Wikipedia:Move review
 |
Move review is a process to formally discuss and evaluate a contested close of Wikipedia page move discussions, including requested moves (RM), categories for discussion discussions (CfD), and redirects for discussion discussions (RfD), to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.
Prior to submitting a review of a page move's close, please attempt to resolve any issues on the closer's talk page. See step one below.
While the page move close is under review, any involved editor is free to revert any undiscussed moves of a nominated page without those actions being considered a violation of Wikipedia:No wheel warring.
What this process is not
[edit]This review process should be focused on the move discussion and the subsequent results of the move discussion, not on the person who closed the discussion. If you have ongoing concerns about a closer, please consult with the closer or post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Move review requests which cast aspersions or otherwise attack other editors may be speedily closed.
Do not request a move review if someone has boldly moved a page and you disagree. Instead, attempt to discuss it with the editor, and if the matter continues to be unresolved, start a formal WP:RM discussion on the article's talk page.
Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a page move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion.
Disagreements with Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions (WP:RMCI), WP:Article titles, the Manual of Style, a naming convention or the community norm of consensus should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page.
CfDs[1] and RfDs can only be reviewed here if the relevant discussion was limited in scope to renaming; CfDs or RfDs[2] involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review.
Instructions
[edit]Initiating move reviews
[edit]Editors desiring to initiate a move review should follow the steps listed below. In the reason parameter, editors should limit their requests to one or both of the following reasons:
- [Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because [explain rationale here] in closing this requested move discussion.
- [Closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: [identify information here] and the discussion should be reopened and relisted.
Editors initiating a move review discussion should be familiar with the closing instructions provided in WP:RMCI.
Steps to list a new review request
[edit]| 1. |
Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page. Move review is a process that takes several days, sometimes weeks, to close. On the closer's talk page, you can probably resolve the matter much more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full, formal move review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, and you decide to request a review of the closure, please note in the review that you did first try discussing the matter with the closer. To clarify: You absolutely MUST attempt to discuss the matter with the closer FIRST, and give them a few days to respond. |
| 2. |
Follow this link to this month's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the contested move page, rm_page with the name of the move discussion page if needed, rm_section if needed, closer and closer_section with the post-move discussion information, and reason with the reason why the page move should be reviewed. For example: Copy this template skeleton for most pages:
{{subst:move review list
|page=
|rm_page= <!--Not needed if the move discussion is on the talk page of the page-->
|rm_section= <!--Name of the section with the move request-->
|closer= <!--User name of editor who closed the move request-->
|closer_section= <!--Name of the section of closer's talk page where discussion took place-->
|reason=
}} ~~~~
If either the
are correctly filled in, the result will include a "Discussion with closer" link to that discussion. If the |
| 3. |
If you have not done so already, inform the closer of the Move review discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
| 4. |
Leave notice of the move review in the same section as, but outside of and above the closed original move discussion. Use the following template: |
| 5. |
If the current month discussions are not already included in the discussion section below. Add the new log page to the top of the active discussions section.
|
| 6. |
The discussion with closer and notices required above are sufficient notification; you are not required to individually notify participants in the prior move discussion of the move review. However, if you individually notify any of them, you must individually notify all of them by posting a message about the move review on each participant's respective user talk page. |
Commenting in a move review
[edit]In general, commenters should prefix their comments with either Endorse or Overturn (optionally stating an alternative close) followed by their reasoning. Generally, the rationale should be an analysis of whether the closer properly followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, whether it was within closer's discretion and reasonably interpreted consensus in the discussion, while keeping in mind the spirit of Wikipedia policy, precedent and project goal. Commenters should be familiar with WP:RMCI, which sets forth community norms for closers of page move discussions.
If the close is considered premature because of on-going discussion or if significant relevant information was not considered during the discussion, commenters should suggest Relist followed by their rationale.
Commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review.
The closer of the page move under discussion should feel free to provide additional rationale as to why they closed the RM in the manner they did and why they believe the close followed the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI.
