Knowledge (XXG) talk:Move review

2850:

however, that the root of your issue here is the question of what would have happened had the close in the discussion been no consensus. Now I have no issue if you felt up front that the original move from monkeypox to mpox was uncontroversial, there's nothing wrong with that original decision although I would have predicted it might attract controversy myself. And subsequent objections and debate have shown that in fact there was some controversy. The move in hindsight wasn't regarded as straightforward, and many people went on to oppose it. So once it's shown that it's controversial, it needs an RM to make a definitive decision one way or the other, as we've had here. And the convention for the past 20+ years is that no consensus closes revert to the long-term stable title, which in this case was "monkeypox". Cheers —

2423:

execution of a merge will be up against the reality that the current system allows for conflicts of interest in the first place, because they are rarely an issue. Second, as discussed a bit above, any controversy in a merge must be dealt with in a timely manner, because while merges can be easily reverted, once there are follow-on edits to the merged page, it becomes difficult to impossible to restore the status quo. Given how long move reviews or deletion reviews take, if they are able to reach a resolution they will face quite the mess to cleanup when they do, so the goal should be to quickly resolve disagreements directly on talk pages. Lastly, something else worth discussing that may help with merge problems is for all merges to be listed by default at

2355:

deletion review but this has failed to gain consensus so as long as move review and deletion review are not combined reviews of discussions for inclusion criteria should go to deletion review and discussions involving renaming pages and primary topics should go to move review. If its not clear if a page should go to deletion review or move review because say a redirect or category was considered for deletion by several participants but was retagreted or renamed and its not clear which then deletion review should probably be default but many CFDs and RFDs involve cases where no one suggests deletion and there is no realistic chance of deletion and clearly relate to moves/primary topics and are thus not appropriate for deletion review.

2904:"worthless timesink", you mean like suggesting Knowledge (XXG) go back to 2022 in the face of every reliable publication in 2023? I agree there appears to be no appetite on this forum for getting things right. The closer made a few tweaks but didn't respond to most of the glaring issues. If anyone cares to examine the demographics of those who posted who appeared to (a) have a clue or did research about the name and (b) have a clue or read the policy page, it is fairly clear that RM has something broken about it. If folk want to get all ranty and lecture people that they must follow this process, they sure picked the worst possible example to demonstrate its value. -- 3886:, but it does seem that participation by involved editors at move reviews does more harm than good. We should still allow comments by involved editors, but I'd suggest we disallow them from explicitly endorsing or opposing (overturning) the close, since their possition can be inferred by their participation in the move request itself. That could reduce the number of involved editors participating in move reviews, which would make them less heated and easier to close. We could add to the instructions something similar to what is mentioned at 2313:- I see no issue with contesting a merge decision via the move review process with one BIG CAVEAT. Initiating a move review on any merge decision should be made as soon as practical after the decision and BEFORE editors embark on actually executing the merge. Unlike a title change which can be easily reverted, the sometimes extensive editing required to actually execute the merge decision would be wasted effort if the merge review overturned the merge decision after the merge was executed. After examining the activity and process at 3389:, welcome back, I'm thrilled to note that you have nearly 100 recent edits. Hoping you stick around, and feeling bad that you lost your admin privileges because of changes to "activity requirements". I feel your sentiment but I guess I'm perhaps willing to grant a somewhat reluctant pass per SmokeyJoe due to user expectations created by my bot's notifications. I'm going to look into ensuring that my bot gives RM notices to such special cases in the future. I'm all about coding bot enhancements that will mitigate drama and issues. – 603:. WP:DRV and WP:MR are process review forums. They are used when someone alleges the process was faulty, usually because the closer did their job wrong. WP:DRV and WP:MR are not for reversing properly made decisions. If you want to reverse a CfD decision, the proper thing is to wait six months and then make a fresh CfD proposal. If you want to reverse a deletion discussion, due to new sources for example, you should talk to the deleting admin. Some related advice is at 32: 65: 1361:: A discussion proposed for deleting a redirect could end with it being retargeted or overwritten with a disambiguation page, and a discussion initially set up to retarget a redirect could result with it being deleted ... neither of which have anything to do with moving the page. Heck, come to think of it, I think the resolution here would be to remove RFDs from using the "Move review" page and have them all go back to DRV by default. 963:

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.

745:, "why can't all discussion closing reviews happen at one centralized place"? That was the proposal, ~2011, at WT:DRV. It is in the archives of WT:DRV predating WP:MR. I for one strongly opposed it. WP:DRV is a very important check on the admin privilege of deletion, which is very difficult for most of the community to review. The importance of that role would be diluted by the far lesser weight issues of post RM disputes. 1530:). Those have far more in common with the RM process than deletion process however there can be borderline cases such as where a redirect it pointed to a different place that would otherwise have been deleted. If the reason for the change was mainly because of the fact the redirect would otherwise have been deleted it seems like DR is the best forum otherwise I'd just use MR if the issue was over a retarget (or lack of). 1435:(edit conflict) I've no disagreements with you there regarding removing RFD...though I suppose the issue becomes what to do about reviewing retarget or disambiguation decisions. Not a page move, but not deletion either. The more I think about it bundling CFD and RFD in the RFC was a very strange decision...apart from having results that don't often follow the keep/delete paradigm, they really are rather different. 753:, which I think is undesirable for a few reasons such as (1) The forum is not inviting for non-admins to participate; (2) There is so much other activity there that discussion watchlisting doesn't work; (3) Close reviews at WP:AN are non systematically titled, are not separately archived, and thus are hard to find; (4) there is very little about RfCs that requires an editor with the admin permission. -- 2865:

didn't do any research and didn't know about NAMECHANGES in policy and seemed surprised the disease name had even got changed. Lots of articles get their name changed without RM. What's the bias called where obstetrician's think most pregnancies are dangerous because they only get called for the dangerous ones (in the UK anyway, where midwives deal with the routine cases). That's what I'm seeing here.

2869:

prime minister. And once a truly wider section of the Knowledge (XXG) community saw this, the section who have newspapers and access to Google and who do research before posting their opinions, there'd be an almighty big WTF. Too many people wikilaywering over this and not actually thinking about what was being proposed. That Knowledge (XXG) should be the only publication on earth to go backwards.

1716:. Recently there have been a few non-admin closures. I know traditionally WP:IAR exceptions have been made for procedural closes (I have closed some procedurally as NAC) but that that normal RMV closes required an admin to close. NAC of RM are fairly common and reasonable, but for contentious closes which MR often imply administrators are strongly preferred. See also 4068:

evidence as to why they think the close is correct or incorrect. Not to mention the possibility that this could lead to "gaming" the system, whereby a number of editors hold off voting in the main discussion so that they can subsequently appear at MRs and overturn the close as an "uninvolved" watcher. IMHO other than the closer, who would be subject to the standard

170: 2049: 2189: 298:: Speaking as an editor who doesn't normally deal with the various consensus review processes what ever the correct location it should be clear for those who aren't familiar with the process. "Move review" based on the name seems like an obvious place regardless if the move is an article, category, project name etc. 3614:

Issues with cut-paste archiving is that the edit history is in a different place to the archive. Yes, this is how talk pages are managed, but they are just talk pages, and they are supposed to be just archives. Review pages, like AfDs and MfDs that have this model of one page per discussion, are of

3311:

For sure, if he had started a discussion with the closer or even brought it to MRV I would be supportive of a relist. I just don't like rewarding the behaviour of reverting without even having a discussion first. I think Jc37 is correct just below that if we allow it to stand we are tacitly endorsing

2916:

Be that as it may, even if the process was a worthless time sink, there is little merit in compounding that with further procedure given that there is general agreement that the result was correct. At the end of the day, all processes here are just a means to an end, and we already have the right end

2868:

I don't think the "no consensus" issue is the root of my concerns. It is somewhat hypothetical. If that had actually happened, and an admin had the nerve to move it back, there'd be newspaper headlines. They'd speculate perhaps whether we still talked about Prince Charles and called Boris Johnson the

2785:

I would like an admin to re-close the discussion in a proper manner. Not voice their own surprise that mpox was actually the common name in 2023. Not lecture folk about using RM. Not get their facts wrong about consensus and the earlier discussion. Is it appropriate to use a "move review" to request

2777:

Then out of the blue on 28 Feburary an editor opens up an RM asking for the name to be moved back to monkeypox. We would at this point, be the only publication on the planet choosing to go back to the old name. This editor admitted to not having seen the earlier discussion and thought the name change

2354:

And to clarify yes this also apply to split reviews, these should also go to deletion review. This is why we agreed to send RFDs and CFDs that were only about renames or primary topics to move review since these aren't generally related to deletion. There have been proposals to merge move review with

1923:

I think the issue isn't so much that people are involved or uninvolved, but rather avoiding the constant relitigation of the discussion rather than discussing the close. I think we should be closing discussions much more quickly where there was a reasonable defensible close, and there isn't a glaring

1319:

The other side, which I think could be a consideration, is to centralize all review discussions involving XFDs in one place regardless of the type of discussion it was, and perhaps rebrand "deletion review" as "discussion review" or "XFD review" (since discussion review might be too vague of a name).

