Archives

2012 2013 2014 2015

So, in Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2016_October#New_York_.28closed.29, User:Diego Moya posted a post-close comment. User:Oknazevad reverted, a little two-move revert war, then User:Salvidrim! (the admin MR closer) page protected.

As User:Diego Moya was replying to a statement made directly to him, he deserve the privilege of being able to reply. However, inside the closed discussion is not the place. Within closed discussions, typo corrections, link corrections, links to follow-up discussions are seen to happen, but to continue discussions post-close is too much.

I believe it is appropriate to make post-close replies outside, below, the collapse box formatting. This makes it clear that the close was made prior to further comments.

If the post-close reply is short and simple, and not demanding of further response, I think it is appropriate to simply post a comment below the archive box. If it is more than that, I would suggest posting post-close comments on the talk page (in this case: Wikipedia talk:Move review/Log/2016 October), and putting pointer to these comments below the archive box.

This sort of thing has been accepted/tolerated at DRV, in several instances. I think it should be, adhering to the following principles:

• A closed discussion should be preserved to reflect the discussion at the time of close
• The closing of a formal discussion is not intended to serve as a ban on continued discussion.
• Project related discussions, such as relating to move reviews, should remain in more or less one place, not fragmented on to user talk pages, or in isolated segments on article talk pages.

If this is not disagreed with, I suggest User:Salvidrim! unprotect the page, and put User:Diego Moya's post-close comment outside and below the collapsed archive box, or on the talk page.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with placing my reply below the discussion instead of inside it. If further comments are made, then it could be continued at the related article's talk page. What I'm poised off is that I couldn't set straight a reply that misrepresented my opinion of the review, merely because of the timing of the close. I don't want the discussion to go archived for future reference with such misunderstanding of my position without being able to even point out that I still had something to clarify; that's why I made my WP:IAR edits. Diego (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TBH I don't much care about the validity of post-close comments, I only protected because of the edit warring. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I only reverted because the standard is closed discussions are not supposed to be edited; part of the purpose of the closing templates is to make clear what discussion was examined by the closer to come to their conclusion, and adding things later muddles that. Below the close comments, while still missing the other point of a close (to provide a conclusion to the discussion), don't do that and are better, if still not perfect. oknazevad (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

well lets allow but discourage post close comments. I do them sometimes when I have the page sitting for a few hours and want to say something, but by the time I click edit, someone has closed the discussion. Having extra comments is pretty harmless, even if useless, and on the talk page may be better. Reverting escalates the comment into conflict. So please don't revert unless there is a real reason the comment should be removed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request

This edit request to Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 October has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add the following at the end of Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 October#New York .28closed.29, just below the ending tag, per discussion above:

Reply to Alanscottwalker's last comment in the closed discussion above: My position is not to endorse the close, nor it is to endorse that there's was no consensus about the result; that is your interpretation. My position would be equivalent to the 7th option ("don't relist, yet don't endorse either") at the Typical move review decision options. At no point does the WP:MR page states that "endorse" and "overturn" are the only possible positions that commentators may state, so it doesn't make our position to "do not endorse that this was a proper close" something out of process. Diego (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm posted this request here rather than at Wikipedia talk:Move review/Log/2016 October because it doesn't exist, and here is where the conversation has taken place. Diego (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diego (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Reply to post close comment of Diego: Your post close comment reinforces that you are not here to uphold process but to rather go against process, as you have edit warred to insert a comment not in the closed discussion. You did not cast a !Vote with the words Do not relist, and then you misrepresnt with quotation marks statements that are not elsewhere in the instructions or your ivote, so your now recasting of your ivote is again out-of-process, and demonstrates disdain for process. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please continue your discussion elsewhere — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What? What's the reason for not posting this comment on the page but posting his comment? I will wait until the page is unprotected to correct the record, but I do not understand the apparent favoritism you are showing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Because my request to modify the protected page was made after a consensus was developed at this talk page. This template is expected to be used only when the agreement to make a particular change has been discussed and agreed. I'm not opposed to include your comment there, together with a link to wherever we continue the discussion if that happens; but you should ask for the other editors opinions to do that before placing the edit request. Diego (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, your now answering for MSGJ? Really. Besides as this discussion is now open the request remains unanswered. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MSGJ - What are you talking about disruptive? Per adminact you have not answered the question on an admin act that shows favoritism. Clearly it was not about a talk page consensus, or you would have said you would post it after you get consensus and you would have done it on the talk page, and as consensus is now present why are you not posting it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, we could continue this conversation either at our talk pages or at Talk:New York#Requested move 19 July 2016. In that case, adding a link to the new place for this conversation at the end of the move review would be needed. And, given that your reply is in the line of wanting to guess on my behavior and intentions rather than on the decision by the closer, I think our talk pages are the most appropriate place. Diego (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. My reply is in direct response to yours and your evidently gross misuse of quotation marks and false claims to upholding process, while you violate process. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, those are quotes used for emphasis (i.e. "scare quotes" used "to signal that a term is being used in a non-standard sense"), not quotation of direct speech. I used them to mean that I was paraphrasing the 7th of the Typical move review decision options, that is put in contrast with the not-so-equivalent first option, which also results in a closed discussion without a move, but doesn't endorse the outcome - i.e. exactly the intent of my not-vote at the move review. Diego (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, your excuse, now, is that you were using the words you put in quotes in a non-standard fashion. That is ridiculous and makes no sense - in fact, such a practice is pretty much designed to make no sense (or perhaps to mislead). Thus, the record should be corrected.Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Wikipedia:Move review is not protected, removing from fprot request queue. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. I did not post it here. I posted it at the talk page of the protected page. It was moved here by an admin. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think a bot to transclude and remove monthly logs in the "Active discussions" section may be desired, if not needed. I can't be the only one doing this manually. Of course, anyone else can do it manually. It's that... Reading the history logs, delays to add a fresher month are (if not common) not uncommon. As for the monthly logs, what to do about one of the monthly logs if the discussions from that log are closed? --George Ho (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not have a bot do it? Pinging editors who may be able to assist: wbm1058 and Armbrust are both active in this area and run bots. Anomie's bot clerks DRV, which is a similar job to what would be required here. Jenks24 (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AnomieBOT 66 clerks deletion review. The configuration of move review was blatantly copied from deletion review, so it might be easy to leverage AnomieBOT 66 into a new AnomieBOT task that clerks here. I'd offer to do this if it was PHP, but I don't do Perl. @Anomie: can you take this one onboard? Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AnomieBOT 66 maintains Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active, but we don't have Wikipedia:Move review/Active.