Remember that move review is not an opportunity to rehash, expand upon or first offer your opinion on the proper title of the page in question – move review is not a do-over of the WP:RM discussion but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process (in the absence of significant new information). Thus, the action specified should be the editor's analysis of whether the close of the discussion was reasonable or unreasonable based on the debate and applicable policy and guidelines. Providing evidence such as page views, ghits, ngrams, challenging sourcing and naming conventions, etc. to defend a specific title choice is not within the purview of a move review. Evidence should be limited to demonstrating that the RM closer did or did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing the page move discussion.
Closing reviews
[edit]A nominated page should remain on move review for at least seven days. After seven days, an uninvolved editor will determine whether a consensus exists to either endorse the close or overturn the close. If that consensus is to Overturn Close, the MRV closer should take the appropriate actions to revert any title changes resulting from the RM close. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at Wikipedia:Requested moves, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, or Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If the consensus is to Endorse Close, no further action is required on the article title. If the MRV closer finds that there is no consensus in the move review, then in most cases this has the same effect as Endorse Close and no action is required on the article title. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; MRV closers may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.
Use {{subst:move review top}} and {{subst:move review bottom}} to close such discussions.
Alternatively, the opener of a move review can close it only if unanimous opposition is obvious, the discussion has not had any comments yet, or the review was initiated via block evasion.
Also, add a result to the {{move review talk}} template on the talk page where the original discussion took place, e.g. {{move review talk|date=April 24 2015|result=Closure endorsed}}.
Typical move review decision options
[edit]The following set of options represent the typical results of a move review decision, although complex page move discussions involving multiple title changes may require a combination of these options based on the specific details of the RM and MRV discussions.
| MRV closer's decision | RM closer's decision | Move review closed as | Status of RM after MRV close |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Endorse | Moved / Not moved | No action required | Closed |
| 2. Overturn | Not moved | Option 1: (If RM consensus is unclear or significantly divided) Reopen and relist RM | Open |
| Option 2: (If consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RM | Closed | ||
| Moved | Move title back to pre-RM title, and reopen and relist RM if appropriate | Open | |
| 3. Relist | Moved / Not moved | Reopen and relist RM and if moved, move title back to pre-RM title | Open |
Notes
[edit]- ^ Those that involve renames (Template:Cfr), for all other types of CFDs use deletion review.
- ^ Generally for those that don't involve any proposed or suggested deletion, where only the redirect's target was being discussed or if the redirect should be a disambiguation page, for other (even those that were retargeted where deletion was proposed or considered) use deletion review.
Active discussions
[edit]Twelve Angry Men (stage play) (closed)
[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
StarFox0Lover did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because they did not use appropriate WP:RMNAC tags, allow a full seven days discussion, nor give appropriate weight to arguments based in guidelines and policy in assessing consensus and closing this requested move discussion. StarFox0Lover was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: usage of only play or musical as a disambiguator is the standard convention adequate to them distinguish from other media, even when there is another disambiguator, as in Smash (TV series) and Smash (musical) (see also Category:Plays based on television series and Category:Plays based on films), with "stage" added only when further disambiguation is needed, such as in Burlesque (stage musical), where "Burlesque (musical)" redirects to "Victorian burlesque," and the discussion should be reopened and relisted. - BrechtBro (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it. |
