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=15 February 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 February}}
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

2025 February

Denali

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

The closer's claim of "no consensus" after the bare minimum 7 days rests on a false premise. They claimed that "quite a lot" of input was not based on policy or guideline, which is just plain wrong. Many, many arguments cite project guides and rules. Surprisingly many actually, in an RM that is tangentially connected to the current president, where heated opinions often bubble. The closer then used this discarding of votes to whittle down the vast leaning towards oppose (2/3rds to 1/3rd) and declare a "No Consensus." All this does is punt the discussion to the future, which is literally ("Once things have settled down, another RM should be made...") what the closer wants. Overall, bad close, please relist or close as "Not Moved." Zaathras (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Weak Endorse of the close of No Consensus - My machine count of the !votes is 76 Support, 105 Oppose, and No Consensus is a valid judgment by the closer of consensus. After 181 !votes, a Relist would be stupid. The appellant states correctly that what the close does is to punt the discussion to the future, which is exactly what should be done, to allow time for public opinion and the opinions of editors to stabilize. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Machine counts never work on these type of discussions because people use the keywords in their rationales. I used the manual counting method twice, and got 50-86 (37%-63%), which is definitely in Oppose territory. Black Kite (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Re-Open Even if the end result would be the same, this was a very active discussion that was closed a week after it opened. That was way too soon. Usually when we see closures after a week it's because there were five or six editors discussing the RM and it had slowed to a crawl. I expected two-three weeks or when we saw participation slow to a crawl. Procedurally, it can be closed in seven days, but we are also supposed to look at the polling situation and use some good judgement. I'm not convinced that was done here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• Re-open per the above. The RfC was still gaining comments, and as mentioned elsewhere I am unconvinced that No Consensus was the right call anyway, given the heavy preponderance of Oppose !votes and the weakness of a number of Support rationales. Black Kite (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. < uninvolved > This a rare instance when there is a long discussion, a preponderance of opposition, and the abundant unliklihood that a consensus to move would be achieved any time soon. Editors are asked to go with the flow on this one and allow some time, at least three months, study this RM with an eye toward improving supportive arguments, and then open a fresh move request. Good, strong rebuttals to the present opposition rationales are badly needed if editors want to be successful. On the other hand, if editors want to fruitlessly debate this issue for several weeks, then by all means relist it. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Wait, what? I clearly said on my talk page that I was willing to reconsider the closure. Rather than respond further and try to convince me, you've gone straight to the nuclear option?

That said, I lean to endorsing my own closure. This was already a long discussion, and relisting for an entire second week would lean to one of those unpleasant situations where a long and controversial discussion is longer than it needs to be. More importantly, the key here is that we need to wait and evaluate the sources. If the sources are changing while we're discussing, we have !votes on day 3 based on some sources and !votes on day 12 based on others that the day-3ers didn't even know about... this is manageable when it's a small discussion, but on this scale it just becomes a giant mess that can be avoided by closing the discussion on schedule.

I also respectfully don't buy the argument that it should have been relisted because discussion was ongoing. The point of a relist is to clarify consensus, and often to get more participation. As noted on my talk page: WP:RMCI tells us: Relisting is an option when a discussion cannot otherwise be closed, usually due to lack of consensus. Editors are under no obligation to wait to close a move request after it is relisted. Once a move request has been open for the full seven days, it may be closed at any time by an uninvolved editor. There is no consensus here, true (that's why I closed it that way), but relisting for seven days is unlikely to help things, as Paine Ellsworth says. There's more than enough participation already.

Regarding questioning of my "no consensus" close itself: as I said in my closing statement, there's simply no consensus about the applicability of WP:NAMECHANGES. We cannot agree on a WP:COMMONNAME, probably because the rename happened only a week ago. If anything here was premature, it was the launching of this RM – basically the same day as the change happened. The RM should not have been started so early because it was difficult to properly evaluate the sources. Cremastra (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

And that is a reasonable conclusion. I wish that had happened in 2015. But we have big discussions going on about the word Century that has been open since January 3. It's now late in closing but that's what we usually see. This seemed like a rush. Had you closed this with "Because details are still coming in and the !votes reflect that changing dynamic, lets wait 30-60 days and try again" perhaps many would have calmed down or not been upset with the close. I actually think it was started so soon because the same was done in 2015 when the official change simply won out in consensus. So this RM was started when someone assumed the same thing would happen. Obviously not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

You say, Had you closed this with "Because details are still coming in and the !votes reflect that changing dynamic, lets wait 30-60 days and try again" perhaps many would have calmed down or not been upset with the close.

For the record, by my understanding that's pretty much what the close did say. Sources seem to be in a bit of disarray as to what to call the mountain, and this discussion reflects that: things are still changeing, and there no consensus as to whether or not a new WP:COMMONNAME has been established to meet WP:NAMECHANGES. Once things have settled down, another RM should be made, and sources should be evaluated.