Rather, we have Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 February, and before that, Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 January, so our configuration isn't identical. Seems like with our scheme, they are "pre-archived" on a monthly basis. So, I suppose I should look closer at exactly what specific edits George Ho and others are making to maintain the system. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once a month, AnomieBOT 66 creates a new monthly archive file, e.g. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 February. This monthly archive simply transcludes 28–31 daily files (e.g. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 February 1 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 February 6). Some of these daily files have no activity. The move review activity doesn't justify daily files, thus we only have a single monthly file that has all the reviews started that month. wbm1058 (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We currently have 22 Category:Pages at move review, but only one active discussion. That means we have 21 move reviews that were not completely closed, as they should be in Category:Closed move reviews, but are not. The admins closing the reviews should be taking care to do this. wbm1058 (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review § Closing reviews: 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=2015 April 24|result=Closure endorsed)).

That's the step that wasn't done. Occasionally I drop by here to mop these up. It's been a long time since my last visit (maybe a couple of years), and I see 21 items waiting for attention. wbm1058 (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think switching to using Wikipedia:Move review/Active is a good idea, especially if it makes it easier to reuse an existing bot. There were discussions a while back that leaned in that direction. Latest was Wikipedia talk:Move review/Archive 2014#Monthly logs. It would also make it easier for move review regulars to watch the pages instead of having the future log pages. I was actually going to be bold and create it for January 2015 but that page got created early and I never got around to it for the next month. PaleAqua (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... an "Active" subpage is not a bad idea. Good thinking. :) George Ho (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've cleared out Category:Pages at move review. 154 closed move reviews now. This isn't exactly a high-volume maintenance area. There are a lot of higher-volume activities I do that aren't automated yet.

My understanding is that there are three manual-maintenance tasks.

(1) Once a month, create a new monthly-archive file. Armbrust created January on 6 December 2015. Fuortu created February on 4 January 2017. Armbrust created March on 29 January 2017.

Wikipedia:Move review/Next month helps to create these files?

(2) On the first day of a new month, transclude this file to Wikipedia:Move review. George Ho added February on February 1.

(3) When all items in a given month's list are closed, remove the transclusion. George Ho removed January on February 13.

Sometimes there is only one month transcluded, sometimes the current month and previous month(s) are transcluded together.

AnomieBOT 66 performs all three tasks for deletion review. It appears that the source code has the intelligence to recognize when all discussions are closed.

AnomieBOT 66 performs the following tasks at WP:DRV:

• Create the daily DRV subpage.
• Create the monthly DRV subpage.
• Fix the headers on the daily DRV subpages, if they get removed or damaged.
• Maintain the lists at WP:DRV#Active discussions and WP:DRV#Recent discussions.
• Remove headers from closed non-current discussions.

We just have monthly subpages. So while Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active transcludes 6 or 7 daily files, Wikipedia:Move review/Active would transclude just one or two (maybe 3) monthly files.

I'm not sure this is worth the time to create a bot for, but if AnomieBOT 66 can easily be tweaked to handle our less-complex setup, then maybe it wouldn't be too much trouble to implement. @Anomie: the ball's in your court, if you want to accept the serve. wbm1058 (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of something slightly different where the discussions would occur on an active page which would then get moved to a new monthly page once the month switches. The main move review page would always transclude Active and other other months that have active discussions. i.e.

