Wikipedia:Move review

"WP:MR" redirects here. For move requests, see Wikipedia:Requested moves. For the use of "Mr."/"Mrs."/Ms" in articles, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Subsequent use.

Move review is a process to formally discuss and evaluate a contested close of Wikipedia page move discussions, including requested moves (RM), categories for discussion discussions (CfD), and redirects for discussion discussions (RfD), to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.

Prior to submitting a review of a page move's close, please attempt to resolve any issues on the closer's talk page. See step one below.

While the page move close is under review, any involved editor is free to revert any undiscussed moves of a nominated page without those actions being considered a violation of Wikipedia:No wheel warring.

What this process is not

This review process should be focused on the move discussion and the subsequent results of the move discussion, not on the person who closed the discussion. If you have ongoing concerns about a closer, please consult with the closer or post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Move review requests which cast aspersions or otherwise attack other editors may be speedily closed.

Do not request a move review if someone has boldly moved a page and you disagree. Instead, attempt to discuss it with the editor, and if the matter continues to be unresolved, start a formal WP:RM discussion on the article's talk page.

Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a page move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion.

Disagreements with Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions (WP:RMCI), WP:Article titles, the Manual of Style, a naming convention or the community norm of consensus should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page.

CfDs and RfDs can only be reviewed here if the relevant discussion was limited in scope to renaming; CfDs or RfDs involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Instructions

Initiating move reviews

Editors desiring to initiate a move review should follow the steps listed below. In the reason parameter, editors should limit their requests to one or both of the following reasons:

• [Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because [explain rationale here] in closing this requested move discussion.
• [Closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: [identify information here] and the discussion should be reopened and relisted.

Editors initiating a move review discussion should be familiar with the closing instructions provided in WP:RMCI.

Steps to list a new review request

1.	Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page. Move review is a process that takes several days, sometimes weeks, to close. On the closer's talk page, you can probably resolve the matter much more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full, formal move review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, and you decide to request a review of the closure, please note in the review that you did first try discussing the matter with the closer. To clarify: You absolutely MUST attempt to discuss the matter with the closer FIRST, and give them a few days to respond.
2.	Follow this link to this month's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the contested move page, rm_page with the name of the move discussion page if needed, rm_section if needed, closer and closer_section with the post-move discussion information, and reason with the reason why the page move should be reviewed. For example: Copy this template skeleton for most pages: {{subst:move review list |page= |rm_page= <!--Not needed if the move discussion is on the talk page of the page--> |rm_section= <!--Name of the section with the move request--> |closer= <!--User name of editor who closed the move request--> |closer_section= <!--Name of the section of closer's talk page where discussion took place--> |reason= }} ~~~~ If either the |closer= or |closer_section= parameter is omitted, the result will include "No discussion on closer's talk page". When |closer= < closer's username > and |closer_section= < section header on closer's talk page where there was discussion about the close > are correctly filled in, the result will include a "Discussion with closer" link to that discussion. If the |closer_section= link is to the section on the closer's talk page where the closer has only been notified of Move review (see step 3) and the closer has not actually discussed their close with another editor on their talk page, the result will include a "No discussion on closer's talk page" link to the Move review notice.
3.	If you have not done so already, inform the closer of the Move review discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:move review note|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
4.	Leave notice of the move review in the same section as, but outside of and above the closed original move discussion. Use the following template: {{move review talk|date=28 September 2026}}. Do not tag the article.
5.	If the current month discussions are not already included in the discussion section below. Add the new log page to the top of the active discussions section. {{Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 September}}
6.	The discussion with closer and notices required above are sufficient notification; you are not required to individually notify participants in the prior move discussion of the move review. However, if you individually notify any of them, you must individually notify all of them by posting a message about the move review on each participant's respective user talk page.

Commenting in a move review

In general, commenters should prefix their comments with either Endorse or Overturn (optionally stating an alternative close) followed by their reasoning. Generally, the rationale should be an analysis of whether the closer properly followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, whether it was within closer's discretion and reasonably interpreted consensus in the discussion, while keeping in mind the spirit of Wikipedia policy, precedent and project goal. Commenters should be familiar with WP:RMCI, which sets forth community norms for closers of page move discussions.

If the close is considered premature because of on-going discussion or if significant relevant information was not considered during the discussion, commenters should suggest Relist followed by their rationale.

Commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review.

The closer of the page move under discussion should feel free to provide additional rationale as to why they closed the RM in the manner they did and why they believe the close followed the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI.

Remember that move review is not an opportunity to rehash, expand upon or first offer your opinion on the proper title of the page in question – move review is not a do-over of the WP:RM discussion but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process (in the absence of significant new information). Thus, the action specified should be the editor's analysis of whether the close of the discussion was reasonable or unreasonable based on the debate and applicable policy and guidelines. Providing evidence such as page views, ghits, ngrams, challenging sourcing and naming conventions, etc. to defend a specific title choice is not within the purview of a move review. Evidence should be limited to demonstrating that the RM closer did or did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing the page move discussion.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on move review for at least seven days. After seven days, an uninvolved editor will determine whether a consensus exists to either endorse the close or overturn the close. If that consensus is to Overturn Close, the MRV closer should take the appropriate actions to revert any title changes resulting from the RM close. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at Wikipedia:Requested moves, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, or Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If the consensus is to Endorse Close, no further action is required on the article title. If the MRV closer finds that there is no consensus in the move review, then in most cases this has the same effect as Endorse Close and no action is required on the article title. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; MRV closers may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

Use {{subst:move review top}} and {{subst:move review bottom}} to close such discussions.

Alternatively, the opener of a move review can withdraw it if and only if unanimous opposition is obvious or the discussion has not had any comments yet. A review that was initiated via block evasion may be closed at any time.

Also, add a result to the {{move review talk}} template on the talk page where the original discussion took place, e.g. {{move review talk|date=April 24 2015|result=Closure endorsed}}.

Typical move review decision options

The following set of options represent the typical results of a move review decision, although complex page move discussions involving multiple title changes may require a combination of these options based on the specific details of the RM and MRV discussions.

MRV closer's decision	RM closer's decision	Move review closed as	Status of RM after MRV close
1. Endorse	Moved / Not moved	No action required	Closed
2. Overturn	Not moved	Option 1: (If RM consensus is unclear or significantly divided) Reopen and relist RM	Open
		Option 2: (If consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RM	Closed
	Moved	Move title back to pre-RM title, and reopen and relist RM if appropriate	Open
3. Relist	Moved / Not moved	Reopen and relist RM and if moved, move title back to pre-RM title	Open

 

Active discussions

2026 September

Freedom Convoy

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

Noman did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because they acted as an arbitrator rather than an administrator of consensus. The discussion ran for 29 days across two separate relists, involved 17 participants, and concluded in a 9–8 deadlock on headcount. The article's title was stable, previously affirmed at Move Review in February 2022. In such a case where an established baseline title faces a split discussion with substantial, policy-based arguments on both sides, standard practice per WP:RMCLOSE and WP:NOCONSENSUS is to close as no consensus and default to the established status quo title of Canada convoy protest. The close should be overturned as such.

In discussing on usertalk, Noman declined to reconsider, stating [w]hile I see that there were policy-based arguments on both sides, I concluded that the evidence supported a consensus for Freedom Convoy. This is a direct admission of a WP:SUPERVOTE; arbitrating a consensus that didn't exist rather than administratively applying a lack of consensus to the close. Furthermore, a support !voter entered the discussion to ask Noman to vacate the close, which they ignored.

Substantively, the closer's rationale relied on WP:COMMONNAME and the general permissibility of non-neutral terms under WP:POVNAME, but left the core arguments of the oppose !voters unaddressed. Multiple editors demonstrated that "Freedom Convoy" functions as an organizer-applied colloquialism subject to POVNAME exception No. 2 and WP:NDESC. Bypassing an explicit exception within the relevant guideline to say that one trumps another is editorial judgement that should have manifested in a !vote, not a close which exceeds the scope WP:RMCI and WP:RMNAC permit a non-admin. ―"GraveDragon-X" _(hihi) 19:49, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved). The COMMONNAME evidence was unrefuted and POVNAME was explicitly brought up in support of the move. Jessintime (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Although a completely non-neutral title that instantly labels the protesters as far right.....its what the media jumped on because of protesters usage .....thus academics reference the term... ...Endorse RFC analysis (as uninvolved). What should happen is an etymology section explaining why media outlets used the term "freedom" vs academic usage in analysis. According to various analysts, the language used to describe the 2022 protests reflects deeply divided perspectives on the nature of the event. The use of the word "freedom" accepts the movement’s premise of a defense of basic rights, rather than an illegal occupation or a public nuisance. Academics often use quotation marks ( "Freedom Convoy") or alternative terms like the "trucker blockade" or "Ottawa occupation" to signal neutrality and to avoid the far right "freedom" label. What do we call the U.S. offshoot of the protest?Moxy🍁 05:55, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse but agree with number of criticisms. It was a difficult discussion to close and should have been left for an admin or very experienced closer. There was not a clear consensus, but there was a strong swing at the end for the outcome. As such, in the interests of moving forwards not backwards, leave the title as moved, but allow a fresh nomination, two months after the close of the MRV discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Arzano, Campania