495:

Please clarify the question -- are you talking about moving deletion review under MR? or the whole initial renaming discussions? If I wanted to rename Category:Films in X to Category:Xian movies - would I go to CfD or to MR? I think that's what you are getting at, but the question paragraphs reads as

4057:

I disagree with everyone above, and it should not (does not) matter whether someone is involved or not. If someone relitigates, the closer will see it. The closer of a Move Review must be capable enough to spot and discount such arguments. If the closer isn't capable of it, they shouldn't close, and

2931:

Yeah, advertised formal discussions such as RfCs and RMs do tend to attract idle knowitalls, particularly when they pertain a hot topic such as this one. And this RM is a clear example of one. But then, advertising discussions also has a benefit that walled-garden discussions among a close circle of

2849:

Don't get me wrong, I agree that closing statements should be to the point and avoid too many opinions or lectures from the closer, particularly if what they say doesn't derive from what was said in the discussion. So it looks like the updated close from RS is an improvement in that regard. I sense,

2808:

Using RM is mandatory if you want to make a controversial move. The earlier discussion lacked standing, as noted by several participants in the RM. It was immaterial in the end because apparently there's consensus anyway, but Knowledge (XXG) has processes like AFD and RM for a reason, to allow input

2422:

if it can't be dealt with on UserTalk or the talk page of the affected page(s). Most merge discussions have low participation, are optional to begin with, and unlike move or deletion discussions may be closed by the nominator or any other involved user. So, any controversy in the close of a merge or

1609:

any move. I fail to see a problem that needs solving. This page has had this name for a long period. It has accepted the expanded scope for quite some time, however, those cases happen only once in a blue moon. Renaming this page to something all-encompassing and necessarily vague would be a step in

4067:

Why should involved participants not be allowed to contribute? The purpose of a MR is not to relitigate the discussion, on which those involved editors clearly had an opinion, but to determine whether the close was valid given the discussion. That's something anyone can opine on, provided they give

3825:

Anyway, seriously, I think it is massively more helpful for the relister to state, in simple terms, why you judge that consensus cannot be assertained, what is the open question. I think this makes it much easier, weather you !voted previously or are arriving new, to make a helpful new comment. I

3618:

Archiving by moving the transclusion off the top level and onto a log page means that all participants by default continue to watchlist the discussion. This is occasionally very useful in preventing altering of the record, or responding to a late protest. It also means the archive can be found by

1464:

from "deletion" to "discussion" kind of hits the nail on the head there for the reasons you stated ... by first possibly removing RfD discussions from being listed on this page entirely, then probably revisiting whether or not CFD renaming discussions should be posted here or not (CFDs for renaming

935:

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

219:, even when the relevant discussions did not involve deletion. The awkwardness of this situation has recently become an issue, and so I've opened this RfC. Should the purview of the move review process formally be expanded to include reviews of the closing of renaming discussions that take place at 2936:

to form against broader principles. Hey, that's Knowledge (XXG) for you. As Iskandar323 said, the process worked in the end, and while Red Slash might have used less editorializing/lectures in the close (and subsequently toned it down), he closed it correctly, on the basis of evidence, despite any

2761:

For background, a page move discussion opened on 28th November 2022, shortly after WHO officially changed the name (they are the international body in charge of naming diseases). At the time, editors wanted to see if the name was accepted. By 28th December it was clear that it was accepted and the

1885:

I think we could do with something like that. It was suggested in a few recent MRVs (in one of those, the discussion turned into a long and rambling battle between two opposing teams from the RM). I think we can go a long way towards discouraging such battle re-enactments by first, having separate

513:

I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood the point of this RfC. The question is whether CfDs that are limited in scope to renaming (as opposed to deletion) should be reviewed at MR, instead of deletion review, as they have been historically. Nothing would change about how CfDs involving deletion

2872:

No my biggest concern is that the closing person repeatedly voiced their opinion and gave lectures, and didn't stick to briefly summarising the policy/consensus rational for the close decision. And their "strong" advice that we need a "full discussion" about the lead sentence. As if several dozen

962:

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

843:

I think a central location for RfC and MR (and other) close request move reviews makes a lot of sense. One issue I see with the current MR rules is a very limited scope for why a review can be initiated. Beyond that, one of the things that makes Knowledge (XXG) difficult for editors who largely

792:: that's where I was sort of going, that this could get expanded into a wider review of closing discussions (RfC included because I have seen a lot of complaining about "bad" RfC closures) - even if "deletion" review has its own board. Maybe worth resurrecting the proposal, if it was 6 years ago? 1246:

to now be used for more than move reviews per the result of the linked RfC. If this is to be the case, the current name of this page no longer encapsulates the entirety of the intended scope of this page. So ... if this scope is to be updated, the name of the page probably needs to be changed to

1117:

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 Knowledge (XXG) community in general as reflected in applicable

3422:

If you have a problem with a closure, you talk to the closer and, if that doesn't resolve it, you go to MR. Reverting leads to chaos, and I hope Chiswick Chap doesn't do this again. But at this point it's water under the bridge (especially since the closer would probably have relisted anyway if

2889:

of angst over a process that ultimately worked out in the sense of going the way one would hope it would, in line with the reliable sourcing and the expectations of the platform to follow best practice. Ok, you didn't like the closer's comments. The closer has clearly taken that on board, since

2864:

Your answer here demonstrates quite a different attitude to the lecturing on that talk page. We were lectured that we were wrong not to publish an RM back in January/February. It only looks controversial if you include the opinions and votes from Wikipedians attracted by the RM who very plainly

2824:

mpox name was "controversial" on 28th Feb 2023, when the article name was changed. Otherwise, please don't lecture me about process, which explicitly states RM should not be used for uncontroversial changes. You might be surprised about the name, the closing admin was too. But it helps, before

1745:

as it seems most RMV stay open much longer than seven days and including this in the page instructions seems to imply that the RMV process is quicker than it actually is. I think a note be added to imply that move reviews might be open longer, closures on the order of a month or two seems to be

1241:

discussion that does not involve proposing deletion. My opinions aside about this being the clearest way to distinguish deletion discussions from non-deletion discussions, as well as my opinions about the how the RfC played out, I'm putting this move request here solely on the fact this page is

269:

Per my arguments above. In favour, MR deals with naming and primary topics, while DR deals with deletions and merges/redirects. Editors participating in the DR process are likely more familiar with inclusion guidelines and those at MR are more familiar with NC and PTOPIC. However there could be

4015:. The sectioning is typically done with level 3 headings for "involved" and "non-involved". Or more recently, "participants" and "non-participants". The idea is a person should make their top level comment/!vote in the correct section. However anyone can reply to a top-level comment anywhere. – 3714:

I’m not in favour of putting all reviews onto one page. I would strongly oppose merging DRV. XRV exists separately and would not merge well, is not even a close review. MRV has a long culture that would not blend well with closing ANI block discussions as well as RfC closes. I do, as above,

2959:

name change. We have nearly 40 articles with the same name pattern. Do we need another RM and ping all the previous participants, while hoping that they spot this is the one where they need to flip their support/oppose votes? And repeat all the same arguments. Is there any way to shortcut that

2890:

they've already made some tweaks. That's presumably all that you can expect from this? Nothing that you've mentioned here is going to induce anyone to go through the rigmarole of unclosing and reclosing this, not least because the project has finite resources and it'd be a worthless time sink.

2547:

Your talk there is good, but it is really bad precedent for non-admins to speedy close requests for review on the basis of incivility. I don’t see see incivility overwhelming any legitimacy of their complaint about a close, and it is better to resolve it in the MRV discussion, than to have it

1953:

As an aside from the above, I think a bigger concern is getting more uninvolved users to participate in the process. Based on my experience, I would say between half and three-quarters of the participants in a given move review previously participated in the requested move. This differs from

3162:

with three endorsements and three non-endorsements. Under the circumstances in this particular case this MRV likely needed to be closed, but was withdrawal appropriate? Shouldn't it still have been closed by an uninvolved editor? Just concerned about the precedent that is being set by this

2673:

to politely respond to queries about their close. However, in this case I do not believe your question is of their close, but is a question that should be put on the article talk page. I advise you to remove the question from the closer’s talk page, and post it on the article talk page.

251:– Move discussions related to any namespace should be reviewed at move review. The deletion review process is not suited for reviewing move-related discussions, and only took on that role because the move review process did not yet exist at the time that the CfD process was created. 1834:

Separate sections might very well be a good idea. How many sections? "Uninvolved" comments are the most valuable and I think it would be good to have them in their own section. Of the involved, there are usually three subgroups, the closer; the MRV initiator; the other !votes.

2163:

shown yet? I filled in the Format. The discussion Was closed a few days ago but the reason for the closure is not specified. The opposes are in Knowledge (XXG) policy while the supports are not. That is not enough, because nobody understands why. Please take care on this issue.

3193:

initiative, it should be hands off until properly closed by an uninvolved editor, including any move of the article under consideration. For MRV to have any credibility any given MRV request must run its course. I would support language in the MRV guidance to this effect.

2972:

I guess it's just speedy-reopen and relist (which I'll do right now), or, if one feels bold enough, close and move to "mpox". While being WP:CONSISTENT is tempting, I can see a plausible argument "it was called monkeypox at the time", even if I personally disagree with it.

3403:

No worries about the admin bit to be honest. It would be nice to still have but I actually agree with the reason the activity requirement changes were made, too many admins coming back after a long period out and not being up to speed with current norms made it necessary.

3546:? MRs are sufficiently uncommon that the page wouldn't be overwhelmed (the number of open MRs is almost always between 0 and 3), and giving editors a single page to watchlist would likely reduce the hassle and increase uninvolved participation in discussions. Thoughts? 3596:

Separate pages would also be an improvement, although it would complicate things by requiring the initiator to understand transclusion. I'm not sure I understand the issue with cut-paste archiving: it's not functionally different than how we archive talk pages, right?

1932:

case. Some discussions effectively come down to line calls, and it's not reasonable for us to simply replace one person's interpretation of a line call with another person's interpretation. Which is what will happen if the IVC RM and others like it is overturned.

3312:

that behaviour which in turn means it will happen more often. But I do realise at this point it has now been re-opened for over half a day and there have been a number of new comments so re-closing it would probably cause more headaches than it would solve.

3050:

I therefore summarily up and closed the MRV for Grey Goose. Apparently there's some super-complicated history about the close and it was overturned or something but I had no idea any of that happened, I just closed a move request, and instead of telling me

2792:

requires us to give weight to sources and reliable publications written after a name change. This has been amply done with numerous examples given. Editors complaining about the new name not conforming to COMMONNAME didn't offer any evidence to support

431:

This apparently does not happen very frequently. However, any clarification that improves the understanding of editors, both newcomers and others, is welcomed. Any further confusions such as those misgivings noted above can be dealt with as needed.

1672:

etc. "Move review" is not the best descriptor for what is now handled here: moves, CfDs and RfDs, but this move needs to happen in a few months once broader changes have been enacted. If you do put forward this move again later, please do ping me!

1345:...Agreed, this move request is just one way to approach this, and I filed this move request solely on the status quo determined by the RfC. This is where things start getting a bit fuzzy with how the RfC closed. The RfC result, in a nutshell, for 2245:

for what it's worth. NOTBURO and CREEP notwithstanding, merge discussions tend to be treated as second-class citizens when compared with deletions and moves, and procedural disputes such as this one do not have a venue for recourse. I will notify

3615:

ongoing reference purpose. With the current log-date system, linking to an old MRV requires a long awkward url and a “#” character. With one discussion per page, titled with the page title being reviewed, it makes for easy and obvious linking.

