Wikipedia:Move review

Skip to: Active discussions · Recent discussions · Archive · (purge cache)

Shortcuts WP:MR WP:MRV

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.

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.

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.

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=
}}  ~~~~

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.

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}}.

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.

Białystok City Stadium (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

The closer has declared a "no consensus" on this RM, which is fair enough (although for the record I actually supported the option of moving to "Chorten Arena" instead). However, what doesn't seem correct is that having made the no-consensus determination, they've reverted the title back to a name which was last used in October 2020, determining that to be the "stable" title. When I queried this, they cited the fact that the page has been moved multiple times in the past year as justification for determining that there is no stable version at all and that they were invoking the clause at WP:NOCONSENSUS which deems that the first non-stub title is to be used.

It's true that there have been a lot of moves recently:

However, as we can see here, other than a five-month period following an undiscussed move last May - which was then reverted in October per WP:RMUM - and then a series of moves back and forth as the RM was variously closed and reopened, the page has otherwise been stable at the Stadion Miejski (Białystok) name for the vast majority of the past four years and that name is therefore the clear stable title. Since there was no consensus, it should revert back to that name. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Enforce no consensus It's clearly a no consensus and should be treated as a not moved, but the version the closer moved to is clearly not the stable title as it was stable for four years and is neither a common name nor a correct translation. It's a bad enough decision to be TROUTable. SportingFlyer T·C 05:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In the discussion, 20,000 ghits indicated that it was a common name. Paradygmaty was the only editor who complained that City Stadium was an incorrect translation but that was countered by FromCzech who said it was "the more accurate", usernamekiran who said it was "common and natural" and Amakaru who said Municipal Stadium was "a made-up Wikipedia translation not found in any sources". Three to one against is not something a closer can ignore without an extraordinarily strong rationale. DrKay (talk) 08:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There was nobody in the discussion who explicitly favoured moving back to Białystok City Stadium so I'm not sure where your "three to one" figures come from. And FromCzech noted that name merely to point out that it was a more common name than the proposed Białystok Municipal Stadium, while their vote was clearly for Chorten Arena. But none of that matters because your close didn't assert that there was such a consensus, it merely said that there was no consensus. And having determined that, you then reverted to an old title that was manifestly not the most-recent stable title. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't say there was. I am only refuting SportingFlyer's contention that it "is neither a common name nor a correct translation." You agree with me that it is not a consideration in the close, so don't pretend it is. DrKay (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn effect of no consensus. I agree with the view that the title from 2020–2024 was the most recent stable title. Admittedly there's no clear dividing line on what counts as stable, and time is not the only factor, but I think this is on the stable side of the line. Adumbrativus (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Tough call! < uninvolved > Very tough call. We are compelled to decide between the ideas of two editors whom we revere and admire. Definitely agree that "no consensus" is the correct read on this RM; however, our choice is between the first stable title that the RM closer sees as the correct outcome per WP:RMCIDC, and the title cited by the nom of this review to be the "most recent" stable title. Hmmm. "When article title discussions end without consensus, the applicable policy preserves the most recent stable title." I'm leaning toward the stability of the title that the nom points out as the "most recent" stable title, "Stadion Miejski (Białystok)". For now, that is the highest and best title. And with all the "most recent" contentiousness of this poor article-title issue, I think that a 3-month moratorium on formal RM discussion would give editors time to think their consensus-building thoughts through thoroughly together with some INformal discussion. All eyes on this one! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1925 tri-state tornado outbreak (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