Arzano, Campania (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

I do not like how the closer justified the page move and how the move was carried out. They initially closed the discussion as "not moved", but after a supporter reminded them of their vote and comment, the closer changed the RM result to "moved". If they considered the outcome that close, the result should have been changed to "no consensus". In their comment, the closer admits that the number of !votes (rather than the arguments) determined the outcome (but WP:NOTAVOTE), even though the initial supporters presented no evidence or analysis in favour of the proposal. FromCzech (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I participated in this discussion, and was initially dismayed that the closer didn't notice my arguments in support at all it seems. Their response after that was a 180, which was a bit of a surprise which raises obvious questions about how much attention they were really paying to the discussion. Nevertheless, WP:AGF requires us to interpret it as an honest mistake that they corrected, and we shouldn't judge them for it.

With regard to how much of the support vote was inadmissible as WP:PERNOM, this depends on how we value the WP:common sense argument of there being "no clear" WP:primary topic. If three people thought it was obvious, and a fourth (myself) brought in some data in support, then it's fair to say that it was somewhat obvious at least. In response, the opposing case for a primary topic should have been clarity. I tried to verify it, but found it fairly unclear. I tried to engage the opposers a bit, to little effect.

Fundamentally, this discussion boils down to the significance of the difference between the topics, and all the evidence is scant. We do not have clear standards on what these usage statistics ratios would have to be in order to strictly support either position. Our standards on sources do not support the idea that a handful of fairly trivial mentions in news reporting are determinative.

Overall, I don't think this is a good case for overturning based on the current state of policies and guidelines. Closers are allowed to give more weight to some arguments more than others based on reasons laid out in that discussion. (I started a separate discussion at WT:CONS about how to clarify things in the future.) --Joy (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Unimpressed. BADNAC. Advise the closer to be far more tentative in closing contested discussions, and to not call “rough consensus”. A rough consensus is not a consensus, and calling a rough consensus is a privilege of admins and is for the purpose cutting short what is becoming a bigger waste of time the question is worth. Request an uninvolved admin to reclose or countersigned the close. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Panaji (closed)

Panaji – Closure endorsed. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:37, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Panaji (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified) I think the move was closed too hastily by a non admin editor. As much as I can see it's a premature close despite several arguments with evidence being added, this move request was relisted twice and had strong arguments in favor of the move which seems likely overlooked. I am looking for an experienced admin on having this move reviewed again. Rejoy2003(talk) 10:43, 9 September 2026 (UTC) A relist with comment is probably the best option here; the discussion seems to be approaching (but hadn't reached) consensus. (edit 14:29, 10 September 2026 (UTC): Endorse)msk 15:53, 9 September 2026 (UTC) When opening a discussion at move review, please notify the closer and the discussion. I've done so now; you can use Discussion+ to do so automatically. The discussion had been open for over a month, had received no comment since the last relist, and while the editors in favor only posted individual examples of the proposed name being used editors against had posted evidence showing that across reliable sources, the current name was preferred. My assessment was that a third relist would not be helpful, and that based on the quality of the arguments presented there was a consensus against moving. BilledMammal (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2026 (UTC) Comment: "Panaji" is the official name that most people will look for. See Corporation of the City of Panaji. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2026 (UTC) Endorse – this is probably more of a no consensus than a not moved to me, but it's within closer's judgment. Relisting would not have been helpful, as it had already been relisted multiple times with notifications to relevant WikiProjects and did not have any recent discussion; definitely not a premature close. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:15, 11 September 2026 (UTC) Endorse – I concur that it was not premature and that deciding to close rather than relisting was reasonable. The discussion is on the edge between no consensus and not moved, and admittedly I would likely have closed this as no consensus without much further thought as it both outcomes result in the page not being moved, but looking at the discussion and the explanation given by BilledMammal (who, by the way, is more experienced with RMs than most admins are) convinces me that closing the RM as not moved is within reason. –Maltazarian ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ 01:57, 12 September 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.