2809:

from a wide range of editors. And if those processes are not followed then subsequent discussions are liable to overturn decisions if no consensus exists. I too am surprised that mpox might now be the common name, but there it is. Cheers —

1251:

or something similar. (For the record, I'm neutral on any name change if the scope remains the same ... which is exclusive from my opinion about whether or not I support the current scope of the page as determined by the linked 2018 RfC.)

1900:

I fully support the segregation of Involved/Uninvolved comments into separate sections in a MR. Additionally, if that is done, emphasis should be placed in guidance that the MR’s initiator’s and closer’s comments are restricted to the

1122:

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?

688:, even when the relevant discussions did not involve deletion. The awkwardness of this situation has recently become an issue, and so I've opened this RfC. Should the purview of the move review process formally be expanded to include 1958:

where (based on my limited involvement there) most editors have not participated in the previous XFD. Maybe it's because there are so few move reviews compared to deletion reviews or because RMs and MRs are a somewhat niche process.

2692:

Thank you for your kind feedback. I will share the question on the talk page in full (right now there is link to talk page). If you feel like you can give any specific feedback on the talk page I would really appreciate anyone's

704:

And here is another dumb question - why can't all discussion closing reviews happen at one centralized place? Why have a separate place for "renaming" reviews and for "deletion" reviews? It is essentially the same procedure, no?

1590:. The advantage is for watchlisting, archiving, and finding these discussions. While the basic style of DRV and MR is a very good model, I don't think a good common model is a driving reason to centralise different things. -- 3689:

That's why I support moving the current ones from "Administrators' noticeboard" to "Administration noticeboard", but I would equally support "Editors' noticeboard/Discussion reviews" and "Village pump/Discussion reviews".

1314:, since merging a cat is similar to deleting it, but with the need to make sure the articles contained are still properly categorized. So I don't think that you've accurately summed up what the problem is, if there is one. 3332:

We're starting to see more and more of this. People who oppose an XfD or a merge or an RM discussion resolution, and just revert it. And the more it's even somewhat successful, the more we're going to see it happening. -

3153:

I've seen RfCs and RMs withdrawn when there were a lot of editors opposing and no support in a short period of time. By extension, at MRV any withdrawals should be only with a lot of editors endorsing. A recent review at

1645:

The 2018 RfC's intent was simply to centralise the review of renaming-related discussions here. Notice the word 'renaming'. RfCs, and RfDs and CfDs not involving renaming, are out of the scope of this page. Therefore, I

336:) that the change in scope should be limited to review of moves only. Review of a closer's decision to not delete a category or redirect—in cases where deletion was considered during the CfD or RfD, but the outcome was 3565:, untranscluded when closed, and logged from a log page. This would mean that by watchlisting WP:MR, you get one blip for every new review and every close, and not regular blips of irrelevant monthly logs processing. 2771: 1668:. While the 2019 RfC is pretty causal that eventually this page will need to be moved so it's clearer to newer editors/more accurate, it seems most documentation is yet to be properly updated with these changes - 1976:

I check RM so regally that if I didn't participate in a RM I usually have no interest/knowledge in the subject but I could probably give some kind of guidance on the consensus and I do occasionally participate.

631:

Essentially, what you said is correct. Mr Joe is simply expounding on the principle that MRs are meant to examine improper closings (i.e. the actions of the closer), not the merits of the relevant move itself.

274:

results in deletion but PTOPIC was the reason for the RFD. Or a RFD that results in redirection (to say a DAB) where the title was thought to be too NN even for a redirect but a suitable target was suggested.

722:

I've clarified per your suggestions. Move review is a relatively new process, whereas DRV has existed for a very long time. I reckon that the fact that deletion is governed by special procedures (see the

2412:

While not explicitly opposed to having something systematic for this (whether it be WP:MR or WP:DRV), my perspective is that this seems like a rare need, and when it happens, may be best left to broader

748:

I have previously suggested, here at WT:MR, that WP:MR could handle a wider scope of non-deletion closure reviews, including WP:RFC close reviews. Currently, they are reviews in an undefined process at

315:. Am I really that unusual in thinking words should mean what they usually mean? Deletion review is for reviewing deletion. Move review is for reviewing move. Newcomer accessibility, and all that. — 2334:

they should go to deletion review which deals with article inclusion of which merges and splits are part of since a merge is a lesser action than a delete while move review deals with article titles.

1783:

At some point we should reconsider whether those who participated in the RM should be participating in the move review. Allowing them to do so gives free rein to relitigate the previous move request.

1310:

page moves, just with the added need to recategorize all the articles into the new name. That is why the term "rename" is used instead of "move" in CFDs. Merges, on the other hand, are dealt with in

3005:

I agree. I don't sense much participation in all the country-specific articles in the naming review anyway, even though they have now been informed twice. Thanks for your advice on this aspect. --

2317:, I would not like to see an editor challenge a merge decision after all the actual merging had taken place. The allowed timing of the merge review initiation would have to be carefully controlled. 1909:

section. I believe this would go a long way to mitigating the tendency by persistent editors to re-litigate the RM in the MR discussion and challenge every editor opinion they might disagree with.

1306:

I feel like there are two ways one could go with this. One is to keep as is because the intent of this board is not just for any non-deletion discussion; for CFD it's restricted to renames, which

3133:

Involved editors should contribute, especially to answer questions, but in any review process, involved parties should not be allowed to dominate proceedings. Some threshold of decorum, please.

1582:

I think there are enough RfC close reviews, and even Ban discussion reviews, to warrant a specific review page off WP:AN, but I would create new review forum pages. RfC reviews on a subpage of

1056:

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

3568:

By having each review on its own page, watchlisting better serves those engaged in the review. It also means there’s a dedicate talk page, to where badgering by involved editors can be sent.

3279:

An admin should re-close the RM. Move the article to where the consensus was. Allow anyone who disagrees to begin a new RM but note that if it ends no consensus it will default to staying at

2786:

that, even if the outcome is the same. Or could someone more experienced with naming closures just do the job better instead. There isn't frankly a lot that needs to be said. Something like

986:

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.

1057: 2837:

Just to note that at this point, Red Slash has made some concessions/edits to their close remarks, where previously they saw nothing wrong. So the closing text is volatile currently. --

4058:

if they close badly because of their inability, they should be told not to close any more Move Reviews, and a Move Review that was badly closed can be challenged and overturned at AN. —

3510:

If you mean a review of one requested move that proposed to move multiple pages, just use the title where the RM discussion took place. Of course, first discuss with the closer per the

1631:

still works. Category renames coming here fits. I haven't seen disputed RfD retargets come here. A case to rename would be justified by RfC closes coming here, which they do not. --

4072:

restrictions, all other participants in MRs should be able to contribute fully and equally, not restricted or having their votes sectioned off into a subsidiary section. The spirit of

2960:

timesink. Please, for goodness sake, don't tell me we need 40 RMs. I already placed a notice on all the article talk pages and the task force page that was running all those pages. --

2089:

to do it myself, but it didn't do the trick (perhaps unhat and relist should be done in the same edit?), so the RM remains orphaned and unlisted. Would you lend a hand again, please?

1493:

I advocate for CFD renames being discussed here, because in the end a CFD rename is a page move, just with extra steps. The rest that you mention really seems to be a separate issue.

1169:? 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? -- 3653:

Old discussion, but I've had this thought myself a few times - I believe it would also help boost participation in move reviews. (The alternative, that I would also support, is a

1036:

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

3382: 4012: 3454: 1320:

In that case, move review would strictly be for requested moves only. If your concern is centralization and access, I think that's something that might be worth considering.

3542:

already has four watchers.) Watchlisting the monthly log is the only way to be notified when a new MR comes up. Why? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just run MRs directly on

378:

I would assume that you have been following this for a while before !voting, entirely proper, and it is completely understandable that you missed the rewording of that title

3675:

Disagree with “Administration noticeboard” being in the title. That would make it sound like it’s a place meant for admins. Reviews should be for community participation.

3757:

as a non-admin page mover, especially in regard to calling a "no consensus", here and with another RM discussion recently (details on talk page). See RM discussion here:

844:

aren't working in this area is the number of different places you need to go to do/review something. A change that increases access/review is going to be a good thing.

3058:

In the future, I suggest to anyone; when someone goes so outside our procedures to make a MRV without communicating with the closer first, just close it automatically.

1107: 2778:

was undiscussed. During the RM discussion, it was clear that folk coming from this noticeboard had not done their research about the disease name nor seemed aware of

1110:) 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. 544:

No one is proposing a 'new process'. The proposal is to allow MR to be used to review CfDs that are limited in scope to renaming, instead of holding those reviews at

3715:

support listing every review as a subpage of a parent page, MfD style, so that by watchlisting the parent page you can see every discussion being added and removed.

3130:

I suggest that where an involved editors exceeds 10 posts or 10kB in a single discussion, they should be required to put their contribution on the review talk page.

2991:

could be boldly carried through to all of the 'by country' child articles without further discussion. At that point, it would be supported/not controversial at all.

3892:

Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line

1460:(Sorry for the edit conflict ... this situation is a bit complicated, and the thoughts are just pouring out of me, it seems.) I think your mention about renaming 1237:, the "Move review" board is no longer just for move reviews. Going by the result of the linked RfC, it seems that the intent of this board is supposed to be for 3780:

The discussion was low-drama, with no back-and-forth, and I felt it was worth a final relist to try to find a consensus. Other editors may of course disagree.

2004: 567:

Ok, so the discussion to rename to would go to CfD, but if the discussion was challenged and needed to be reversed it would go to MR instead of DRV. Right?

2562:

If after reading all that, you still think I should revert the closure, I will of course do it. I have to leave soon, and won't be back for several hours.