The city, known historically as Allahabad, had its name changed to 'Prayagraj' by a Hindu nationalist government in 2018. The RM was a request to change the article's name back to Allahabad. The majority of editors in the discussion supported the requested move. In the move discussion, a lot of evidence was provided which showed that the old name had continued to be the WP:COMMONNAME in scholarly and academic sources, and that the usage of the old name had not decreased relative to that of the new name. Some editors noted that the new name's usage prevailed was in news sources, which the closer reiterated in the close, however other editors noted WP:SOURCETYPES, according to which scholarly and and academic sources generally prevail over news sources, yet this was not taken into consideration in the close. When there is such a discrepancy between news sources and scholarly sources, shouldn't the latter be given precedence? The discussion regarding the closure at the closer's talk page also simply ended with an "I guess I just don't agree with your analysis" by the closer. It is clear that moving the article back to Allahabad is more in line with WP:PG. (Also, apologies for opening this review so late. I had gotten busy with stuff irl) — EarthDude (Talk) 07:06, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- That conversation is at User talk:Beland#Regarding your closure of Talk:Prayagraj#Requested move 28 October 2025. I still disagree with this analysis. Academic sources are generally preferred, but as I mentioned in the close, the stats on academic sources appear to be contaminated by the names of other entities, especially the university.-- Beland (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse given the amount of discussion on what this particular city should be titled over the past couple years, even with the move request breaking slightly to the supports in number, I think the closer made a very commendable close, and pointed out the difficulty in the methodology (ngrams ends at 2022, the overall source table was not limited to recent articles, and NAMECHANGE is involved). (It is not relevant to my endorse, but I would also disagree that scholarly sources should be given precedence over news sources when determining the COMMONNAME, as that is not mentioned anywhere in SOURCETYPES.) Given this is a very contentious editing area, I'd also agree that we should wait as a community for another RM. SportingFlyer T·C 22:34, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - Sometimes I don't understand what seems to be the intensity of the concern at Move Reviews. The issue is usually which of two titles should be primary and which should be a redirect to the article. Why does it make that much difference? I understand the intensity of some participants in Deletion Review, which really is about whether an article should be in the encyclopedia, but does it matter that much what its primary title is if readers can find it with both titles? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
- In this case, it does - the official name change of this city was politically controversial, and there have been a number of RfCs and move discussions that need to be taken into account. SportingFlyer T·C 19:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
- Weak Overturn to Move - It appears that the stronger case has been made that the old name is the common name. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
Independent politician (Ireland) (closed)
[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The article now known as "Independent politician (Ireland)" was formerly named "Independent politicians in Ireland" but was moved by Iveagh Gardens and also proposed by the same user, which is a conflict of interest per WP:RMCOI. That undermines the integrity of our system of consensus. Just because there was no opposition, that doesn't mean you shouldn't seek a further opinion by relisting the discussion or notifying a WikiProject per WP:RMRELIST.
Endorse move. The title is fine. The article has been at that current location for nearly three years without anybody objecting! Qwerty123M is giving the impression that Iveagh Gardens closed an active discussion in which he tried and failed to get a consensus; but the fact is he closed it because nobody at all responded (link). To say that that "undermines the integrity of our system of consensus" is just silly. Scolaire (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it. |
| The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Nine days after the move was closed, I found that the article was moved to the proposal with the least number of supports, and the closer improperly moved the page against the proposal I made that was supported by a narrow majority of participants.