Once a month

• Move the current Active page to the previous month log page.
• Add a transclusion at Wikipedia:Move review to the moved subpage if there are any open discussions.
• Create a new Active subpage from a template.

Regular maintenance

• If all the discussions in a transcluded page has been closed ( save for active ), remove from Wikipedia:Move review
• Remove headers from closed non-current discussions.

PaleAqua (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that a bot can just add monthly logs. A log can be removed manually from then until someone can properly configure a bot to remove a log of closed discussions. Thoughts?--George Ho (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... didn't notice Wikipedia:Bot requests. Shall I repeat the request there? George Ho (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#RfC_close_review_please.3F, I raised the idea of expanding the scope of WP:MR to include reviews of challenged RfC closes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer having a central location to review all closures of consensus-finding discussions, which would essentially mean a combination of DRV + MRV + RfC closures (currently handled at AN). Jenks24 (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I second Jenks24. That would be a much better system than having several processes that don't really work.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Combing WP:DRV with MRV would be a disaster. DRV is already filled with so many contested closures of deletion discussions (and other informal deletions). I created WP:discussion review, but that failed (but would be revived someday). George Ho (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • As when move review was first proposed at WT:DRV, I would oppose merging any other reviews into DRV. Deletion review is head and shoulders more important than any MR or RfC review I have ever seen. Bad deletions risk far more long term negative consequences, noting WP:CSD#G4, SALTing and BLOCKing for repeated recreations. Two review processes is a reasonable idea, but not one. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from Wikipedia_talk:Move_review/Archive_2014#Monthly_logs. I still agree with User:Jenks24 13:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC). User:PaleAqua's 13:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC) pre-watchlisting workaround was good, but not long enough. Here are some more:[reply]

Add the following to your raw watchlist to watch the next few years. You can just paste them in even if you already are watching some of them, and it will adds only the ones that you don't have. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 January
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 February
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 March
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 April
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 May
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 June
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 July
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 August
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 September
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 October
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 November
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 December
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 January
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 February
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 March
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 April
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 May
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 June
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 July
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 August
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 September
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 October
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 November
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 December
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 January
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 February
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 March
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 April
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 May
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 June
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 July
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 August
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 September
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 October
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 November
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 December
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 January
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 February
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 March
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 April
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 May
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 June
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 July
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 August
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 September
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 October
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 November
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 December
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 January
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 February
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 March
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 April
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 May
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 June
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 July
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 August
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 September
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 October
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 November
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 December
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 January
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 February
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 March
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 April
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 May
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 June
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 July
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 August
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 September
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 October
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 November
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 December
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 January
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 February
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 March
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 April
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 June
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 August
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 September
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 October
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 November
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 December
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 January
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 February
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 March
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 April
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 May
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 June
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 July
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 August
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 September
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 October
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 November
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 December
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 January
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 February
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 March
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 April
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 May
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 June
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 July
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 August
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 September
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 October
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 November
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 December
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2027 January
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2027 February
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2027 March
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2027 April
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2027 May
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2027 June
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2027 July
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2027 August
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2027 September
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2027 October
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2027 November
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2027 December

I thought we had agreed, January 2013, at Wikipedia_talk:Move_review/Archive_2013#Questions, that articles should not be tagged as subject to a formal Move Review. Only two of us participated. I think there reasons then were as good as they are now. A move review is a backroom review process of a backroom process, the closing of a RM discussion. The article should not be disrupted. The MR discussion is likely to carry on for a long time, and the debate will be esoteric or completely irrelevant to article readers.

Accordingly, I will modify Wikipedia:Move_review#Steps_to_list_a_new_review_request, where the instructions actually instruct to do what was decided to not do. Done --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging used listed at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Move_review.2FLog.2F2017_November:

• Jax 0677 (talk · contribs)
• Lugnuts (talk · contribs)
• SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs)
• Jenks24 (talk · contribs)

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• My recollection of the rationale is that the idea was that since we did not give notice of RMs to article readers, as this was a "back room discussion", that under most circumstances was fairly routine and uncontroversial, in the relatively small percentage of RMs where the close was contested, only at that time would we put a notice on the article, to give wider attention to the review. But, now that we do give notice of nearly all RMs, then perhaps the notice of the review is redundant. Certainly worth reconsideration. wbm1058 (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reading of the linked Jan 2013 discussion (Me & Apteva) was that there was absurdity in giving no notice of the RM, and then giving notice of the MR. The template merge discussion, although on a different focus, I read as implying broad agreement. I find no other discussion directly speaking to this matter.
    The new practice of giving article page notice of an RM is a good idea, because the title is important content, and often speak s to article scope, and content interested potential editors may well be interested in the article title discussion. The MR should not be of interest to non-editor readers, as it is supposedly strictly about reviewing the process. I note that non-editors rarely appear at MR, and when they do they do not contribute to it meaningfully. Very few participate at MR who are not RM regulars. I think it is quite uncontroversial to confirm that article tag ((Move review)) should be deprecated in favour of ((Move review talk)). Should there ever be a concern at MR that content-interested potential editors should be notified of a title change outcome from MR, then the MR outcome should be a fresh RM? Are all those Rs and Ms in the right order? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, as a "RM regular", I agree with your proposed deprecation. No such user (talk) 09:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes, I also agree. There's little merit in advertising an MRV on the article page, for the reasons stated above.