Formation of Saudi Arabia

Formation of Saudi Arabia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

I am requesting a move review for two reasons:

1) the new title doesn't follow Wikipedia Article Titles characteristics of Precision and Consistence.The new title (formation of Saudi Arabia) lacks precision when compared with old one (Unification of Saudi Arabia. As the first and second Saudi states ruled over central, eastern, and western (only the first) Arabia and both unified various nomadic tribes, city-states, and emirates that existed in these regions of the Arabian peninsula before both collapsing. Then came the third Saudi state which reunified these regions again during a series of military camping and political alliances and culminated in the proclamation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in which both the Kingdom of Najd and Hijaz were unified in one kingdom. I believe this makes the use of term Unification much more precise.

Also the new title (formation of Saudi Arabia) is inconsistent with similar topics like:

a) Unification of Germany

b) Unification of Italy

c) Yemeni unification

I explained that in detail in the discussion of a requested move of the article.

2) I believe the closer did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because they didn't give my argument it's due wight and instead settled on relying solely on the search results of Google ngrams given by another editor. To my knowledge there are no any Wikipedia policies that that states Google ngrams is the ultimate tool to solve such a dispute especially when there are no consensus (3 opposing vs 3 supporting). When I pressed the issue the closer discussion page their answer was "An Arab person in Chile is just as much an Arab person as one in Iran, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia--unlike the Italians or Germans after WWII, there were no "Saudi Arabians" before Saudi Arabia...etc" apparently confusing the topic of the article which is about the military campaigns the resulted in the establishment of modern-day Saudi Arabia with the ethnic and cultural identity of the Saudi people which is out of the scope of the article! OKMG-1200 (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

• IMO the close was done properly and votes made with no policy backing them were properly discarded 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:16, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved). Reviewing the RM and the closer's talk page discussion, I believe they weighed the different arguments appropriately. Ngrams aren't perfect, but they're one of our best tools for doing large-scale review of how common a given term is, and I don't see any plausible reason to discount them in this case. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:28, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn, « uninvolved » due to being tainted by so much involvement by User:HerrHeulsuse. Remove all of their posts and the discussion looks very different. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  ...what??? msk 22:29, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  The nominator and most frequent responder to “oppose” contributions was a troll, soon banned. Did you not know? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I do know. It is possible to be a troll in one discussion and normal in another. msk 22:55, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  Did you know at the time of the close? Do you have “ Strike out usernames that have been blocked” set in your gadgets?
  If you knew the nominator had been blocked, why didn’t you mention it?
  A troll may behave with different personas in different environments, but I think that you as a closer are too permissive of the troll.
  I’ve never seen a case quite like this one. My attention was drawn in because the trolls posts were superficially ok, but disturbingly subtly wrong. I was previously drawn in by their posts, and, as with many at ANI, became convinced that they were nothing but trouble, and were very very likely an old user carrying out a plan of disruption. On this page, it was denial of hundreds of years of Saudi history, and of great concern is the commented in difference in usage between English and Arabic. I suspect deliberate provocation of discord, as their central theme. Where discovered, this should be unrewarded. Their posts should be struck, collapsed, or removed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