Closer strung together a bunch of unrelated arguments and seemed to WP:SUPERVOTE (at least from what I see re-reading the discussion); was challenged by me and Aviationwikiflight on DrKay's talk page. I counted four opposes, one strongly, and four lowercase of "tri-state" supports. Closer also used reasonings from opposers (Chicdat's recentism concern in particular) and somehow used that to justify keeping the year in the title, which opposers were against. E_F⁵ 16:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus: pretty clear SUPERVOTE, it was determined, especially in the later votes, that the outbreak was the primary topic. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 16:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse own close. The opening party asked for the year to be included in the title on the basis that it was not the primary topic.[1] I closed the discussion on the same basis,[2] and therefore added the year as s/he had requested. I agree that there were 4 opposers, but there were 6 editors in favor of adding the year, of which the opening party was one [EF5, BarrelProof, Dicklyon, Tony, Cinderella157 and Extraordinary Writ]. The opening party appears to be confused. DrKay (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not confused, I’m listing what I think was an improper closure, regardless of outcome. E_F⁵ 16:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want the year added or not? DrKay (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also never supported the lowercasing of “trị-state”, which is the reason I’m bringing it here. E_F⁵ 16:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were one of 3 editors opposing lower case, but you say yourself that there were 4 supporting lower case and as I said in my close, they were able to counter the arguments of the minority. DrKay (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I opposed lowercase as well, it may not have been clear from my !vote. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your !vote did not make that clear. DrKay (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think taking an "oppose as the status quo is good" and interpreting that as not also in opposition of changing the title case was the correct move. Departure– (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The diff speaks for itself. No closer is going to assess that comment as being anything to do with case. DrKay (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usually when there are multiple options, someone replies to my post and asks me what I think about the alternative proposal, and I respond (in this case, with an oppose), however, as my comment was the last of the RM, that didn't happen. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a telepath. I cannot predict the future. DrKay (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse there's a slight consensus that the move is correct and that it's not the primary topic, which is also borne out from a reading of the discussion. I don't like the closer pointing out the fact there's recentism involved from the latest sources because of the centenary year, this would have been better as a vote, but it is absolutely true. After finding consensus for the move there is clear consensus that the new title should be lowercase. Good close. SportingFlyer T·C 04:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus (uninvolved). The closer's assertion that "RECENTISM is more likely to favor the 1925 outbreak (because it is the centenary year), thus inflating its prominence" is enough for me to consider this a supervote, given that the only recentism arguments made in the discussion were by people opposed to the move. Even if you buy that argument -- which I do not -- the closer cannot be the only one to raise that point. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It is the job of the closer to assess the strength of arguments. I assessed the recentism argument as weak because it makes no logical sense. Closers should not throw out logic on the grounds that no-one brought it up. DrKay (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. < uninvolved > This close is reasonable and within the directions of the guide. I agree that this is a good closure. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 10:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus – The rationale that was provided did not reflect the consensus of the discussion itself.

  On inclusion/exclusion of the year, I find the arguments that this outbreak is the primary topic unconvincing, partly because the google searches below for "tri state tornado" include the 1947 tri-state outbreak in the first 10 hits and RECENTISM is more likely to favor the 1925 outbreak (because it is the centenary year), thus inflating its prominence.

  This is clearly a WP:SUPERVOTE. Nobody in the discussion ever brought up any of these objections regarding the sources during the discussion. If the closer had an objection regarding the sources, they should have voiced them during the discussion. –

  partly because the google searches below for "tri state tornado" include the 1947 tri-state outbreak in the first 10 hits

  Only considering reliable sources, out of these first 10 search results presented, four of them refer to the 1925 tornado outbreak compared to a single piece referring to a "tri-state tornado outbreak" in 2024. The 1947 tornado outbreak source that the closer is referring to comes from Ancestry.com which is an unreliable source. And had the closer looked more into the google search results, they would have found a plethora of sources (including those that predate 2024) that use "Tri-State tornado outbreak" – [3] [4] [5] [6] – in addition to the linked Newspapers.com sources which weren't mentioned in the close. All of this clearly refutes the "recentism" argument offered in the closer's rationale. The results, as stated in my comment, along with this comment, clearly demonstrated the Tri-State tornado outbreak being the primary topic, compared to the weak supports mostly based on no evidence. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1925 tri-state tornado (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