      Personally I'm probably neutral even on the topic of advertising RMs and AfDs on the article page. There is an argument that we should only include on the article page content directly related to a reader's experience of the article at the time they are reading it (e.g. disambiguation hatnotes, concerns about verifiability etc.), not Wikipedia internal processes. However, there is also the argument that some editors may not be monitoring talk pages fully and that RMs could be a mechanism for drawing in new editors from the reader corps (most of us were in that position once, and hooks are good to draw people into full editing), so on balance there's no real problem with that.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - If ((move review)) should not be placed on any articles, then it needs to be reworded or deleted. It now says "do [not] remove this notice from the page". --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Following this discussion it has already been marked as deprecated,[1] and removed from the instructions,[2] so probably that's good enough. We can retain it for historical record.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Just chiming in to say I agree with all of the above and am happy to see it deprecated in favour of the talk page notice. I think at the time (c. 2013?) I was originally OK with the notification being at the top of the article because MRV was such a low-traffic process that I felt any extra outside involvement was beneficial. Having now had time to look back on that, I don't think the notices at the top of the article actually bring in any new editors to comment at MRV who have enough of a grasp of our practices. Ironically, probably the only time they have a chance of doing so is at really high-traffic articles such as the recent NYC attack, which is almost the last place they should be used because they're a big visual stain to our readers who would see these discussions as irrelevant. Jenks24 (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last two closes at WP:MR are WP:Supervotes. The last because the closer implements her unilateral opinion not supported by anyone else in the discussion. The second last because he throws in a opinion not reflecting consensus evident in the discussion, aka judicial activism. This is a worry. Note that a supervote does not mean the facts of the closing statement are wrong, but that the closer has stated something that is not a reading of consensus from the discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link the closes in question? Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2nd last Wikipedia:Move_review#Involuntary_celibacy_(closed)

1st last Wikipedia:Move_review#Aloy_(Horizon_Zero_Dawn)_(closed)

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Aloy one was a mess all around, I agree; fortunately the underlying question went away. You should just explain to the parties who messed up how you think they can do better in the future. I don't see what you're saying the problem is on the Incel case. Dicklyon (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the move review decision page, I suggest changing the table to this:

The reason why is because the action taken on an Endorse close is the same regardless of whether the page has been moved. The don't relist decision should be removed because it is essentially the same as an endorse close.
2601:183:101:58D0:6857:8FD9:8A96:84E9 (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What is Not moved or moved? Is it confused to other people, but I will leave other people comment. Hhkohh (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, it is jargon, it confuses. It is not plain English. It was a bad idea added at WP:THREEOUTCOMES, and I think it needs changing. “Consensus to move”, “no consensus”, and “consensus to not move” are plain English statements. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with you. BTW, the current table also has Not moved or moved. The current table is also too dull to me. Hhkohh (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Shouldn't "Move to new title" be "Move back to old title"? Also, please use lowercase ("Moved to new title", not "Moved to New Title", and "Not moved", not "Not Moved", and "No action required", not "No Action Required" and "If consensus", not "If Consensus"). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some strikethrough above. I wasn't reading it correctly. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on your comments, how about changing the table to this? 2601:183:101:58D0:1D8C:72FD:CC7A:135 (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note:I have reverted IP changes because the discussion is not closed currently, let the discussion run at least 1 week. Hhkohh (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions for closing a MRV discussion clearly say "an administrator..." throughout, which to me means that MRV discussions should not be closed by a non-admin. I am all in favour of non-admins conducting ordinary move closes, (and indeed I used to do many such myself before acquiring the mop) as this is beneficial for working throuh the backlog and helping them to build experience and track record ready for adminship. But for MRV it seems correct that it should be an admin, and preferably one very familiar with the RM process, because MRV is really the court of last appeal for move discussions and admins are those who have been explicitly endorsed by the community as having the experience and trust necessary to provide a fair and reasoned decision.