The main difference I see is that the close provided reached a conclusion on the content of the discussion (which is what a close should be doing), and did not imply that a move was the preferred outcome (as let's try again potentially would have done). Kahastok talk 21:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Mine also had an exact date range. Often editors complain that a new rm/rfc is opened way too soon after a closing, and they shut it down. With an exact timeframe editors could re-evaluate based on that. But I do expect the same result by consensus in the future regardless of where the common name is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Meh. The whole page is a mess. There are Wikipedians making reasonable arguemnts from both perspectives, and also a lot of poorly-informed drive-by comments from barely-used ot long-inactive accounts. I stopped closely following any of the discussions days ago because they are all congested with unhelpful commentary and bickering. This is a CTOP page now and a timely close is exactly what it needed. I do think it was leaning more to the oppose side, but this is one of those cases where somebody would have brought this here regardless of the close. As much as this does upset me as an Alaskan it is hardly the main issue in the sweeping sea of executive actions we've seen in the last few weeks, and once the outrage machine moves on to something else and sources have had time to do real reporting on the mountain and not just reaction pieces, we may find it easier to find a clear consensus arrived at through policy-based arguments. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse this closure but allow a new RM to be opened – I have to agree that this move request was tainted due to the “I like it” and “I don’t like it” arguments. Now I will say that it was open for at least a week; but I think the appropriate thing should have been to relist because it still seemed split. So, based on the fact that it was closed too fast, and many of the !votes were based on things other than policy; I think that we should just restart the whole RM, clean slate; that way we don’t have !votes that are tainted by “I (don’t) like it” arguments. Involvement note: I did vote “weak support” in the RM. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not entirely sure how a new RM at this stage would be anything different from the current one. You'd have the same suite of users making the same arguments (based in policy or otherwise) using the same evidence base, and would likely reach the exact same outcome. A new RM down the line would give time for the dust to settle. Turnagra (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think let’s endorse THIS closure; and then open a new RM in about a month or two. That’s what I’m referring to. Because there have been complaints about people basing there !votes on whether or not they like the name; and not based on policy. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  Pinging @Turnagra that way they can see this. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks - I still stand by my original comment, though. I appreciate the distinction between reopening this RM and opening a new one, but my point is that the circumstances that lead to this RM being a dumpster fire of poor arguments are still exactly the same, and a new RM would likely go the exact same way. We'd be better to taihoa for a few months and then if there's evidence that usage has shifted a RM can be opened at that point, once the dust has settled. Turnagra (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  I completely agree on that point. I very much think that the dust should have time to “settle” @Turnagra. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Weak endorse closure as is; do not reopen: Incredibly clear that there was not going to be a consensus in favour to move, no matter how long you kept the RM open. Whether it's closed as "no consensus" or "not moved" is academic, really. Sceptre (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as is as there is no rush, this is not a WP:BLP issue, and no non-renaming stories involving the mountain have occured in the last week or two. Per WP:THREEOUTCOMES "Successful move re-requests generally, though not always, take place at least three months after the previous one" and I would strongly urge that no move requests be allowed under three months after the close of this one. Calwatch (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Endorse closure I see no reason to think consensus would have been reached by keeping it open longer. anikom15 (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse closure for now. This entire RM has been a mess so much so that I had to fully protect the page at one point. Finding consensus is going to be really hard and no matter what move is made people will be upset. Here is my thought process on this. Article titles generally follow the name that reliable English-language sources most commonly use in practice (WP:COMMONNAME). We do not necessarily use an “official” name if the official name is not actually the term in widespread use. If a subject changes its name, we look at what current, independent, reliable sources are doing after that change. (WP:NAMECHANGES) If the majority of these sources “routinely” adopt the new name, we should also adopt the new name as well. We need to avoid jumping in too fast in cases like this if usage is still uncertain or if the new name is only used by a small number of sources. Even if The Department of the Interior announced the official name, it might take months or more to see how reliable sources actually use it. WP:COMMONNAME tells us to avoid guesswork (WP:CRYSTALBALL) and since we are nowhere near consensus now we might as well wait and see what happens after the dust settles. Even during the period this RM was open there were changes in reporting of the name. Dr vulpes (Talk) 21:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse closure and DO NOT reopen there are almost twice as many people opposing it rather than supporting it, and also WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRYSTALBALL made the most sense. If we reopen the rm then it'll just be another big mess for more people to argue. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 00:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

  there are almost twice as many people opposing it rather than supporting it not a good reason, see WP:NOTVOTE. Cremastra (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn to not moved (uninvolved, though I did mention the article name in another discussion recently) There are two core arguments here which might be policy-based: those supporting say the OFFICIALNAME is now the COMMONNAME, and those opposing say it's still the COMMONNAME. Opposers have the stronger argument if you look at our precedent for other similar situations, for instance when countries change their name - it's a wait and see process, we generally do not make the change immediately unless there is an urgent reason to do so. 40-60% consensus with such a high number of people involved is well out of no consensus territory. It was also open for a week and was well-discussed, so I see no point in re-opening either. SportingFlyer T·C 01:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn to not moved (involved) per SportingFlyer. Technically per WP:THREEOUTCOMES, not moved and no consensus are different closes, even if for practical purposes they are the same. Regardless, the discussion should not be reopened or restarted given that an extremely high level of participation occurred. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn to moved (involved): Open for one week the discussion had more supporting points than opposition ones; many arguments on the basis of native usage were very WP:OR cases to make. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 16:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  WP:OR is completely irrelevant for move discussions. It even says so on the page: This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. SportingFlyer T·C 17:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  There were arguments on both sides that were poor; this is why it's useless to count votes (and why I closed it the way I did). Cremastra (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  This is patently untrue, and largely the reason we are here. Zaathras (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sorry? Are you asserting that all the arguments made were perfect, well-thought out, and based in policy and guidelines? That's absurd. Here's just a few, on both sides:

  • Support It's the official name now.
    • Not necessarily a reason to move per WP:NAMECHANGES.
  • Oppose This is just another ploy by the Trump administration to create more division and hate in this country. Keeping the article as is is a form of rebellion and standing our ground. Just because Trump is running the show now doesn't mean we have to tolerate his new policies. This IS still a democracy after all. Keep it as Denali.
    • Um.
  • Support If AP style has already shifted to reflect the change, it must be moved. Any opposition to this is silly and obviously rooted in bias against Trump. Accept this and move on.
    • Bad-faith aspersions aside, last time I checked, the AP style guide was not a commandment from heaven.
  • Strongly Oppose , Common people of Alaska including Democrats and most Republicans continue to call it Denali and used the word Denali even before Obama renamed it according to the source.
    • No evidence, WP:COMMONNAME is sort of implied vaguely but not even backed up with a "per [username]".
  • Support. This page was moved to Denali almost instantaneously once Obama declared that to be the name. I see no reason not to follow that precedent now.
    • WP:CCC
  • Oppose The content of Wikipedia shouldn't reflect political stunts. If content can change at the whim of a politician then that seriously undermines readers' ability to trust Wikipedia.
    • No basis in WP:AT.
  • Support Regardless of our feelings about the name change or the man behind it, it's our solemn (sometimes tedious) duty to report the facts of reality, and this is the official name. Ignoring that would lead to a problem where everyone could rename stuff on Wikipedia.
    • Again, WP:NAMECHANGES.
  • Support
    • WP:NOTAVOTE

  Also a lot of the votes and replies were just screaming "IT'S THE COMMON NAME!!!" "NO IT ISN'T!!!!" with rather a dearth of evidence cited for such a major discussion. I stand by my close. Cremastra (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

  Cherry-picking like this is just further cementing the fact that you were unfit to close this discussion. Zaathras (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  I disagree - this is a perfectly valid response to your assertion, and I don't see this reply as providing any indication as to Cremastra's ability to close the discussion. Turnagra (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Zaathras You must be kidding me. You ask me to provide evidence of any bad !votes whatsoever; I provide some; and then you accuse me of cherrypicking quotes!? If I had included some of the good !votes, it wouldn't be a response to your (clearly unsubstantiated) claim, would it? If compiling evidence is "cherrypicking", then yes, I suppose this is. But your insistence on aggressively attacking my decisions for no apparent reason troubles me. In fact, I wonder if this whole MRV is frivolous, especially given that you rushed to this option even though I made it clear that I was willing to discuss this further on my talk page. I am, not to put too fine a point on it, ticked off at pretty much everything I've seen of your conduct so far.Cremastra (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  Your feelings are wholly irrelevant to the matter at hand, and the point remains that you rushed to close an active discussion as no-consensus by fraudulently claiming that a preponderance of the input was not policy-based. We're done here, and we shall await the close of this filing. Which should either be re-opened or closed now as a consensus to Not Move. Zaathras (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  Please don't accuse other editors of making fraudulent claims. Your aggressive behaviour is way out of line. I do not wish to deal with you further. Cremastra (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• If you're implying you didn't even check to see what the count of people supporting/opposing was after you downweighted poor !votes, then this absolutely must be overturned as a bad close. SportingFlyer T·C 21:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  No, that was not my implication. Cremastra (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  @KnowledgeIsPower9281 started this, so let's ask him what he thinks. 2601:483:400:1CD0:6C7A:DBC:63E3:8CFB (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  I say wait a few months, especially when Denali / McKinley climbing season starts up again in May. Reopening the discussion now probably won't result in a different outcome. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  I also agree that "not moved" is a better close statement than "no consensus". KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  A close of "not moved" is inconsistent with revisiting the question in a few months: "not moved" means the issue has been definitively settled now. "Not moved" and "no consensus" are very different things, see WP:THREEOUTCOMES. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse closure: Thanks to Cremastra for tackling such a contentious move and doing a decent job of it. What a lot of words to sift through on all of this! I agree with Calwatch. Let's just wait three months and see what happens. Encyclopedias move slower than news outlets. That's ok. Maybe even good. Surely enough of all this for now. Ironic (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved) Given the recent events regarding the name change and the intent of WP:NAMECHANGES, there is clearly not yet any consensus one way or the other regarding the question at hand. The highly attended discussion reflects this, and more time for discussion would not change that outcome at this time. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Archive

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

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