  They started and severely perverted the RM. As closer, I think you should strike all of their comments, and then reread the discussion. When I do that, I do not see a consensus to move. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  WP:SOCKSTRIKE does not apply here, so I don't see a reason to discount their arguments, as they seem sound to me. msk 22:57, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  We are not talking about a SOCK, but a troll here to cause trouble.
  It is ok for you to take responsibility for the banned user’s posts, but only as a !voter, not as the closer. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  "Started" is certainly true, but I don't know that I see that HerrHeulsuse "severely perverted" the RM—to my eye, the primary participants in advancing evidence-based arguments for the move were 1brianm7 and Abo Yemen, and (to the best of my knowledge) both of them are in good standing. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 00:27, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  '”Oppose” !votes by User:Jessintime and User:Srnec were answered only by the troll.
  All others, User:1brianm7, User:Abo Yemen, User:OKMG-1200, User:Maltazarian, User:TarnishedPath, User:Dympies (pinging all to be fair) are in good standing.
  Ok, “severely perverted” now looks a bit strong. I should stick with “tainted”. User:HerrHeulsuse started and influenced the discussion, and he was only here for trolling, perverse troublemaking. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  Overturn as tainted (nullify) or Overturn to “no consensus”.
  I’ve read the discussion through a few times. I disagree with the logic of User:HerrHeulsuse, the now banned nominator. My issue is that the flawed logic troll nomination taints, or corrupts, the following discussion. All participants read the nomination.
  Ignoring the nomination, I find the discussion to be “no consensus”. There are good points in both sides. There is a strong ngram, but I take issue with the closer’s “ngrams is the de facto standard for COMMONNAME”, that is a very contentious assertion.There is a fair point about usage in Arabic. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  I am at a loss of words. To repeat myself: It is possible to be a troll in one discussion and normal in another. msk 15:54, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

• Hi everybody, I am the user who requested this move review and one of those who opposed the move. I think we should consider the possibility that this proposed move by the banned troll User:HerrHeulsuse could be part of wider campaign of vandalism. As they appear to have engaged in quiet suspicious activities including nominating many articles they didn't like for deletion. I believe one must take these concerns seriously. I think this review is now more than just discussing whether the new title follows Wikipedia Article Titles characteristics or if the closer did indeed follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI or didn't, but more if this move was actually an act of trolling and vandalism. OKMG-1200 (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. « uninvolved » There seems to be a bit of rearguing the move request here, so I'll try to stay on point. With respect for the nom and their opening argument, the bottom line is whether or not this RM closure was reasonable and in accordance with the closing instructions. After giving this RM a good read, it appears to me that this closure meets those two stipulations. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 23:59, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
• Hi, I must inform everybody here that there is somebody who moved the article back to its original name and did so BOLDLY and without discussing it here. OKMG-1200 (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I have undone it. NomanPK44 (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Good. And thank you for posting a warning to them at User talk:YounggRealIceTalha#September 2026. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn (involved). It's a no consensus close at best on the basis of the actual discussion. This is especially true if you subtract the nominator's remarks, as you should. The closer placed too much reliance on bad ngrams. See? Srnec (talk) 04:13, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. There is not a consensus to move here, even if we count the nominator's comments.Katzrockso (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment (uninvolved) One reason to discount raw Ngrams in this case is that if you look through the Google Books results for "formation of Saudi Arabia" , you might notice that many (frankly, it's probably the majority) of the results are actually geology-related. This is because "formation" could be referring to geological formation (see Category:Geologic formations of Saudi Arabia). It probably would have been better to search for "the formation of Saudi Arabia" instead . However, I didn't see anyone mention this in the requested move itself. Malerisch (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. I don't see any reasonable arguments or any consensus for the current title. NomanPK44 (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

2026 August

Ken Griffin (businessman) (closed)