Now of course, if the MRV is open-and-shut, because the decision is unanimous and/or policy is crystal clear, it would be fine per WP:IAR for non-admins to close. But the reason I mention this is because there was a move review closed by a non-admin Winged Blades of Godric this morning, which does not seem crystal clear or unanimous. I raised several points objecting to the rationale used by those endorsing, and I think the fairest outcome would have been a relist so that I could go back and make my points about style in the RM and have them discussed fully. Instead, WBG closed as endorse, with no explanation or indication that they had read the arguments in the MRV, and even imposed a moratorium of a "considerable span of time" on what is really at best a no-consensus close. I have raised the issue on their talk page, so I hope they will reverse or reconsider their close, but I'm mentioning it here too just to get some more opinions. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Think that maybe there is more opinions come there. Hhkohh (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there has been a slightly worrying rash of adventurous NAC closings of RMs that is now spilling into MRV. I think the WP:NAC articulated standards should be expected at RM the same as XfD, and that WP:RMNAC needs to be harmonized, meaning tightened, back to the WP:NAC standard. MRV closes, like DRV closes, should be even more cautiously closed. We’ve had these discussions at WT:DRV, and most feel that for the ceremony of finality, an admin is required, although notable expert nonadmin closers, namely User:S Marshall, continued to be well accepted. Admin closes carry more weight because only admins have passed the baptism of fire of RfA where ability to call a consensus is explicitly examined. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As a former admin and occasional MRV/DRV closer, I did not stop performing these closures after becoming a non-admin. I simply avoid performing closures where their implementation requires admin tools or which seem exceptionally contentious. I've not had a closure questioned yet, even though the letter of the DRV/MRV guidelines make no mention of NACs. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 13:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is about MRV NACs in general and not about this specific discussion, for the record. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 13:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There's usually perspective problems when someone state:--the fairest outcome would have been a relist so that I could go back and make my points about style in the RM and have them discussed fully.At any case, best of wishes for the re-close of this MRV........ ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For one, my views are pretty similar to Ben...~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: perhaps I didn't make my point very well and sounded arrogant above, but I said "so I could go back and make my points" because that's what I meant. I missed this RM, and as TonyBallioni made in his comments at the MRV, I had added some extra context to it that hadn't been made in the RM itself. Usually if it comes to light that there are points of discussion that were not made before the close, it's sensible to relist because there is no WP:DEADLINE, and the goal is to get the right result for the Wikipedia, not for individual editors to "win" or "lose" the discussion. I always accept it when the community feels a different way about something than I do, but if that happens I at least like to understand why. In this case, it seems like the discussion has settled for Kshmr as the name of the article, but for reasons that aren't obvious to me. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the current MR, User:Paine Ellsworth makes some valid points about MR nominations that were launched without an attempt to discuss the matter with the discussion closer. I made some counter-points, but I think the discussion is worth continuing. It may well be beneficial sometimes to closed "procedurally close" and speedily send the nom to the closer's talk page. I think this may be a good idea when the following apply:

• The MRV nomination is not particularly persuasive, makes vague points, or asks questions appropriate to be answered informally.
• The nomination is fresh (it should be quickly done)
• The MRV nominator makes no statement that they deliberately did not follow the recommendation to discuss with the closer.

Possibly good reasons not to have a discussion with the closer may include:

• There was a post-RM discussion by others that more-or-less covered everything;
• The closer indicated that challenges should go direct to MRV.
• Any kind of interaction ban.

Where there is a good reason not to discuss the matter with the closer, it should be mentioned.

Example minimal discussions with closers are:

• Can you please elaborate on your close at talk:article. (preferably state what you don't understand)
• That close was surprising, would you mind reconsidering it? (preferably state what exactly you found surprising)

I suggest that a closer (and the closer's talk page stalkers) should be allowed at least 24 hours to respond. I'm yet to see a move review that had to be urgently listed.

I personally don't have strong feelings on this. Discussing first with the close is good WP:Etiquette, but if the MRV is already initiated, the closer can readily reply gently and informally in the MRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting question would be how often a challenge on the closer's talk page results in any sort of change of decision, and how often it results in the person querying the close being satisfied. If an MRV discussion is almost always the outcome anyway, then the discussion on the closer's page seems a superfluous step.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that informal closer-talk-page discussion is advised is that the inquirer can get an answer and potential satisfaction so much quicker that way. Anyway, that's why it makes sense to me. Bypassing that step and going straight to a formal MRV means that the outcome might be delayed by several days or weeks. It seems to me that inquirers would jump at the chance to possibly get answers and satisfaction within a few hours rather than wait for an MRV to close. So it puzzles me that editors almost always seem to want to zip straight to an MRV. That's what I don't get.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's often because they see the line "Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request" in the introduction at WP:RM and come straight here, without reviewing further documentation here to understand what "contest the outcome" means in this context. I think revising the wording of the line at WP:RM might be helpful. Dekimasuよ! 21:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's agreeable and has been done.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  00:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support this bold improvement. Not convinced the wording is perfect yet but definitely addresses a problem. Andrewa (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. I'd suspect it would be far more commmon that a Move Review that had no chance anyway was avoided rather than that the decision was varied by the closer, but that's a guess. Of course MRs are generally raised by people who disagree with the result, so perhaps satisfied is too much to hope for. Andrewa (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This bold improvement is probably impressive to people likely to frequent WT:MR, and few others.