Despite the results, there should have been more time for other users to comment and voice their opinion, but unsurprisingly, Asianeditorz WP:BOLDLY moved the article to the proposal with zero supports without checking the opinions that users supported. Furthermore, there were a high number of comments made by the move initiator, possibly to WP:BLUDGEON the process. When I boldly moved the article to the title that was supported by the majority of participants, the move initiator and one of the users who supported the third entry objected to my move and further called my move "anti-consensus". I will respect whatever outcome this results in. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 04:07, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it. |
- Shetland dialect (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)
I was surprised to see the request to move Shetland dialect closed without moving the page to Shetland (language). The alternative proposal appears not to have been considered. By my count, support was as follows:
- Shaetlan: 4 support, 4 oppose, 3 no data
- Shetland (language): 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 no data
- Shetland language: 4 support, 1 oppose, 5 no data
Shetland (language) received the strongest support. AjaxSmack’s argument was cited as a basis for not moving the page, yet AjaxSmack explicitly supported the Shetland (language) option. May I request the closure be reconsidered in light of the vote distribution and full content of the discussion (particularly the alternative proposal)? — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 15:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Move to Shetland (language). This was a very confusing discussion to read through because it was forked in the middle, and required a close reading - while there wasn't a consensus for the original move, there is clearly consensus for Shetland (language), even if weakly for a few users, and only a couple users specifically don't support Shetland (language). Furthermore AjaxSmack, whose opposition was mentioned by the closer, did not oppose the second proposal after a mis-reading. SportingFlyer T·C 17:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- I also don't understand why people are suggesting a moratorium on moves here. If whoever closes this decides to endorse the decision, the fact that there was consensus for a decision that wasn't the initial proposal means that there shouldn't be any reason why a second discussion can't take place immediately, to determine the clarity of the consensus for the secondary page. I wouldn't re-open this discussion, though, it's confusing enough as it is. SportingFlyer T·C 00:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's easy to miss what the closer saw and what I see. You stated, "the fact that there was consensus for a decision that wasn't the initial proposal..." Another look will yield that, technically, there were 2 clear consensuses in the alt proposal, one for Shetland (language) and one for Shetland language. Editors need time to sort that out, or else if another RM is opened too soon, there will likely be a no-consensus outcome between those two popular title dabs, "language" and "(language)". The latter might be the best title; however, editors should voluntarily take enough time to ensure viability and success of one of those two title dabs. At least, that was my take. Do you see it differently, editor SportingFlyer? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 04:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, of course! The clearest consensus is for Shetland (language), while others didn't comment on Shetland language. The process I would initiate wouldn't be a moratorium on any discussion, but to move the page to Shetland (language) (the one with the most consensus, and with more consensus than the current title) and allow anyone to open a new move discussion to see if Shetland language has more consensus than the new title. "There's consensus it should be moved, but we're not sure whether to put part of the title in parentheses, so it can stay at its old title" is worse than picking the option with the greatest consensus and allowing an option for a new consensus to form, especially if we "enforce" an arbitrary time period. Even if this move review is endorsed or there's no consensus, there should be an immediate allowance to gain a consensus for title other than Shaetlan. SportingFlyer T·C 13:07, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- "Clearest consensus"? Please explain, because I don't understand how the parenthetical dab is the clearest consensus over the natural dab. To me they appear as equally clear consensuses, which have to be further discussed informally before another formal RM is attempted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 05:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Almost everyone supported the parenthetical consensus, while only half of participants discussed the natural dab consensus. There is consensus to move this page. It's possible more participants support the natural dab to the parenthetical dab, but that can easily be solved through another RM which stays on topic, not through any informal discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 22:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- So we agree to disagree. Is this the first time ever? !>) P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 06:52, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I think I remember trying to convince you on another move review recently as well! :) SportingFlyer T·C 22:16, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
- So we agree to disagree. Is this the first time ever? !>) P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 06:52, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Almost everyone supported the parenthetical consensus, while only half of participants discussed the natural dab consensus. There is consensus to move this page. It's possible more participants support the natural dab to the parenthetical dab, but that can easily be solved through another RM which stays on topic, not through any informal discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 22:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- "Clearest consensus"? Please explain, because I don't understand how the parenthetical dab is the clearest consensus over the natural dab. To me they appear as equally clear consensuses, which have to be further discussed informally before another formal RM is attempted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 05:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, of course! The clearest consensus is for Shetland (language), while others didn't comment on Shetland language. The process I would initiate wouldn't be a moratorium on any discussion, but to move the page to Shetland (language) (the one with the most consensus, and with more consensus than the current title) and allow anyone to open a new move discussion to see if Shetland language has more consensus than the new title. "There's consensus it should be moved, but we're not sure whether to put part of the title in parentheses, so it can stay at its old title" is worse than picking the option with the greatest consensus and allowing an option for a new consensus to form, especially if we "enforce" an arbitrary time period. Even if this move review is endorsed or there's no consensus, there should be an immediate allowance to gain a consensus for title other than Shaetlan. SportingFlyer T·C 13:07, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's easy to miss what the closer saw and what I see. You stated, "the fact that there was consensus for a decision that wasn't the initial proposal..." Another look will yield that, technically, there were 2 clear consensuses in the alt proposal, one for Shetland (language) and one for Shetland language. Editors need time to sort that out, or else if another RM is opened too soon, there will likely be a no-consensus outcome between those two popular title dabs, "language" and "(language)". The latter might be the best title; however, editors should voluntarily take enough time to ensure viability and success of one of those two title dabs. At least, that was my take. Do you see it differently, editor SportingFlyer? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 04:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment.
