently, capitalized in sources. Besides, MRV should not be RM round 2. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed that all that matters here is MOS:MILTERMS, which covers revolutions. The major point for overturning, or at the minimum reopening, is that the closer did not address MOS:MILTERMS in their close. It may be too close to call, the two casings are just about even in the evidence so determining which one is the usual capitalization needs discussion and a photo-finish to see which casing is 'usually' used. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Toadspike, you may have missed these responses because neither of us pinging you. Apology for the oversight. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- That would've been a good argument in the RM, but at move review we cannot consider new arguments that were not made in the RM. As far as I can see, the only person who cited MOS:MILTERMS in the RM was SilverLocust, who opposed the move, which leaves us at MRV no leeway to interpret MILTERMS in a way that overturns the close. And with the discussion nearly four months old now and plagued by shoddy arguments, I would strongly prefer starting fresh with a new RM to relisting this one.
- Also, the ping didn't work because of the typo; fixing it like this doesn't work, since the username and signature have to be added in the same edit. Toadspike [Talk] 18:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Toadspike, you may have missed these responses because neither of us pinging you. Apology for the oversight. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed that all that matters here is MOS:MILTERMS, which covers revolutions. The major point for overturning, or at the minimum reopening, is that the closer did not address MOS:MILTERMS in their close. It may be too close to call, the two casings are just about even in the evidence so determining which one is the usual capitalization needs discussion and a photo-finish to see which casing is 'usually' used. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse (uninvolved). The case that the closer was involved is weak, since the Iranian revolution and the Syrian one are distinct topics. Regular participants in RMs will cite, and !vote based on, the related guidelines and policies. We want experienced RM participants to also be RM closers, so it would worsen the project if we tolerated people digging through the closer's history to see if they'd ever cited a specific policy/guideline. Whether or not we consider the closer involved, the closing statement was a good summary of the consensus that developed in the discussion. The closer explained their reasons for discounting !votes, and I find the reasons to be both correct and (more importantly) reasonable within closer's discretion. Toadspike's analysis of the rationales is compelling. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse (involved), since the arguments in favor of capitalization were based mostly on the demonstrably false assertion that it's usually capitalized in sources. Closer noted that the presented evidence convincingly refuted that claim. Dicklyon (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, I unilaterally reverted what was clearly a disruptive BADNAC close of this move review. SportingFlyer T·C 06:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. Uninvolved, but I participate in a lot of these capitalization RMs and I'm often more sympathetic to the supporters in this RM than to the opposers, for what it's worth. The opposers made better policy- and evidence-based arguments that were correctly assessed by the closer. We want closers to actually read and consider the arguments, and explain their reasoning, especially when we think it's a close call, when there's a wall of text, and when the discussion goes on for over a month. The closer did this. Even if one thinks that other reasonable closers could have made the opposite determination, this close is within the guidelines and the clear rationale provides thoughtful considerations that will be helpful if someone wants to propose a repeat RM with new/better arguments in the future. Such closures also help us adjust or reconsider our arguments when a similar capitalization RM pops up for a different article. To those saying the closer was wrong for not addressing the MOS:MILTERMS argument: (1) The closer did address related policy considerations that were raised by the supporters and opposers; (2) Other participants did address MILTERMS and showed that it did not support capitalization, consistent with the closing. Indeed, the quote from SilverLocust shared above is truncated; the omitted portion explains why SL found MILTERMS did not support the move: I'm not sure which one is more usual, but the Google Ngrams data (as of 2022, rather than the 2019 data linked by Goszei) suggests "revolution" is more common, so I'll oppose. Finally, evidence of capitalization changes slowly and these RMs attract many of the same editors. Relisting now is unlikely to change the outcome.--MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk 16:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Re: The closer being "involved" – I do think it would have been best not to have a closer who recently participated in a very similar RM with many of the same participants as this one. That is something worth this editor considering for future closures. Ultimately, the close was well supported and explicitly referenced the arguments and evidence in the RM at hand. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk 16:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
| 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 |
 | Search Move review archives
| |