Perhaps, Template:Move review links should me modified to include the link to the discussion with the closer. NB I am not much in favour that the discussion *must* be on the closer's user_talk page, often, a subsection immediately following the closed&boxed RM discussion is a better place. If it is not a question of personal understanding, but of relevance to the topic, the article talk page is where comments relevant to the topic belong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but that's the point exactly... that discussion does not belong on the article talk page, because the merits of the move are not under discussion. That would be rediscussing the RM itself, which is explicitly what MR is not. And a perennial problem is that people try to make it that.

Modifying that template to encourage following the existing procedure sounds a better idea. Andrewa (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To editors SmokeyJoe, Amakuru, Dekimasu and Andrewa: there is code in the ((Move review list/sandbox)) that adds two parameters, |closer= and |closer_section=, so nominators can show where they discussed the result with the closer. This would work well for the vast majority of MRs, even multiples as long as the same editor closed all the RMs. The listing would look like this:

If the |closer= parameter is omitted or left blank, the listing could be same as now:

Suggestions are welcome.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  18:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Above is an alternative example from the sandbox of a case where there was no discussion with the closer (|closer= omitted or left blank).  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To editors SmokeyJoe, Amakuru, Dekimasu and Andrewa: please note that the sandbox has been altered. The closer info is now at the end of the links rather than at the beginning. Is that better?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  12:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good. Let’s see if it works. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! If nobody objects, I'll implement in a few days.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  12:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  07:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to communcate pre-MR, and speedy closing the MR

Following my post at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2018_October#Nanjing_Massacre, I think it needs follow-up here, and possible modification of the MR process.

I wrote: "... I note that the closer, В²C, agreed to a relist/re-open, and really what should have happened was a request put to him directly BEFORE this came to MR. It is bad that it came prematurely to MR. It is bad this became bogged down in MR procedure after the closer agreed to relist. How can we fix this process problem?"

In my opinion, the close was overreach (others say it was fine). An early run of opinion was for a relist/reopen. The closer even agreed with that, fairly early in his discussion. This really should be routine, an NAC borderline overreach relisted on request. The complainant then promptly makes the important points in the RM discussion.

In this case, there was no approach to the closer (that I have found). Should have the MR nomination been speedy closed on this basis, as I think User:Paine Ellsworth supports above? When the RM closer essentially agreed to the MR nominator's request, should the MR have been closed at that point? I think there was nothing left to review, but the discussion had become so heavy that I suspect the old experienced respected closers preferred to stay out of the horrid mess, if they were reading it at all. One idea I have is that the RM closer could/should request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure for the Move Review to be closed. I think:

The RM closer should have special standing to request, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, an immediate WP:Move review close for either of the two reasons:

(a) failure of the nominator to discuss the problem with the closer; or

(b) the RM closer agrees to accede to the request.

If there are no other important matters in the mix requiring resolution, the review should be closed, surely? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we altered the process as you suggest, I think that would encourage more unhappy editors to go straight to MR without a discussion with the closer. Is that what we want? In other words, you're talking about a remedy for a scenario (MR file without discussion with closer) that thankfully rarely occurs, but, if remedied as you suggest, would ironically probably cause such scenarios to occur more often. Unintended consequences? --В²C ☎ 00:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, do look for unintended consequences. Modify my idea. No, the idea is that it is not good to have unhappy editors go straight to MR, but for them to slow down a bit, and get things clarified. My idea here is not addressing the encouragement of editors to talk nicely and informally first, but what to do with a MR discussion that has, or is in the process of, blowing up out of control, and out of proportion. In that discussion, you appear to want to accede to the request, but no one knows what to do about it except wait for the discussion to run out of air. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• В²C, I really don't see how an WP:MR encouragement for an RM closer to do a WP:RfCl to speedy close a inappropriate/concluded MR discussion will discourage an unhappy RM participant (or not-yet-participant) from posting their problem on the closer's talk page. Maybe you could explain.