227:, and should the MR, CfD, and RfD pages be updated to clarify the review process for discussions that take part as part of those processes to that effect? 1415:...So, yeah, I filed this move request solely since it falls in line with the RfC status quo ... even though ... yes, I don't agree with the RfC outcome. 700:, and should the MR, CfD, and RfD pages be updated to clarify the review process for discussions that take part as part of those processes to that effect? 2007:(although I'm half-tempted to reclose it as "moved" myself, most MR participants expressed the preference that the original closer does it. I guess that 3535: 3458: 3235: 2519: 1717: 898: 772: 115: 110: 105: 100: 95: 90: 85: 3950: 3918: 2280: 3959:

I can only find one off-hand, from September 2022 (Charles III, not a great example). I'm certain there were a few others but I don't remember when.

1849:

The initiator has the "reason" spot to make their case so might not need a separate section. But agree that the other subgroups could be split out.

3654: 3534:

When the clock strikes midnight on Wednesday, I'm going to take 60 seconds out of my day to watchlist (and, if no one beats me to it, transclude)

2217: 2213: 940:. 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. 727:), and that only administrators can delete, has meant that it requires its own special chamber. I'm not at all certain on the history, however. 2952: 2750:. The point isn't that we are unhappy the page remains at mpox. Both of us are exasperated frankly about this waste of time. The point is the 2431:, where discussions occur on article talk pages, but are automatically listed in a centralized place. I would strongly support such a change. 1763:

I think seven days should be the expectation, and the recent history of MRVs being open, with no new comments, for months, is undesirable. --

2825:

expressing your opinions on Knowledge (XXG), to do the research. We are here to write an encyclopaedia, so we expect editors to do that. --

2218:

Talk:List of Knowledge (XXG) controversies#Merge Knowledge (XXG) Star Trek Into Darkness controversy to List of Knowledge (XXG) controversies

1890:

the one for the uninvolved), and second, adapting the minor stylistics rule of prohibiting bolded !votes in the involved section. – Uanfala (

2518:

Agree that ANI is a better place to handle all this. The RM was inciteful, and MRV was no place to continue the trolling. Have you read the

2491: 2224: 1281: 661: 1506: 1448: 1333: 2135: 1202:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

3561:

I think that “/Log/YYYY MMMM” is not justified. It would be better to have every move review on its own page transcluded directly onto

2297: 3361:

is an advanced editor and not an RM regular. He should be allowed this latitude. The RM process should serve the project, not rule it.

1230: 3465:

service covers notices, and avoids posting unnecessary, redundant notices. The older version of the bot previously posted a notice on

3855: 3848: 1065: 2937:

preconceptions he himself had about the subject. So the process eventually worked, even if one might deem it a worthless time sink.

191: 3539: 3344:

This was the original rationale for creating MRV. Use MRV. However, don’t shut down an active discussion that could be productive.

2917:

here. No one pretends Knowledge (XXG)'s processes are flawless, but the perennial priority is to fix processes with poor outcomes.

2770:

agreed there was consensus for change to mpox. On 31st January I posted message to nearly 40 related article talk pages and to the

120: 1072:

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.

3127:

editors be welcome to keep posting in the review until all but one is exhausted? No, this is a classic non-consensus behaviour.

2642:. While I am obviously not happy with the outcome I accept it as a fact. Nevertheless, I asked for some further clarification in 1160: 3538:. Maybe some of you will too. Maybe others of you went through and watchlisted every single future log page for years to come. ( 2987:

If consensus can be hashed out on the parent article, it would be logical to assume that the consensus established there and at

2503:

If someone was being uncivil, take them to ANI for an admin to block them. Do not shut down procedural review pages like that.

1924:

error and also when people have been given a reasonable explanation by the closer but then go on to challenge it anyway because

207:

discussions have been properly closed and executed. The results of discussions that take place as part of the processes called '

46: 2103:

Thanks, that was pretty stupid on my part... I did all the paperwork of overturning, but did not actually move the page back.

1061: 2247: 3385:

was a thing, though I guess I already knew that comics, middle-earth, ships, and taxons were "special" on Knowledge (XXG).

3055:

the guy just posts a move review immediately. I may well have overturned myself if he'd just posted on my talk page first.

1465:

may end up staying here) since I don't see that result/discussion being as straight forward as a discussion regarding RfD.

3946: 3914: 2276: 1701:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

873:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1248: 1069: 3638: 3602: 3551: 3428: 2271:? To me a merge has more in common with a deletion than a move, as it results in a reduction of the number of articles. 181: 4013:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Archive362#RfC closure review request at Talk:Israel#RfC: Apartheid in Lead

1523: 1384: 1193: 724: 38: 2933: 2721:. Question is: are there signing-effects missed, link pings? I did notice the involved closer separately all right. - 1669: 1563: 1215:

consensus is the page should stay where it is. No prejudice to new RM with proposed title. Regards, —usernamekiran

3770: 3708: 1814:

I wonder if sections for involved vs uninvolved comments make sense. At some point the norm seems to have switched

3142: 146:

RfC: Should the purview of move review be expanded to include CfDs and RfDs that are limited in scope to renaming?

3179: 2613: 2578: 2538: 2522:? Think we're coming to an understanding. It would be an honor if you would read and add your positive thoughts. 1929: 444: 3977:

I agree that sectioning off is probably the best way to handle this. It seems to work well for AN RFC appeals. –

3254: 130: 3942: 3910: 3215: 2272: 1501: 1443: 1328: 3849:

Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy)#Are new rules needed for high-profile or previously contested proposals?

3562: 3543: 3123: 2789: 2779: 2183: 1925: 1628: 1226: 1203: 4025: 3987: 3634: 3598: 3547: 3424: 2364: 2343: 2301: 2172: 2021: 1986: 1714:

an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists to either endorse the close or overturn the close

1539: 1216: 1081: 1010: 972: 514:

are reviewed. I don't understand what you mean by renaming a category at MR...that doesn't make much sense.

284: 3813: 3785: 3695: 3666: 3520: 2978: 2942: 2445:

Surely you mean WP:AN the status quo, not WP:ANI, a completely inappropriate page for conducting reviews?

2255: 2108: 2094: 2061: 2036: 1615: 583:

Just to be clear since I screwed this up, CfD is categories for discussion, not categories for deletion.

407: 4073: 3887: 2670: 1114: 3582:

Oppose just running MRs on the top level. That would mean cut-paste archiving, which is poor practice.

3086: 2996: 2922: 2895: 1657: 1128: 1060:

1 editor suggested deletion, but clearly that wouldn't happen and the sole issue was primacy. If we had

1028: 993: 920: 813: 734: 639: 559: 521: 484: 420: 258: 234: 4069: 3809: 3781: 3754: 3691: 3662: 2763: 2648:

I believe editor in question may be very busy with other tasks so maybe somebody else will be available

2227:

closure reviews? There are some strong similarities. WP:AN does not function well for close reviews.

2214:

Knowledge (XXG):Move review/Log/2022 March#Knowledge (XXG) Star Trek Into Darkness_controversy_(closed)

3199: 3166: 2600: 2565: 2525: 2497: 2322: 1914: 623:

I understand what you're saying Mr Joe, but I'm afraid you've more than likely confused Renata more.

435: 3822:

I couldn’t find the second comment, and the third was a statement, not a comment, by my definitions.

4059: 3831: 3799: 3758: 3742: 3720: 3680: 3624: 3587: 3573: 3493: 3366: 3349: 3302: 3138: 3101: 3064: 2679: 2553: 2508: 2450: 2400: 2232: 1840: 1805: 1768: 1636: 1595: 1574: 1496: 1476: 1438: 1426: 1406: 1372: 1323: 1295: 1263: 1206:

after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1174: 1148: 947: 914: 892: 780: 758: 612: 465: 387: 358: 320: 3488:

How do I open a move review for several pages at once? Please mention me for whoever does respond

2873:

sources on the talk page already, all explicitly backing up those four words, wasn't enough. --

4016: 3978: 3964: 3932: 3358: 3266: 3243: 3231: 2743: 2698: 2659: 2472: 2436: 2357: 2336: 2168: 2011: 1979: 1856: 1825: 1753: 1727: 1532: 1074: 1003: 965: 849: 806:

Certainly, if anyone wants to propose such a thing, a sub-section in this RfC seems appropriate.

588: 369:

Yeah... I missed that bit and went straight to the proposal. :) Thanks for pointing that out, --

303: 277: 136: 3794:

They were all pointless comment-free relists. How about you just don’t do comment free relists?

2751: 2003:

When a RM is closed as "Overturn and relist", how do I relist the already-closed RM? I refer to

604: 4081: 3515: 3474: 3466: 3409: 3394: 3317: 3288: 3226:

as the only article with the title. It gathered two support !votes and was closed as Moved by

2974: 2938: 2855: 2814: 2381: 2251: 2104: 2090: 2069: 2057: 2032: 1938: 1891: 1611: 797: 710: 572: 538: 501: 403: 370: 345: 3997:

Could share the link to one of those appeal discussions, so we can see what that looks like?

937: 4040: 4002: 3899: 3867: 3082: 2992: 2918: 2891: 2726: 2197: 1651: 1124: 1022: 987: 807: 728: 633: 553: 515: 478: 419:

The issues and naming conventions are mainly the same and this is a natural venue to go to.

252: 228: 132: 64: 3511: 3190: 2415: 2268: 2131: 2124: 1955: 1583: 1461: 1392: 1388: 1358: 1350: 1346: 1311: 697: 693: 685: 681: 677: 545: 224: 220: 216: 212: 208: 3195: 3010: 2965: 2909: 2878: 2842: 2830: 2800: 2318: 1910: 878:

Editors supporting a move of Jaggi Vasudev tag teaming to hat comments on Move review page

3927:

No, that was tried briefly. It makes the thread of the discussion much harder to follow.

3381:

Well I learn something new about Knowledge (XXG) most every day. First I've noticed that

3258: 3238:. It's since gathered oppose !votes. What's the best procedure in a situation like this? 3155: 2428: 2424: 2419: 2314: 1587: 1567: 750: 671: 271: 204: 1867:

I'm ok with separating uninvolved and involved participants, on a trial basis at least.

3827: 3795: 3766: 3716: 3676: 3620: 3583: 3569: 3505: 3489: 3450: 3362: 3345: 3298: 3134: 3096: 3059: 2755: 2675: 2639: 2635: 2592: 2549: 2504: 2446: 2396: 2228: 1836: 1801: 1764: 1632: 1591: 1571: 1466: 1416: 1396: 1362: 1285: 1253: 1170: 1166: 1143: 943: 888: 789: 776: 754: 608: 461: 383: 354: 316: 17: 3619:

following one’s contribution history. This is far superior for any wikiarcheologist.