As with the contested move of 1925 tri-state tornado outbreak, closer strung together arguments and WP:SUPERVOTEd (at least from what I see re-reading the discussion). Nobody supported a "tri-state" in the nomination (more people actually voted for Great Tri-State Tornado and Tri-state tornado of 1925 over anything else), and it was moved to an article title that was never actually voted on in the nomination. E_F⁵ 16:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per my other !vote. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 16:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - I opened the RM in the first place, and from my cursory reading it seems a lot more editors were in favor of Tri-State (all capitalized) than even what I initially designated as the move target (Great Tri-State Tornado) with one saying it was more common in secondary sources. Not to mention I strongly dislike this change, and also the fact that Tri-state tornado of 1929, the worst possible name, picked up a concerning amount of steam, but whatever.

Note also the move discussion at Talk:2021 Tri-State tornado#Requested move 16 February 2025. Departure– (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think the whole RM needs to be re-done - new votes from everyone who voted, so we can get clearer explanations as to why what should be called what. As stated below, holy hell, this is one mess of an RM, and as someone deep from within WPWX having an RM pick between four possible names and the two that weren't even in the RM being favored at closing through a murky consensus just doesn't sit well with me. Departure– (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to Tri-state tornado of 1925. This is a fantastically messy discussion, so I went through and "counted" each !vote by preference: 3 for tri-state of 1925, 2 for 1925 tri-state, and 2 for Great Tornado, plus one split vote for tri-state of 1925/Great Tornado. There's no arguments here that clearly need to be down-weighted, so there's a numerical consensus to move away from the current title. After the original move, there's evidence in the discussion Great Tornado isn't the COMMONNAME, so I would have closed this as "Tri-state tornado of 1925," since the "of" is an accepted naming convention. The only problem with the close is it selected an option no one advocated for, even though it was mentioned once in the discussion. (Tri-state isn't a proper noun, so shouldn't be capitalised.) SportingFlyer T·C 04:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  By my read, including the nom, there were four supporting Great Tri-State (Departure–, EF5, me, Randy Kryn). All these and the two who opposed any name change supported uppercase. That's 6–3, uppercase, and 4–3–2, Great Tri-State. Let me know if I counted wrong, it was a messy discussion. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Look at my close: "no prejudice against the opening of a new requested move to discuss word order", i.e. Tri-state tornado of 1925. A few of the editors commenting here don't seem to realise that they're actually agreeing with me. DrKay (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The point is that the entire close was bad. Nobody voted for what you closed it as. E_F⁵ 12:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "the word order [was] raised but I don't see clear consensus or argument in favor of one or other. Both forms ("1925 tornado" and "tornado of 1925") are natural and idiomatic. I am closing this requested move with the minimal change of upper case to lower case with no prejudice against the opening of a new requested move to discuss word order". DrKay (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. < uninvolved > This is what seems to be an obvious case of WP:OTHEROPTIONS and probably shouldn't be reviewed, and yet here we are. Far too many of these are brought here to MRV when a lot of time could be saved by just opening a fresh RM like the closer allowed. Suggest a speedy close of this review so editors can get on with it. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 10:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tour of Flanders (men's race) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