And then, even if unhappy people more routinely (NB they already do routinely) come straight to MR, is there really a big problem with this? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To editor SmokeyJoe: I do support speedy-closing an MR that has not been pre-discussed, but only with full endorsement of the close. Anything else would foster results we do not want, as suggested by В²C. Unfortunately, it might take a few bogged down MRs for editors to learn the obvious benefits of first discussing the RM result on the closer's talk page. We do not really need to modify the process to fix this problem. We just need to find good, effective ways to enforce the process as it now exists. Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  07:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid, User:Paine Ellsworth, I don't understand you response either. Surely, encouraging the RM closer to take responsibility to as for the close of a premature MR *is* an important part of enforcing the "ask the closer first" step? And I have no idea why you would think that past bogged down discussions will influence future premature MR nominations, noting that they don't come from MR regulars. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To editor SmokeyJoe: maybe what is needed actually would be a change in the process? Suppose, rather than closing the MR, it is temporarily suspended pending discussion with the closer? Then, if that discussion results in resolution, the MR can be closed, if not, the suspension is lifted and the MR commences. Do you think that would work? Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  23:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. A slight variation is to require initiation of discussion with closer prior to opening an MR, and the consequence for failing to do so is automatic suspension of said MR (by anyone) until such discussion is attempted. Then if said discussion with closer leads to resolution then prematurely opened MR can be closed/deleted; otherwise it can be continued. --В²C ☎ 00:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "automatic" suspension. It would be an administrative action, requiring a WP:UNINVOLVED human, and the place to ask for it is WP:RfCl. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poor choice of word on my part. How about pre-authorized? My point is failure to contact the closer first makes that MR as subject to suspension as any unilateral edit to article content is subject to Reverting per BRD. --В²C ☎ 17:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than a policy/guideline solution, as those are already quite clear, I think we should take a technical approach. I would suggest the creation of some sort of edit filter that is triggered when one files an MR (i.e. uses the MR template), which checks whether one spoke to the closer on his or her talk page, and displays a warning if one hasn't. I'm certain this can be done...similar to how such an edit filter is used for DS alerts. RGloucester — ☎ 17:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested such a filter at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. If this can be done, I think it will help...someone that defies such a warning does so at their own peril... RGloucester — ☎ 01:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another related issue is when the contested RM resulted in a move, what happens if the closer agrees to reopen/relist? Do all those moves have to be reversed? If they're not, then the re-opened RM discussion is confusing. If the move was A→B and the RM is reopened at Talk:B that's confusing. It's no big deal to reverse the move if the move in question involved only one article (and its talk page), but perhaps there are several dozen subtopics too. Then what? --В²C ☎ 00:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to decide the correct location to request the review of a category move. WP:DRV and WP:MR have both been suggested. I would think this is the correct location but it seems this is for articles not categories. Any help would be appreciated. Springee (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note well that neither reviews the actual move so much as the closing descision and maybe a check on the process around the discussion.

If no deletion occurred, or should have occurred, WP:DRV might be less receptive. WP:Move review in theory should be receptive to a category retiring decision issue, but it may be a very good idea to advertise at WT:CfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Here is the situation. A category was moved based on a 4:0 consensus but with very limited notification. I was only aware of this after the CfM was closed. I opened a follow up CfM with wider advertisement and participation. It resulted in a no consensus closing. Based on that I believe the original closing was flawed based on insufficient community input. The evidence being to the no consensus when a wider audience was notified. I'm just not sure which Venus handles this sort of question. When you say advertise at CfD, do you mean post there after starting a discussion here or do you mean ask this same location question there? Springee (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advertise at WT:CfD any formal category discussion.

For practice, why don’t you go to Wikipedia:Move_review#World_Heritage_site and help build a consensus on the question being reviewed. It is similar to your cars automobiles question. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd definitely say request review at WP:DRV. WP:MRV is a relatively newer process solely to review closes of WP:RMs while DRV is for "disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions" which covers any discussions at WP:CFD. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 26#Category:Cars?

Not a deletion discussion, but a rename discussion, so a request for review should go to WP:MR.

Have you read and followed the advice at WP:RENOM? I advise you to read it slowly. That CfD was a quite defensible “no consensus”, neither DRV nor MR would overturn it, and starting from the CfD you look to be WP:badgering. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, I'm not trying to dispute the Nov 19th conclusion. I agree with it. My concern is the Oct 22nd closing [[3]] that moved the category from Automobiles to Cars. It involved just 4 editors and no effort to notify impacted articles/projects. My assertion is that the consensus of just 4 editors didn't reflect a wider consensus based on the second CfM. I was told I picked the wrong venue the first time ie I should have just asked for a name change review. However, then, just as now I don't know the correct venue for the discussion. Springee (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At DRV I would !vote “speedy close, no deletion issue”. At MRV I would !vote “Endorse, wait six months and then consider trying again”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, when I get a chance in the next few days I will open a discussion here. Springee (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MR does not do consider CFDs, only RMs. Not once in its history has it ever reviewed a CfD. It's right in the header of the page. Go to DRV. RGloucester — ☎ 06:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was deleted and this never involved a CfD. Springee (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This never involved a CfD? The 22 October discussion was a CfD, as was the newer one. RGloucester — ☎ 16:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I assumed CfD was category for deletion. Regardless, this was a move so this appears to be the place. Please stop bludgeoning every discussion. Springee (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just pointing out that anything opened here will be speedily closed. WP:DRV is the venue for categories. Look at the move review page, read the instructions. Only reviews of WP:RMs are done here. RGloucester — ☎ 19:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:RGloucester has repeated this a few times in a few places. I disagree. WP:MR is very well suited to host a review of a category rename discussion and close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is suited or not is a different question from the one I was answering. It may well be suited to do so, but up until now, never has, and the WP:MR page clearly states that its purview is restricted to WP:RMs. Look through the archives. DRV has always held reviews for CfD discussions, including those that do not result in deletion. You can see that at least as far back as 2006 (one example - Category:Limited-access roads), this has been the case. I agree that this is a bit strange, but that's how the system works at present. Feel free to propose a change to that system. Until such a change comes into effect, DRV is the correct venue for reviewing CfD closings. RGloucester — ☎ 21:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think, moving forward, category rename discussions not involving deletion, needing review, should go to WP:MR. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SmokeyJoe, any CFD that involves a rename should go to MR, since its the same as a RM. DR is for deletions and merges/redirecting. Likewise I'd suggest that RFDs that don't involve deletion should go to MR (example). I think CFD kept renames in because the same bots deal with them as do the deletions/merges. With RFD a redirect can only point to 1 target so in the example of Beds it is over the target then MR deals better with that. If and AFD resulted in a rename (other than one to user/draftspace or to widen the scope of the page) then I'd say MR would be a better venue, although searching for AFDs that have been closed as move doesn't show any. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe and Crouch, Swale: I understand the rationale, and the idea appeals to me as well, but how do we avoid future debates about the appropriate venue based on the degree to which a discussion does or does not involve deletion? To what extent does deletion have to be discussed or supported at CfD, in order for the venue to shift from MR to DRV, and who will decide each time? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Black Falcon. If the discussion touched on the question of deletion, got to DRV, if deletion was not on the cards (i.e. rename only), it is not for DRV.