1570:. Are there enough of these reviews to warrant this page move and scope expansion? -- 549: 333: 134: 3960: 3928: 3262: 3239: 3227: 2767: 2694: 2655: 2468: 2432: 1850: 1819: 1747: 1721: 1681: 1674: 845: 584: 299: 2762:

change had already occurred in many places online. The discussion was advertised at

2159:

Why isnt my move review for October 2021 for the closure of the move discussion for

1001:

I have deleted the extra text in the text at the top, however the footnote remains.

4077: 3470: 3405: 3390: 3386: 3313: 3284: 3280: 3223: 2851: 2810: 2139: 2080: 2065: 2028: 1960: 1934: 1868: 1784: 1349:, states that CFDs for renaming should go here, but CFDs for deletion should go to 1053: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1037: 793: 742: 706: 626: 600: 568: 534: 497: 2766:. On the 28th January (two months after the initial name change proposal), admin 2758:

were personally opinionated and lecturing as well as being factually incorrect.

1522:

Some RFDs have absolutely nothing to do with deletion such as those that involve

4085: 4062: 4044: 4036: 4030: 4006: 3998: 3992: 3968: 3954: 3936: 3922: 3903: 3895: 3872: 3858: 3835: 3817: 3803: 3789: 3774: 3724: 3699: 3684: 3670: 3642: 3628: 3606: 3591: 3577: 3555: 3523: 3497: 3478: 3432: 3413: 3398: 3370: 3353: 3339: 3321: 3306: 3292: 3283:. Trout Chiswick Chap who is an experienced editor and should know much better. 3270: 3247: 3219: 3203: 3182: 3108: 3090: 3071: 3012: 3000: 2982: 2967: 2946: 2926: 2911: 2899: 2880: 2859: 2844: 2832: 2818: 2802: 2730: 2722: 2702: 2683: 2663: 2650:). I wanted to ask if there is any procedure alternative to formal move review ( 2616: 2581: 2557: 2541: 2512: 2476: 2454: 2440: 2404: 2390: 2370: 2349: 2326: 2305: 2284: 2259: 2236: 2201: 2194: 2176: 2149: 2112: 2098: 2073: 2040: 1992: 1970: 1942: 1918: 1895: 1878: 1860: 1844: 1829: 1809: 1794: 1772: 1757: 1731: 1688: 1660: 1640: 1619: 1599: 1577: 1545: 1513: 1480: 1455: 1430: 1410: 1376: 1340: 1299: 1267: 1219: 1178: 1155: 1132: 1087: 1031: 1016: 996: 978: 951: 929: 853: 816: 801: 784: 762: 737: 714: 642: 616: 592: 576: 562: 524: 505: 487: 469: 448: 423: 411: 391: 373: 362: 348: 324: 307: 290: 261: 237: 203:

Currently, the scope of the move review process is limited to reviewing whether

193: 2427:, which is currently not the case, and thereby make it completely analogous to 3159: 3006: 2961: 2905: 2874: 2838: 2826: 2796: 1284:

to potentially garner input on this name change/update and/or other concerns.

676:. The results of discussions that take place as part of the processes called ' 3081:

very explicit and emphatic on that step, so yes, no excuses for this really.

2955:

which is the RM that gave someone the idea to request reverting the original

1142:

I made a flowchart to help people decide if they should start a move review!

3762: 3335: 2747: 2736: 2160: 768: 1566:

still says any non-move, non-deletion closure reviews should be handled at

1159: 3633:

Maybe you're right. I'd be happy to give it a try if others are on board.

1108:

Knowledge (XXG):Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus

3297:

The failure to notify the WikiProject is a good enough reason to relist.

3856:

Are new rules needed for high-profile or previously contested proposals?

2772:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Current events/Monkeypox outbreak task force

2634:

Hi, I was recently involved in a protracted discussion over the move of

1527: 3826:

would presume that the relister has just read through the discussion.

3174: 2608: 2573: 2533: 1743:

A nominated page should remain on move review for at least seven days

1741:

I also wonder if some comment about the seven days should be changed

1387:

should be renamed "Discussion review", similar to what happened with

1058:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 20#The Sun

3854:

I have initiated a discussion at the Village Pump on the question,

2823:

Please can you cite some reliable sources that the monkeypox -: -->

2395:

Merges and splits are not deletions, so not appropriate for DRV. —

2188: 550:#Is this the correct place to request a review of a category move? 2953:

Talk:2022–2023 monkeypox outbreak#Requested move 28 February 2023

2932:

editors also attract scrutiny from a wider community, preventing

1905:

section unless there is a specific question posed to them in the

664:. Can I suggest the following clarification to the RfC question? 4035:

Thanks, something like that would definitely be an improvement.

2988: 2956: 3445: 3043:

We've stated in our requirements for quite some time that it's

3449:

has enhanced notifications service and has posted a notice at

1800:

I think they should participate, but the word is “decorum”. —

353:

That's my understanding of "limited in scope to renaming". --

137: 58: 26: 2715:

By accident, I did not sign my Move Review request initially

529:

Then I complete don't get what this is about. Can you give a

2380:. As Crouch said, these would be better off handled at DRV. 3234:

simply reverted the move and close, and posted a notice at

2951:

While I've got you guys here then, any ideas how to handle

899:

Knowledge (XXG):Move_review/Log/2018_November#Jaggi_Vasudev

3611:

Transclusion can be done by following simple instructions.

548:, as they have been in the past. See the above discussion 3230:

after 7 days. Rather than start a Move Review or new RM,

2492:

Knowledge (XXG):Move_review/Log/2022_May#Berbers_(closed)

1818:

to tagging uninvolved comments instead of involved ones.

1712:

Currently the instructions for closing move reviews has

1106:

The pages I've seen on Knowledge (XXG)'s policies (e.g.

367:

You mean I'm actually supposed to read section titles?!?

3455:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Middle-earth/Article alerts

2719: 2716: 2669:

The closer, whether admin or otherwise, is required by

2643: 2086: 1277: 1234: 941: 909: 907: 905: 901: 897:

Can someone see and revert the group of tag teamers at

884: 379: 42: 2292:

if it's going to include merges, why not also include

2208:

Expand scope to include merge proposal closure review?

533:

example of the new process you are proposing? Thanks,

3882:

I know this has been discussed previously, last time

1526:

and no one disputes it would not be deleted (such as

37:

On 10 August 2020, it was proposed that this page be

3909:

I'd prefer to see us section off involved comments.

3383:

Category:Redirects with possibilities by WikiProject

160:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

3143:

_keep_posting_until_all_others_are_exhausted?": -->

2654:) in which this specific concern may be addressed? 2774:. We discused how to go about renaming those too. 668:Currently, the scope of move review is limited to 3941:Do you remember approximately when it was tried? 3753:editors' involvement. I question the judgment of 1586:, WP:AN discussion close reviews on a subpage of 773:Wikipedia_talk:Move_review/Archive_2012#Expansion 3759:Transformers (film) § Requested move 17 May 2024 3655:WP:Administration noticeboard/Discussion reviews 2130:I've floated the idea of merging this page with 3189:I would agree. I think once an editor makes a 1112: 1064:(which I wondered about creating years ago) or 660:Ok, got it. I got all mixed up with RM and MR. 270:confusion with RFD that result in delete where 3126:as a current example, should <involved: --> 3095:Would you please speedily close the MRV then? 3540:Knowledge (XXG):Move review/Log/2027 December 3536:Knowledge (XXG):Move review/Log/2023 November 3459:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Middle-earth 3261:. Thus not a valid reason to revert my move. 674:discussions were properly closed and executed 163:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 8: 3118:keep posting until all others are exhausted? 2646:but so far I haven't received any feedback ( 2031:, will that cause any issues with RMCD bot? 2017:won't do the trick, and that leaves placing 1102:Explanation of how move requests get decided 3124:Knowledge (XXG):Move review#Hindu terrorism 887:the section title to a more neutral title. 496:if only deletion review would go under MR. 460:Not “result”, instead “scope limited to”. — 3883: 3253:All I want to say is that notification to 2630:Question regarding post-move clarification 2005:Talk:Víctor Medina (footballer, born 1964) 1192:The following is a closed discussion of a 1118:policy, guidelines and naming conventions. 2748:Talk:Mpox#Requested move 28 February 2023 2737:Talk:Mpox#Requested move 28 February 2023 2134:at the Village Pump. Feedback is welcome 2225:Knowledge (XXG):Proposed article mergers 1282:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (proposals) 692:renaming discussions that take place at 3451:Talk:Nazgûl#Move discussion in progress 3423:asked) and the RM should just proceed. 3039:Move Reviews without talking to closers 2216:speedy closed. The discussion was at 1235:this series of edits a few months later 1062:Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for creation 3891: 2787: 1886:sections for the involved (positioned 1742: 1713: 2746:have complained about the closure at 2184:Knowledge (XXG):Move review#Allahabad 1066:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for creation 7: 3457:exists, no notice will be posted on 3047:(in bold) to talk to closers first. 1211:The result of the move request was: 911:to hat !votes, against their POV. -- 684:' have in the past been reviewed at 215:' have in the past been reviewed at 154:The following discussion is closed. 1249:Knowledge (XXG):Non-deletion review 4076:is that all editors are equal. — 4011:Sure. This one is pretty typical: 775:, and I merely liked the idea. -- 25: 3808:Only the first was comment-free. 3745:, this article has been relisted 3469:, the talk page of a redirect. – 3156:WP:MR#Albert von Sachsen (closed) 1697:The discussion above is closed. 2187: 2047: 1718:/Archive 2018#Non-admin closures 1158: 1070:Knowledge (XXG):Proposed mergers 869:The discussion above is closed. 168: 63: 30: 3704:Ah, that was too subtle for me. 2652:as I do acknowledge the outcome 1385:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 895:) 08:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC) 4086:13:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 4063:13:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 1: 2788:"As many editors pointed out 2223:Why not expand MR to include 2150:21:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC) 1993:21:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC) 1971:17:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC) 1928:. For example in the current 1879:17:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC) 1861:16:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC) 1845:04:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC) 1830:00:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC) 1810:00:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 1795:00:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 1773:04:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC) 1185:Requested move 10 August 2020 854:04:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC) 817:03:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC) 802:03:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC) 785:03:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC) 763:03:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC) 738:03:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC) 715:03:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC) 690:reviews of the closing of the 643:03:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC) 617:02:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC) 593:02:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC) 577:02:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC) 563:02:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC) 552:for the impetus of this RfC. 525:00:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC) 506:00:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC) 488:21:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC) 470:21:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC) 449:23:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC) 424:11:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC) 412:06:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC) 392:07:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC) 374:06:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC) 363:06:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC) 349:05:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC) 325:22:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC) 308:21:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC) 291:21:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC) 262:21:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC) 238:21:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC) 194:04:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC) 3643:04:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC) 3629:02:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC) 3607:01:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC) 3592:01:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC) 3578:01:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC) 3556:00:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC) 3524:00:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC) 3498:15:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC) 3461:as the bot assumes that the 3214:There's an odd situation at 2718:. I then added my sign late 2500:, please revert your close. 2085:The need arose again, and I 2074:14:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2041:13:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 1138:Flowchart about move reviews 1088:18:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC) 1032:22:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC) 1017:22:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC) 997:22:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC) 979:19:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC) 952:08:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC) 930:06:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC) 344:—should still go to DRV. -- 3563:Knowledge (XXG):Move review 3544:Knowledge (XXG):Move review 3479:16:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC) 3433:22:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC) 3414:07:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC) 3399:22:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC) 3371:21:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC) 3354:21:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC) 3340:21:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC) 3322:07:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC) 3307:21:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC) 3293:21:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC) 3271:21:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC) 3248:20:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC) 3236:WT:WikiProject Middle-earth 2202:20:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC) 2177:19:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC) 1758:20:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC) 1732:20:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC) 1689:22:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 1661:03:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC) 1641:12:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC) 1620:08:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC) 1600:01:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 1578:05:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC) 1546:20:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 1514:21:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC) 1481:19:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC) 1456:19:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC) 1431:19:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC) 1411:19:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC) 1377:19:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC) 1357:confusing when it comes to 1341:19:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC) 1300:19:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC) 1268:17:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC) 1227:Knowledge (XXG):Move review 1220:20:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC) 43:Knowledge (XXG):Move review 4102: 3109:15:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC) 3091:07:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC) 2731:22:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC) 1133:01:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC) 938:longer than it needs to be 662:WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! 4045:12:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC) 4031:12:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC) 4007:11:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC) 3993:01:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC) 3969:04:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC) 3955:01:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC) 3937:20:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC) 3923:16:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC) 3904:16:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC) 3873:00:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC) 3836:06:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC) 3818:22:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 3804:22:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 3790:22:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 3775:21:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 3725:06:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC) 3700:22:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 3685:22:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 3671:22:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 3204:12:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC) 3183:11:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC) 3072:21:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC) 3013:12:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC) 3001:10:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC) 2983:08:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC) 2968:08:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC) 2947:08:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC) 2927:08:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC) 2912:07:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC) 2900:03:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC) 2881:23:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC) 2860:21:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC) 2845:19:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC) 2833:19:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC) 2819:18:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC) 2803:18:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC) 2703:07:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC) 2684:13:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC) 2664:10:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC) 2548:continue somewhere else. 2477:20:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC) 2455:03:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC) 2441:00:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC) 2405:20:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC) 2391:19:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC) 2371:19:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC) 2350:17:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC) 2327:16:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC) 2306:16:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC) 2285:13:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC) 2260:09:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC) 2237:06:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC) 2113:14:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC) 2099:14:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC) 1943:13:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC) 1930:Indus Valley civilisation 1919:12:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC) 1896:14:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC) 678:categories for discussion 332:with the caveat (per the 209:categories for discussion 3661:reviews would be held.) 3512:move review instructions 3216:Talk:Black Breath (band) 3144:04:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 2742:Two editors, myself and 2617:16:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC) 2582:11:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC) 2558:10:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC) 2542:08:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC) 2513:08:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC) 2467:yes, WP:AN. My mistake. 