Per WP:CONCISE and WP:TITLECON, the addition of a disambiguator to Tour of Flanders is against policy and unnecessary, especially as "Tour of Flanders" continues to redirect to the new page, showing that the non-disambiguated title is unambiguous, and therefore, the move shouldn't have occurred as was unnecessary. The RM should either be reclosed correctly or otherwise be reopened. Happily888 (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: there isn't anything wrong procedurally with the closure. This MR seems to have been opened as a way to re-litigate an argument (for which the nominator here seems to have missed the deadline, as the move went unanimously unopposed) as opposed to discussing what was wrong with the closure itself. If the nominator has a good policy-based argument, then it would be easier to consider, or make that argument to the closure and asked that they re-open the discussion so they could make it. Otherwise, if the concern is simply that the undisambiguated title redirects to the new title, then the solution would be to create a DAB page at the new location, or use the {{Redirect}} hatnote template. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• In general, this is a clear endorse, except for one fact - the women's race is at Tour of Flanders for Women, not at Tour of Flanders (women's race), meaning this is unnecessarily disambiguated, and more discussion is necessary to determine whether the women's title should move as well. SportingFlyer T·C 04:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The women's race should be moved too. The discussion on the men's race page was about moving both pages as the 'Tour of Flanders' title is ambiguous. The redirect should be to a disambiguation page, not to the men's race page as the above user is suggesting. Yaksgawky (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit: see below. There is a clear consensus about this. The discussion at Talk:Tour of Flanders covered moving the Tour of Flanders for Women page to Tour of Flanders (women's race) (which I cannot do myself due to the technicality of an existing redirect), as well as applying this decision to the Brabantse Pijl / Brabantse Pijl (women's race) and Amstel Gold Race / Amstel Gold Race (women's race) pages. Yaksgawky (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this discussion applies at all to the women's or the Belgian and Dutch races, because there has been no notification about this move at Talk:Tour of Flanders for Women, Talk:Brabantse Pijl, Talk:Amstel Gold Race, etc. The rationale to move these titles to just avoid sexism is against policy and incorrect, adding disambiguators just for WP:TITLECON should not be occurring. Happily888 (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "just to avoid sexism". It's because the races have the same name. WP:TITLECON is irrelevant in this example as there is clear ambiguity. Tour of Flanders refers to both races, there is no way of knowing which someone means without disambiguating. As the consensus is on the reason for requiring a rename, it therefore applies to Tour of Flanders (women's race) too. Precedent should apply to De Brabantse Pijl and Amstel Gold Race without needing individual discussions. Yaksgawky (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being the original move proposer, I am changing my vote to relist but strongly oppose an overturn as proposed by others here. I made a mistake by not including other pages in the move request, which I will address when relisted. However, as User:Cinderella157 references WP:CIR, I too will quote:

It does not mean "come down hard like a ton of bricks on someone as soon as they make a mistake". We should cut editors (particularly new ones) some slack, and help them understand how to edit competently. Mistakes are an inevitable part of the wiki process."