I also tend toward renaming per the arguments reviewed in the alternative proposal; however,The closer is an experienced editor and page mover. We must hear more details about the thinking which led to the overall decision not to move at all before we can render an objective review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC) – 06:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- PS Should also mention that the nom requested closure of this RM at WP:CR. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. « uninvolved » I think the comments made below coupled with the closer's explanation warrants endorsement of this RM closure. And I think any new ideas of another move request should await the standard period, so that editors can utilize the time to strengthen their rationales. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 06:34, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- If this is the final decision, what is the "standard period"? — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 15:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- 6 months is typical. Editors can workshop the proposal in the meantime; this can include a discussion of optimal timing. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- In the past the recommended standard waiting period after a "moved" or "not moved" decision has been at least one full year. This figure has been bandied about quite a lot, because there has never been a firm figure given in P&G (not for lack of trying). The bottom line ambiguous phrase is "the longer the better"; we can assume it's because the longer one waits, the more time one has to strengthen their argument and to find new args, plus(!!!) the longer one waits, the less likely one will anger editors who have been worn out by a previous rename attempt(s). (In other words, you wait as long as you possibly can. You wait so that you may have the best possible chance of success.) Thank you for your question! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 16:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- I largely agree. Paine Ellsworth is an experienced RM closer with a lot of insight into how these things typically play out. While I think there can be good reasons to re-present an RM sooner, it is often detrimental to the cause, resulting in a second failed RM which creates a higher bar for subsequent proposals to clear. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- If this is the final decision, what is the "standard period"? — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 15:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I don't like how User:Griceylipper went straight to WP:DRV here without waiting for an answer from the closer. It's quite likely that User:Celia Homeford has not seen the message yet; the account shows no activity since it was posted. A good-faith discussion with the closer should always be the first step. See also WP:DEADLINE. 162 etc. (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- @162 etc. The WP:MR advice is to "give [the closer] a few days to respond", which I did. I left a message on their talk page on 3 December as soon as I saw the outcome to not move the article, and I created the move review on 6 December. When it comes to disagreements, I would point to WP:DONTPOSTPONE in the same essay you link to.
- I would also like to point out that I started the discussion to move the article in question on 16 October, nearly two months ago. It is frustrating to wait as long as this only to have the discussion misread and moved in a way I don't think reflects the wishes of the users who contributed to the discussion. If I have been unfair at any point in the move request process, please point out to me where. I have not assumed bad faith with the closer, I just want to ensure the outcome accurately reflects the discussion, and have this sorted. — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 21:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. I've been away. I did not count supports or opposes, instead looking specifically for evidence demonstrating the common or most recognisable name. In the Alternative proposal section, the data presented did not support use of 'Shetland' alone or 'Shetland language' for Shaetlan. The term was shown to be uncommon and ambiguous. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Can I ask why Myceteae's call for WP:NATDIS (or WP:PARENDIS which they were also open to) is invalid here? If "Shetland dialect" is valid, I see no reason why either "Shetland language" or "Shetland (language)" shouldn't be considered perfectly reasonable in light of new scientific classification.
- I think it is disingenuous to say these terms were shown to be uncommon and ambiguous - rather, they are more difficult to prove with ngrams. As a native speaker of this language, I can tell you it is extremely common to hear both "Shaetlan" (the autonym) and "Shetland" and "the Shetland language" being to used to the language (I probably hear some variant of all these every day!) But unless someone wants to sift through the contexts of all the ngram references it will be difficult to prove this textually.