2250:about this discussion. 2027:on the talk page again. 1949:Uninvolved participation 1699:Please do not modify it. 1199:Please do not modify it. 1179:13:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 1156:02:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC) 871:Please do not modify it. 682:redirects for discussion 213:redirects for discussion 157:Please do not modify it. 3053:like he was required to 1229:→ ? – As the result of 1021:That seems reasonable. 176:unanimous consensus in 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:MR 1280:of this discussion on 1120: 904:that are edit warring 3737:Relisting three times 3158:was withdrawn by the 3117:May <involved: --> 1999:Relisting a closed RM 1779:Involved participants 1395:almost 15 years ago. 1391:a few years back and 1353:. However, thing get 1278:placed a notification 1052:still go to DR while 51:consensus not to move 3257:is not required for 2498:User:Paine_Ellsworth 2248:WP:WikiProject Merge 3943:Firefangledfeathers 3911:Firefangledfeathers 3743:Transformers (film) 3222:proposed a move to 2273:Firefangledfeathers 2186:. Have a nice day 1610:a wrong direction. 1383:...Then yes, maybe 3635:Extraordinary Writ 3599:Extraordinary Writ 3548:Extraordinary Writ 3425:Extraordinary Writ 3359:User:Chiswick Chap 3232:User:Chiswick Chap 2744:User:Graham Beards 2597:closure reverted. 2266: 1708:Non-admin closures 1524:WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT 4029: 3991: 3894:. Any thoughts? 3530:Monthly log pages 3518: 3467:Talk:Black Breath 3185: 3077:The instructions 2934:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 2752:non-admin closure 2711:Late sign misses? 2619: 2590: 2584: 2544: 2494:was a bad close. 2311:Qualified Support 2264: 1687: 1670:WP:CLOSECHALLENGE 1564:WP:CLOSECHALLENGE 896: 451: 446: 180:of the proposal. 143: 142: 57: 56: 16:(Redirected from 4093: 4023: 4021: 3985: 3983: 3890:for nominators: 3865: 3709:WP:Close reviews 3516: 3509: 3448: 3443:Version 8.10 of 3181: 3177: 3169: 3105: 3099: 3068: 3062: 2615: 2611: 2603: 2596: 2588: 2580: 2576: 2568: 2540: 2536: 2528: 2388: 2367: 2360: 2346: 2339: 2200: 2191: 2147: 2084: 2055: 2051: 2050: 2026: 2020: 2016: 2010: 1989: 1982: 1968: 1876: 1853: 1822: 1792: 1750: 1724: 1685: 1677: 1666:Very weak oppose 1654: 1542: 1535: 1509: 1504: 1499: 1473: 1451: 1446: 1441: 1423: 1403: 1369: 1336: 1331: 1326: 1292: 1260: 1231:this RfC in 2018 1201: 1162: 1152: 1146: 1084: 1077: 1025: 1013: 1006: 990: 975: 968: 927: 924: 918: 882: 810: 731: 636: 630: 556: 518: 481: 447: 442: 438: 421:Timrollpickering 334:discussion above 287: 280: 255: 231: 189: 184: 179: 175: 172: 171: 159: 138: 67: 59: 45:. The result of 34: 33: 27: 21: 4101: 4100: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4092: 4091: 4090: 4017: 3979: 3880: 3859: 3852: 3739: 3532: 3503: 3486: 3444: 3441: 3259:requested moves 3212: 3175: 3167: 3151: 3120: 3103: 3097: 3066: 3060: 3041: 2740: 2713: 2632: 2609: 2601: 2587: 2574: 2566: 2534: 2526: 2489: 2382: 2365: 2358: 2344: 2337: 2210: 2192: 2157: 2140: 2128: 2078: 2048: 2046: 2024: 2018: 2014: 2008: 2001: 1987: 1980: 1961: 1951: 1869: 1851: 1820: 1785: 1781: 1748: 1746:fairly common. 1739: 1722: 1710: 1705: 1679: 1652: 1540: 1533: 1507: 1502: 1497: 1467: 1449: 1444: 1439: 1417: 1397: 1363: 1334: 1329: 1324: 1286: 1254: 1197: 1187: 1150: 1144: 1140: 1104: 1082: 1075: 1023: 1011: 1004: 988: 973: 966: 960: 922: 916: 913: 880: 875: 874: 808: 767:Maybe that was 729: 725:deletion policy 686:deletion review 670:review whether 634: 624: 554: 516: 479: 458: 437:Paine Ellsworth 436: 285: 278: 253: 245: 229: 217:deletion review 201: 185: 182: 177: 173: 169: 155: 148: 139: 133: 72: 31: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 4099: 4097: 4089: 4088: 4065: 4055: 4054: 4053: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4047: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3972: 3971: 3879: 3876: 3851: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3823: 3738: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3712: 3705: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3616: 3612: 3580: 3566: 3531: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3485: 3484:Multiple pages 3482: 3463:Article Alerts 3440: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3356: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3274: 3273: 3211: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3168:P.I. Ellsworth 3150: 3147: 3119: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3040: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 2985: 2929: 2870: 2866: 2790:WP:NAMECHANGES 2780:WP:NAMECHANGES 2756:User:Red Slash 2739: 2734: 2712: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2693:involvement.-- 2687: 2686: 2640:Vukovar-Srijem 2636:Vukovar-Syrmia 2631: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2602:P.I. Ellsworth 2567:P.I. Ellsworth 2527:P.I. Ellsworth 2488: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2407: 2393: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2329: 2308: 2287: 2262: 2209: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2156: 2153: 2127: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2022:Requested move 2000: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1950: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1926:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 1921: 1898: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1812: 1780: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1738: 1735: 1709: 1706: 1704: 1703: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1663: 1643: 1629:WP:Move review 1622: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1517: 1516: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1413: 1380: 1379: 1316: 1315: 1303: 1302: 1225: 1223: 1209: 1208: 1194:requested move 1188: 1186: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1167:User:Red Slash 1139: 1136: 1103: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 959: 956: 955: 954: 879: 876: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 830: 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 746: 702: 701: 672:requested move 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 653: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 620: 619: 596: 595: 493: 492: 491: 490: 457: 454: 453: 452: 426: 414: 400: 399: 398: 397: 396: 395: 394: 368: 327: 310: 293: 264: 244: 241: 205:requested move 200: 199: 198: 197: 196: 150: 149: 147: 144: 141: 140: 135: 131: 129: 126: 125: 124: 123: 118: 113: 108: 103: 98: 93: 88: 78: 77: 74: 73: 68: 62: 55: 54: 47:the discussion 35: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4098: 4087: 4083: 4079: 4075: 4071: 4066: 4064: 4061: 4056: 4046: 4042: 4038: 4034: 4033: 4032: 4027: 4022: 4020: 4019:Novem Linguae 4014: 4010: 4009: 4008: 4004: 4000: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3989: 3984: 3982: 3981:Novem Linguae 3976: 3970: 3966: 3962: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3952: 3948: 3944: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3934: 3930: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3920: 3916: 3912: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3905: 3901: 3897: 3893: 3889: 3885: 3884:two years ago 3877: 3875: 3874: 3871: 3870: 3866: 3864: 3863: 3857: 3850: 3847: 3837: 3833: 3829: 3824: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3815: 3811: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3801: 3797: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3787: 3783: 3779: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3760: 3756: 3752: 3748: 3744: 3736: 3726: 3722: 3718: 3713: 3710: 3706: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3697: 3693: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3682: 3678: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3668: 3664: 3660: 3656: 3652: 3644: 3640: 3636: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3617: 3613: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3604: 3600: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3589: 3585: 3581: 3579: 3575: 3571: 3567: 3564: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3557: 3553: 3549: 3545: 3541: 3537: 3529: 3525: 3522: 3519: 3513: 3507: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3495: 3491: 3483: 3481: 3480: 3476: 3472: 3468: 3464: 3460: 3456: 3452: 3447: 3438: 3434: 3430: 3426: 3421: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3396: 3392: 3388: 3384: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3360: 3357: 3355: 3351: 3347: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3338: 3337: 3331: 3323: 3319: 3315: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3304: 3300: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3290: 3286: 3282: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3272: 3268: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3245: 3241: 3237: 3233: 3229: 3228:User:Lightoil 3225: 3221: 3217: 3209: 3205: 3201: 3197: 3192: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3184: 3180: 3178: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3161: 3157: 3148: 3146: 3145: 3140: 3136: 3131: 3128: 3125: 3116: 3110: 3107: 3106: 3100: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3070: 3069: 3063: 3056: 3054: 3048: 3046: 3038: 3014: 3011: 3008: 3004: 3003: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2990: 2986: 2984: 2980: 2976: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2966: 2963: 2958: 2954: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2944: 2940: 2935: 2930: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2910: 2907: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2888: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2879: 2876: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2843: 2840: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2831: 2828: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2801: 2798: 2794: 2791: 2783: 2781: 2775: 2773: 2769: 2768:User:SilkTork 2765: 2759: 2757: 2753: 2749: 2745: 2738: 2735: 2733: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2717: 2710: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2685: 2681: 2677: 2672: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2629: 2618: 2614: 2612: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2594: 2586: 2585: 2583: 2579: 2577: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2546: 2545: 2543: 2539: 2537: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2521: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2501: 2499: 2495: 2493: 2487:Bad MRV close 2486: 2478: 2474: 2470: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2421: 2418: 2417: 2411: 2408: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2394: 2392: 2389: 2387: 2386: 2379: 2376: 2372: 2368: 2362: 2361: 2359:Crouch, Swale 2353: 2352: 2351: 2347: 2341: 2340: 2338:Crouch, Swale 2333: 2330: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2309: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2298:65.92.246.142 