I don't think it is matter of great consequence, but DRV is "deletion review", and it should be for discussion resulting in deletion, or that arguably should have resulted in deletion. This is similar to what the essay Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection was written for, on the issue of whether "merge and redirect" results at AfD should have their challenges entertained at WP:DRV, where I maintained, and others agree, the answer was "no" if the issue didn't involve deletion. Pseudo-deletion by redirection marks the line where DRV is the venue for review.

Generally, DRV is the highest level venue for questions of content, and its high importance is tempered by the narrowness of the core question, to delete, or not to delete. Whether a category is titled "cars" or "automobiles" really is not critical question for Wikipedia, even if the strength of opinions voiced might seem to imply otherwise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With CFD generally if it involves a ((Cfd)), ((Cfm)), ((Cfs)) or a ((Cfl)) then its a question of deletion. If its a ((Cfr)) then its the move process. With RFD it can be more complicated in that there may be discussion on both retargeting and deletion. However maybe to avoid complication we should just keep things as they are. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to open a formal RfC on whether to expand the scope of MR. RGloucester — ☎ 21:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the section title to a more neutral title. Qualitist (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC) Can someone see and revert the group of tag teamers at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2018_November#Jaggi_Vasudev history that are edit warring [5][6][7] to hat !votes, against their POV. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have to tell what is actually wrong with hatting a comment that includes personal attacks ("article and the entire topic is sock and COI... people who are trying to game the system now") and is clearly intended to misuse MR as RM second round by copy pasting same bits from RM and making comment longer than it needs to be. You were obviously not the right person to edit war to remove hatting of such distraction since you are also engaging in same personal attacks.[8] Qualitist (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the text to indicate that only CFDs that are CFRs and RFDs where deletion was never proposed or considered should be listed here, it might need tweaking but that appeared to be the consensus in the RFC and my suggestion was not opposed so I have included the clarity (so that CFDs and RFDs that involve inclusion policies don't get taken here). I added that those where deletion was proposed/suggested but it ended up being retargeted elsewhere should go to DR since that tends to involve more inclusion policies, rather than titling/primary topic guidelines and its not uncommon for a redirect to be nominated for deletion due to not being covered at the target and end up being retargeted to somewhere it is covered. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had already included such text in the "What this process is not" section, as I had deemed such details to be excess for the lead. I find your change unnecessary, but will not contest it. RGloucester — ☎ 22:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the extra text in the text at the top, however the footnote remains. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. RGloucester — ☎ 22:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, its just that we don't want people listing CFDs and RFDs that don't actually end in deletion, but that was the main purpose. For CFDs its usually straightforward in that CFD, CFM, CFS and CFL still go to DR while CFR go to MR. For RFD its more complicated, in the redirect nominated for deletion due to not being covered at the target and end up being retargeted to somewhere it is covered example. However in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 20#The Sun 1 editor suggested deletion, but clearly that wouldn't happen and the sole issue was primacy. If we had Wikipedia:Miscellany for creation (which I wondered about creating years ago) or Wikipedia:Articles for creation and Wikipedia:Proposed mergers were done in the same way as XFD and RM then DR would be suitable for those since they involve inclusion, not naming and primacy. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The pages I've seen on Wikipedia's policies (e.g. Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus) read to me as if the strength of each argument is much more important than the number of votes, and that when it comes down to it, the votes are mostly irrelevant.

Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.

However, what I've seen is that move requests often get decided solely on the number of votes, and the quality of the arguments is ignored. Would someone please explain what the proper procedure is for Move Requests and Move Reviews? Danielklein (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made a flowchart to help people decide if they should start a move review! Red Slash 02:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

User:Red Slash? You did this a year ago. It is sort of funny, sort of right, definitely childish, but seems appropriate for some MR nominations. Isn't MRV supposed to be deadly serious dry? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]