- Is it unreasonable for other users to assume my own good faith in this regard?
- Otherwise, we are going to have to start doing silly things like renaming Koala to "Koala Bear" as it's a very common name, even though they're not bears at all. — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 10:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- The onus is on you to prove that this terminology is used in reliable sources. You made little or no attempt to do this while the RM was going on. "I'm a Shetlander and I hear it all the time" isn't going to cut it. Zacwill (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- I can assure you I did try to find a reasonable method of looking up sources but I was struggling. I don't know why I didn't think of this before, would archive.org hits count for anything:
- "Shetland language"
- "speak Shetland" — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 09:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- The onus is on you to prove that this terminology is used in reliable sources. You made little or no attempt to do this while the RM was going on. "I'm a Shetlander and I hear it all the time" isn't going to cut it. Zacwill (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Vacate the close and start a new Requested Move, listing each of the proposed names and asking the community to vote Yes or No on each. The options were not all listed initially in the RM in question, so that the voters were shooting at a moving target. List all the options at the outset of the new RM, and advertise it at the appropriate WikiProjects. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- I would prefer not to have to go through all this again. If I structured the discussion poorly, I apologise, I tried my best under the circumstances. But I don't think relisting the discussion will change the outcome of votes as above, I think it will only delay the same general intention from users again. — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 10:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think it was structured poorly. At least, I don't think you committed any error nor are primarily responsible for how things unfolded, but the structure and direction the discussion ultimately took did present some difficulty. Alternative proposals emerged during the course of the discussion, as is often the case. This can make the discussion hard to follow and with hindsight sometimes one wishes the initial proposal had been different, but such is life. If another RM is opened in the future, I don't think it is necessary to list all alternatives unless the nominator. That is certainly an option, but so is presenting a fresh proposal for a specific title. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- I would prefer not to have to go through all this again. If I structured the discussion poorly, I apologise, I tried my best under the circumstances. But I don't think relisting the discussion will change the outcome of votes as above, I think it will only delay the same general intention from users again. — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 10:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse (involved). No reliable sources were provided to support "Shetland", which is not an ideal name anyway since it is ambiguous. I am not sure that is the more common name. A new RM discussion can be started, as long as the proposed title is in line with policy and supported by reliable sources in English. For my money, that might very well be the original proposal "Shaetlan", which I have seen being used elsewhere. Vpab15 (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn to 'no consensus - not moved'. « involved » The closing statement and the additional comments here reflect an improper assessment of the RM discussion. I agree that consensus is not about counting !votes but closers should not ignore the shared conclusion of a majority of discussion participants without strong justification. The closer cited one editor's arguments but failed to engage with that same editor's subsequent support of an alternative proposal. To rely so heavily on a single editor's arguments while ignoring their subsequent support, as well as arguments made by others, looks like a supervote or a misread of consensus. That said, this was a complex discussion and I think other reasonable closers would have reached the same conclusion or 'no consensus', while others would have moved the page to Shetland (language). Although many editors, myself included, !voted full 'support' for the alt. proposal, some of those read more like 'weak support' and overall 'support' !votes had less clearly articulated rationales. Reopening the discussion at this time is not likely to be productive. It would be better to wait at least 6 months since the close of the RM and present a fresh proposal. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. <uninvolved> I think there was very clearly not a consensus in favor of the current title, but I can't quite agree with SportingFlyer's conclusion since there was no answer to the important question that Vpab15 asked (
Any English reliable source that uses "Shetland" to refer to the language?
). That said, I think there's a good chance that a discussion that focuses on one proposal and pays more attention to the sources (some of which have been newly identified here) could get us to an actionable consensus in the short term, so I don't see a need for a six-month wait. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2025 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2024 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2023 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2022 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2021 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2020 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2019 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2018 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2017 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2016 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2015 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2014 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2013 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2012 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
 | Search Move review archives
| |