2295: 2291: 2288: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2263: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2244: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2221: 2219: 2215: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2196: 2190: 2185: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2169:Tecumseh*1301 2165: 2162: 2154: 2152: 2151: 2148: 2146: 2145: 2137: 2133: 2126: 2123:Merging with 2122: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2082: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2054: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2023: 2013: 2006: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1984: 1983: 1981:Crouch, Swale 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1969: 1967: 1966: 1957: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1931: 1927: 1922: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1899: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1884: 1880: 1877: 1875: 1874: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1817: 1813: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1793: 1791: 1790: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1744: 1736: 1734: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1719: 1715: 1707: 1702: 1700: 1695: 1694: 1690: 1683: 1676: 1671: 1667: 1664: 1662: 1659: 1655: 1649: 1644: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1623: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1608: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1576: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1560: 1547: 1543: 1537: 1536: 1534:Crouch, Swale 1529: 1525: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1515: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1505: 1500: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1472: 1471: 1463: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1447: 1442: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1422: 1421: 1414: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1402: 1401: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1381: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1368: 1367: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1332: 1327: 1318: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1304: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1291: 1290: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1259: 1258: 1250: 1245: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1222: 1221: 1218: 1214: 1207: 1205: 1200: 1195: 1190: 1189: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1161: 1157: 1154: 1153: 1147: 1137: 1135: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1119: 1116: 1111: 1109: 1101: 1089: 1085: 1079: 1078: 1076:Crouch, Swale 1071: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1030: 1026: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1014: 1008: 1007: 1005:Crouch, Swale 1000: 999: 998: 995: 991: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 980: 976: 970: 969: 967:Crouch, Swale 958:CFDs and RFDs 957: 953: 949: 945: 942: 939: 934: 933: 932: 931: 928: 926: 919: 910: 908: 906: 903: 900: 894: 890: 886: 877: 872: 855: 851: 847: 842: 841: 840: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 818: 815: 811: 805: 804: 803: 799: 795: 791: 788: 787: 786: 782: 778: 774: 770: 766: 765: 764: 760: 756: 752: 747: 744: 741: 740: 739: 736: 732: 726: 721: 720: 719: 718: 717: 716: 712: 708: 699: 695: 691: 687: 683: 679: 675: 673: 667: 666: 665: 663: 644: 641: 637: 628: 622: 621: 618: 614: 610: 606: 602: 598: 597: 594: 590: 586: 582: 581: 580: 579: 578: 574: 570: 566: 565: 564: 561: 557: 551: 547: 543: 542: 540: 536: 532: 528: 527: 526: 523: 519: 512: 511: 510: 509: 508: 507: 503: 499: 489: 486: 482: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 467: 463: 455: 450: 445: 441: 440: 439: 430: 427: 425: 422: 418: 415: 413: 409: 405: 401: 393: 389: 385: 380: 377: 376: 375: 372: 366: 365: 364: 360: 356: 352: 351: 350: 347: 343: 339: 335: 331: 328: 326: 322: 318: 314: 311: 309: 305: 301: 297: 294: 292: 288: 282: 281: 279:Crouch, Swale 273: 268: 265: 263: 260: 256: 250: 247: 246: 242: 240: 239: 236: 232: 226: 222: 218: 214: 210: 206: 195: 192: 190: 188: 166: 165: 164: 161: 158: 152: 151: 145: 128: 127: 122: 119: 117: 114: 112: 109: 107: 104: 102: 99: 97: 94: 92: 89: 87: 84: 83: 82: 80: 79: 76: 75: 71: 66: 61: 60: 52: 48: 44: 40: 36: 29: 28: 19: 4074:WP:CONSENSUS 4018: 3980: 3888:WP:RMCOMMENT 3881: 3868: 3861: 3860: 3853: 3810:BilledMammal 3782:BilledMammal 3755:BilledMammal 3750: 3747:a third time 3746: 3740: 3692:BilledMammal 3663:BilledMammal 3658: 3533: 3517:SilverLocust 3487: 3462: 3442: 3439:Bot upgraded 3334: 3281:Black Breath 3255:WikiProjects 3224:Black Breath 3213: 3210:Black Breath 3165: 3164: 3163:withdrawal. 3152: 3132: 3129: 3122:Thinking of 3121: 3102: 3078: 3065: 3057: 3052: 3049: 3044: 3042: 2975:No such user 2939:No such user 2886: 2784: 2776: 2760: 2754:comments by 2741: 2714: 2671:WP:ADMINACCT 2651: 2647: 2633: 2599: 2598: 2564: 2563: 2524: 2523: 2502: 2496: 2490: 2414: 2409: 2384: 2383: 2377: 2356: 2335: 2331: 2310: 2293: 2289: 2252:No such user 2242: 2222: 2211: 2182:Fixed. See 2166: 2158: 2143: 2141: 2138:. Thank you 2129: 2105:No such user 2091:No such user 2058:No such user 2052: 2033:No such user 2002: 1978: 1964: 1962: 1952: 1906: 1902: 1887: 1872: 1870: 1815: 1788: 1786: 1782: 1740: 1711: 1698: 1696: 1678:(please use 1665: 1653:RGloucester 1650:any change. 1647: 1624: 1612:No such user 1606: 1531: 1498:bibliomaniac 1495: 1494: 1469: 1468: 1440:bibliomaniac 1437: 1436: 1419: 1418: 1399: 1398: 1365: 1364: 1354: 1325:bibliomaniac 1322: 1321: 1307: 1288: 1287: 1273: 1256: 1255: 1243: 1238: 1224: 1212: 1210: 1198: 1191: 1149: 1141: 1121: 1113: 1105: 1073: 1024:RGloucester 1002: 989:RGloucester 964: 961: 912: 881: 870: 809:RGloucester 730:RGloucester 703: 689: 669: 659: 635:RGloucester 555:RGloucester 530: 517:RGloucester 494: 480:RGloucester 459: 434: 433: 428: 416: 404:TonyBallioni 371:Black Falcon 346:Black Falcon 341: 337: 329: 312: 295: 276: 267:Weak support 266: 254:RGloucester 248: 230:RGloucester 202: 186: 167:There is an 162: 156: 153: 81: 69: 50: 4070:WP:INVOLVED 3878:Involved II 3220:User:Pppery 3149:Withdrawals 3083:Iskandar323 2993:Iskandar323 2919:Iskandar323 2892:Iskandar323 2638:article to 2212:I just saw 1684:|ItsPugle}} 1233:as well as 1204:move review 1125:Danielklein 3741:Regarding 3707:How about 3453:. Because 3196:Mike Cline 2319:Mike Cline 2267:: why not 1911:Mike Cline 1907:Uninvolved 1737:Seven days 1562:Comment - 1213:not moved. 456:Discussion 4060:Alalch E. 3828:SmokeyJoe 3796:SmokeyJoe 3717:SmokeyJoe 3677:SmokeyJoe 3621:SmokeyJoe 3584:SmokeyJoe 3570:SmokeyJoe 3506:Yoblyblob 3490:Yoblyblob 3363:SmokeyJoe 3346:SmokeyJoe 3299:SmokeyJoe 3135:SmokeyJoe 2676:SmokeyJoe 2644:this edit 2593:SmokeyJoe 2550:SmokeyJoe 2520:talk page 2505:SmokeyJoe 2447:SmokeyJoe 2397:SmokeyJoe 2229:SmokeyJoe 2161:Prayagraj 2155:Prayagraj 2062:like this 2012:RM relist 1837:SmokeyJoe 1802:SmokeyJoe 1765:SmokeyJoe 1686:on reply) 1633:SmokeyJoe 1592:SmokeyJoe 1572:Netoholic 1470:Steel1943 1420:Steel1943 1400:Steel1943 1366:Steel1943 1289:Steel1943 1276:: I have 1257:Steel1943 1171:SmokeyJoe 1115:Consensus 944:Qualitist 889:Qualitist 790:SmokeyJoe 777:SmokeyJoe 769:User:Jc37 755:SmokeyJoe 609:SmokeyJoe 462:SmokeyJoe 384:SmokeyJoe 381:. :: --> 355:SmokeyJoe 317:SmokeyJoe 3961:Station1 3951:contribs 3929:Station1 3919:contribs 3751:thirteen 3749:despite 3657:, where 3446:RMCD bot 3263:Lightoil 3240:Station1 3045:required 2885:This is 2695:MirkoS18 2656:MirkoS18 2469:Mdewman6 2433:Mdewman6 2281:contribs 2265:Question 2060:, do it 1903:Involved 1852:PaleAqua 1821:PaleAqua 1749:PaleAqua 1723:PaleAqua 1675:ItsPugle 1244:supposed 846:Springee 605:WP:RENOM 585:Springee 531:specific 429:Support. 300:Springee 70:Archives 4078:Amakuru 3771:contrib 3471:wbm1058 3406:Jenks24 3391:wbm1058 3387:Jenks24 3314:Jenks24 3285:Jenks24 2852:Amakuru 2811:Amakuru 2591:editor 2410:Comment 2385:Calidum 2290:Comment 2243:Support 2144:Calidum 2081:Wbm1058 2066:wbm1058 2029:wbm1058 1965:Calidum 1935:Amakuru 1873:Calidum 1789:Calidum 1528:The Sun 1359:WP:RFDs 1347:WP:CFDs 902:history 885:changed 680:' and ' 627:Renata3 477:Fixed. 443:, ed. 417:Support 330:Support 313:Support 296:Support 249:Support 211:' and ' 4037:Vpab15 3999:Vpab15 3896:Vpab15 3862:BD2412 3191:WP:MRV 2793:that." 2764:WT:MED 2723:DePiep 2416:WP:ANI 2378:Oppose 2332:Oppose 2294:splits 2269:WP:DRV 2198:(talk) 2195:Toddy1 2132:WP:DRV 2125:WP:DRV 1956:WP:DRV 1648:oppose 1625:Oppose 1607:Oppose 1584:WP:RfC 1462:WP:DRV 1393:WP:RFD 1389:WP:FFD 1355:really 1351:WP:DRV 1312:WP:DRV 1217:(talk) 794:Renata 743:Renata 707:Renata 698:WP:RfD 694:WP:CfD 601:Renata 569:Renata 546:WP:DRV 535:Renata 498:Renata 402:Sure. 338:rename 243:Survey 225:WP:RfD 221:WP:CfD 3104:Slash 3067:Slash 3007:Colin 2962:Colin 2906:Colin 2887:a lot 2875:Colin 2839:Colin 2827:Colin 2797:Colin 2429:WP:RM 2425:WP:PM 2420:WP:AN 2315:WP:PM 2296:? -- 2136:there 2087:tried 1888:after 1588:WP:AN 1568:WP:AN 1151:Slash 751:WP:AN 607:. -- 272:WP:XY 178:favor 41:from 39:moved 4082:talk 4041:talk 4026:talk 4003:talk 3988:talk 3965:talk 3947:talk 3933:talk 3915:talk 3900:talk 3832:talk 3814:talk 3800:talk 3786:talk 3767:talk 3763:Erik 3721:talk 3696:talk 3681:talk 3667:talk 3639:talk 3625:talk 3603:talk 3588:talk 3574:talk 3552:talk 3494:talk 3475:talk 3429:talk 3410:talk 3395:talk 3367:talk 3350:talk 3336:jc37 3318:talk 3303:talk 3289:talk 3267:talk 3244:talk 3200:talk 3139:talk 3087:talk 2997:talk 2989:Mpox 2979:talk 2957:mpox 2943:talk 2923:talk 2896:talk 2856:talk 2815:talk 2727:talk 2699:talk 2680:talk 2660:talk 2554:talk 2509:talk 2473:talk 2451:talk 2437:talk 2401:talk 2366:talk 2345:talk 2323:talk 2302:talk 2277:talk 2256:talk 2233:talk 2173:talk 2109:talk 2095:talk 2070:talk 2064:. – 2053:Done 2037:talk 1988:talk 1939:talk 1915:talk 1892:talk 1857:talk 1841:talk 1826:talk 1816:from 1806:talk 1769:talk 1754:talk 1728:talk 1682:ping 1637:talk 1616:talk 1596:talk 1541:talk 1477:talk 1427:talk 1407:talk 1373:talk 1296:talk 1274:Note 1264:talk 1175:talk 1129:talk 1083:talk 1068:and 1048:and 1012:talk 974:talk 948:talk 893:talk 850:talk 798:talk 781:talk 759:talk 711:talk 696:and 613:talk 599:No, 589:talk 573:talk 539:talk 502:talk 466:talk 408:talk 388:talk 359:talk 342:move 321:talk 304:talk 286:talk 223:and 121:2019 116:2018 111:2017 106:2016 101:2015 96:2014 91:2013 86:2012 49:was 3773:) 3659:all 3176:ed. 3160:nom 3098:Red 3079:are 3061:Red 2795:-- 2610:ed. 2575:ed. 2535:ed. 2369:) 2348:) 2142:-- 1991:) 1963:-- 1933:— 1871:-- 1787:-- 1627:. 1544:) 1308:are 1239:any 1145:Red 1086:) 1054:CFR 1050:CFL 1046:CFS 1042:CFM 1038:CFD 1015:) 977:) 923:ray 917:Big 771:at 340:or 289:) 187:WBG 4084:) 4043:) 4005:) 3967:) 3953:) 3949:/ 3935:) 3921:) 3917:/ 3902:) 3834:) 3816:) 3802:) 3788:) 3769:| 3761:. 3723:) 3698:) 3683:) 3669:) 3641:) 3627:) 3605:) 3590:) 3576:) 3554:) 3521:💬 3514:. 3496:) 3477:) 3431:) 3412:) 3397:) 3369:) 3352:) 3320:) 3305:) 3291:) 3269:) 3246:) 3218:. 3202:) 3173:, 3141:) 3089:) 2999:) 2981:) 2945:) 2925:) 2898:) 2858:) 2817:) 2782:. 2729:) 2701:) 2682:) 2662:) 2607:- 2589:To 2572:- 2556:) 2532:- 2511:) 2475:) 2453:) 2439:) 2403:) 2325:) 2304:) 2283:) 2279:| 2258:) 2235:) 2220:. 2193:-- 2175:) 2167:-- 2111:) 2097:) 2072:) 2056:– 2039:) 2025:}} 2019:{{ 2015:}} 2009:{{ 1941:) 1917:) 1894:) 1859:) 1843:) 1835:-- 1828:) 1808:) 1771:) 1756:) 1730:) 1720:. 1680:{{ 1656:— 1639:) 1618:) 1598:) 1479:) 1429:) 1409:) 1375:) 1298:) 1266:) 1196:. 1177:) 1131:) 1044:, 1040:, 1027:— 992:— 950:) 883:I 852:) 812:— 800:) 783:) 761:) 733:— 713:) 638:— 615:) 591:) 575:) 558:— 541:) 520:— 504:) 483:— 468:) 410:) 390:) 382:-- 361:) 323:) 306:) 257:— 233:— 4080:( 4039:( 4028:) 4024:( 4001:( 3990:) 3986:( 3963:( 3945:( 3931:( 3913:( 3898:( 3869:T 3830:( 3812:( 3798:( 3784:( 3765:( 3719:( 3711:. 3694:( 3679:( 3665:( 3637:( 3623:( 3601:( 3586:( 3572:( 3550:( 3508:: 3504:@ 3492:( 3473:( 3427:( 3408:( 3393:( 3365:( 3348:( 3316:( 3301:( 3287:( 3265:( 3242:( 3198:( 3137:( 3085:( 3009:° 2995:( 2977:( 2964:° 2941:( 2921:( 2908:° 2894:( 2877:° 2854:( 2841:° 2829:° 2813:( 2799:° 2725:( 2697:( 2678:( 2658:( 2595:: 2552:( 2507:( 2471:( 2449:( 2435:( 2399:( 2363:( 2342:( 2321:( 2300:( 2275:( 2254:( 2231:( 2171:( 2107:( 2093:( 2083:: 2079:@ 2068:( 2035:( 1985:( 1937:( 1913:( 1855:( 1839:( 1824:( 1804:( 1767:( 1752:( 1726:( 1658:☎ 1635:( 1614:( 1594:( 1575:@ 1538:( 1508:5 1503:1 1475:( 1450:5 1445:1 1425:( 1405:( 1371:( 1335:5 1330:1 1294:( 1262:( 1173:( 1127:( 1080:( 1029:☎ 1009:( 994:☎ 971:( 946:( 925:ᗙ 921:X 915:D 891:( 848:( 814:☎ 796:( 779:( 757:( 735:☎ 709:( 640:☎ 629:: 625:@ 611:( 587:( 571:( 560:☎ 537:( 522:☎ 500:( 485:☎ 464:( 406:( 386:( 357:( 319:( 302:( 283:( 259:☎ 235:☎ 183:∯ 174:Y 53:. 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Move review - Knowledge (XXG)

Index