A relist is therefore the only logical solution, allowing me to amend this error without undoing all of my previous efforts. Yaksgawky (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Malformed Relist uninvolved Per WP:RMNOMIN: ... move as requested unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy. Further, any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it. Per WP:TITLEDAB: It is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article, as that title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles. According to the precision criterion, only as much detail as is necessary to distinguish one topic from another should be used. I could also cite other applicable P&G whereby the proposal is in conflict with P&G. Retaining the more concise name as a redirect while moving to parenthetic disambiguation is clearly in conflict with applicable guideline and policy. The nom and those (two) supporting the move express opinion without reference to the prevailing P&G. They have not given a very good reason to ignore rules. A closer with adequate knowledge of prevailing P&G and of WP:RMCIDC should not have closed this with a consensus to move. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The original proposer is now saying that the RM should have addressed three pages ie: Tour of Flanders → Tour of Flanders (men's race); Tour of Flanders for Women → Tour of Flanders (women's race) and Tour of Flanders → as a disamgiguation page for the male and female races. This means that the RM is clearly malformed (and no result). The malformed RM has created the inconsistency with P&G per my initial comment. I also note WP:CIR. If closed as malformed I suggest that WP:NATURAL be considered over parenthetic disambiguation in making a new RM. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NATURAL does not apply to this example as there are no "alternative name[s] that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources" , and even if it did, this is not the place to make that claim. See SportingFlyer: Please remember this isn't move review part two, it's just looking to see if the close was appropriate.[7] Yaksgawky (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You write as if the men's race is the primary topic, but it's not. There is no primary in this instance. I also don't know where the argument for having 'Tour of Flanders' as a redirect to the men's race has come from. Tour of Flanders should clearly be moved to be a disambiguation page but required mod approval to do this. Yaksgawky (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It is actually consistent with Wikipedia policy to endorse the page move. The move to Tour of Flanders (men's race) is necessary to ensure clarity and consistency. As per WP:TITLEDAB, "if the article is not about the primary topic for the ambiguous name, the title must be disambiguated". 'Tour of Flanders' refers to both the men's and women's races. There is no primary topic here, it is two equal events, so disambiguation is required. The addition of 'men's race' ensures the title remains as concise as possible (as per WP:CONCISE and WP:TITLECON) while resolving the ambiguity between the two races. The real issue here is that the women's race was not moved at the same time and Tour of Flanders was not set up as a disambiguation page, which creates inconsistency. To fully align with WP:TITLE and WP:TITLECON, the women’s race should also be moved to Tour of Flanders (women's race). Following the guidelines set out in WP:TITLEDAB and WP:DABNAME, Tour of Flanders should be a disambiguation page listing both the men's and women's race pages, rather than having that page set as a redirect to Tour of Flanders (men's race) as is currently the case. Yaksgawky (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please remember this isn't move review part two, it's just looking to see if the close was appropriate. SportingFlyer T·C 18:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No one above seems to using any policy arguments regarding the closure, the argument is because OP disagrees with the move, not the procedure. Yaksgawky (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn or relist per Cinderella. The issue of primary topic wasn't addressed at all at the RM, and it is therefore incorrect to declare a consensus that there is no longer a primary topic. As such, I've reverted the change of redirect to a dab page. Furthermore, as Cinderella says, given there's a primary topic, disambiguation is unnecessary. If a primary topic discussion were started, it seems fairly clear that the current primary topic (the men's race) is indeed correct, at least as far as page views are concerned - [8].  — Amakuru (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Amakuru, as I have amended my comment, you may wish to review your comment given it refers to mine. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cinderella157: indeed, I agree this whole RM is a mess. The discussion didn't include some of the pages that were apparently intended to be affected (including Tour of Flanders for Women) and the participants were talking of a need to disambiguate the topic without ever directly discussing whether the men's event is or isn't a primary topic. As such, I think either a relist or a vacate the close and do-over are required, with a discussion and close which addresses all the issues, not just moving one article to an unnecessarily disambiguated title for no particular reason. I'm not sure what the way forward is... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Page views is a ludicrous measurement. Of course it's getting "primary topic" views compared to the women's race when it has been receiving priority through having sole Wikipedia ownership of the Tour of Flanders page title. Yaksgawky (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. < uninvolved > This is an excellent closure, within the parameters of the guide and perfectly reasonable when you consider there is also a Tour of Flanders (women's race). Both the men's and women's races are of equal status so there is no primary topic. Wikipedia is not misogynistic. A page move was well-supported, unopposed, and then made. As I said, excellent close! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Five game (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

After discussing with the closer their rational for the close, it would appear that the closer has acted as a judge of the issue, rather of the argument, acting contrary to WP:NHC and consequently WP:RMCIDC. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist or Overturn to no consensus I do not see the strength of argument the closer saw in the discussion - in fact, I think those opposing have an argument more consistent with our core policies. The supports and opposes came to different conclusions about the n-grams (which looking at the n-grams, makes sense). The support arguments also leaned heavily on "it's capitalised elsewhere, so we can do it here was well." I just don't see one side being stronger than the other here. (As an aside, as someone completely unfamiliar with the topic, I thought I was wading into an American sporting event. Adding another word to the title may make sense.) SportingFlyer T·C 04:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. < uninvolved > Gutsy close, editor Sceptre. I don't see this close as any kind of supervote just because the closer was a little less terse than I would have been. The only thing I would have done differently is that I would have seriously considered going with something similar to editor BarrelProof's proposed title, Big Five game animals, to dispel the obvious confusion and ambiguity. All things considered this RM closure is reasonable and within the outline of the guide. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved). Largely per Paine above. The close was reasonable and based on information provided in the discussion. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Search Move review archives Wikipedia:Move review

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