Ken Griffin (businessman) – Overturned to Ken Griffin. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 03:58, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ken Griffin (businessman) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified) I'm contesting the first move: I believe there was a consensus to move Kenneth C. Griffin to Ken Griffin, not Ken Griffin (businessman). Supporters argued that this Ken Griffin was the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and provided evidence in favor of both WP:PT1 and WP:PT2. Opposers did not provide any argument at all, just pure votes. While supporters were slightly outnumbered numerically (2 vs. 3), RMs are WP:NOTAVOTE but determined by consensus. Per WP:RMCI#Determining consensus, Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions. The closer erroneously believes that weighing arguments is a supervote. Given the lack of any actual opposing argument, I believe consensus should side with the supporters of the move. Malerisch (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2026 (UTC) This is a close call for me – I probably would have !voted had I come to this discussion to close it, because I'm very persuaded by the PTOPIC claim and I would've tried to strengthen the argument for that side. I do think closing this as moved to Ken Griffin would be reasonable, if a bit unexpected, so the question is whether it's within the closer's judgment to close it as moved to Ken Griffin (businessman). I lean towards no, because there are genuinely no arguments provided as to why the businessman is not the PTOPIC, but I could be slightly clouded by my having an opinion on this move (another reason why I wouldn't have closed this myself). However, I'm going to hold off on actually making a !vote here for now, because I'm not confident enough yet to suggest overturning/relisting this. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:42, 29 August 2026 (UTC) I'm going to go with overturn per below. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:26, 1 September 2026 (UTC) Overturn as requested. The closer should have assigned greater weight to Malerisch's comment (which made a policy-based argument supported by extensive evidence) and zero weight to the comments that opposed primary-topic status but gave no reason whatsoever. It's a pretty thin discussion and in an ideal world it would be nice to get more policy-based input, but after two relists we just have to work with what we're given. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2026 (UTC) Overturn as requested. While the supporters of Ken Griffin (businessman) had a numerical majority, they did not offer any argument behind that choice. And, I should be clear, my phrasing is not an exaggeration; it's not that they didn't offer a strong argument, it's not that they didn't offer a policy-backed argument, I mean that no one who opposed the Ken Griffin title gave a single word of explanation for why they had that preference. By contrast, the nomination statement clearly and straightforwardly laid out an argument for why they believed the businessman met both prongs of PTOPIC; with no participants in the discussion claiming any errors of facts or logic in the argument, I think the strength of argument supports moving the businessman to the primary title. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:03, 31 August 2026 (UTC) Overturn. WP:BADNAC, obvious in hindsight. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2026 (UTC) Based on my interpretation, I don't think my close was a BADNAC specifically, just a bad close. msk 17:11, 8 September 2026 (UTC) That is not a meaningful or useful distinction. You should be more cautious with what discussions you choose to close. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2026 (UTC) Endorse <involved> It is clear that the oppose voters were opposing because they did not believe there was a primary topic, which is entirely policy-based. It is not necessary for editors to spell out the obvious and editors who write a longer spiel should not be given greater weight than those who do not feel it to be necessary. However, I would take issue with the move to Ken Griffin (saddler and magician) as double disambiguators are generally avoided. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2026 (UTC) It can be intuited that the oppose voters believed there was not a primary topic, yes, but if they spelled that out and the discussion was otherwise identical, I don't believe it would have significantly moved the needle (at least in my own appraisal). Anyone can say that there's no primary topic, but when a discussion participant has laid out an evidence-based case for why they believe one topic is the primary topic, it should take an evidence-based rebuttal to overrule it. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:38, 3 September 2026 (UTC) Overturn (uninvolved). The nominator offered evidence to support the move while those who suggested the alternative in RM did so with bare votes. The closer's comment in defense of the move indicates it was a WP:SUPERVOTE given that it assumes information that was not provided in the move request itself. Jessintime (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2026 (UTC) Should this be closed as overturn? Been open for a week now and the result is pretty unanimous. msk 17:09, 8 September 2026 (UTC) Relist (uninvolved) The nominator of this MRV has a point that the other participants failed to meaningfully engage with the PTOPIC argument, but it seems like the correct remedy to that is to ask them to do so, not to anoint an argunent that convinced nobody in the original discussion as correct. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:29, 10 September 2026 (UTC) Nobody? Did you miss Scarykitty's !vote? Malerisch (talk) 02:49, 11 September 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.

Gilberto Mora (closed)

Gilberto Mora – Endorsed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 23:45, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Gilberto Mora (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified) The discussion was closed citing consensus, but one need only observe that several experienced members of WP:FOOTBALL disagreed. At the very least, further debate is warranted. I tried contacting the closer via the talk page, but I didn't get a response. Svartner (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2026 (UTC) Endorse. The outcome is a fair reading of consensus. Editors debated whether this person already is the primary topic or not yet; the view that he is, backed by reasonable evidence, prevailed. I see no compelling reason to reopen this discussion which was open for three weeks. Despite my endorsement in this particular case, I note that User:Robloxguest3 is expected to respond reasonably to requests made at their user talk page about their recent closures, as noted by GoldRomean in Special:Diff/1367609445, and their response is still expected. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2026 (UTC) Endorse (OP of move request). The editors might be experienced in their area, but that doesn't default to them being automatically right. The discussion lasted 22 days, after being relisted two times, so why it needs additional time? If this page is asked to be moved back in the future, it is expected that supporters of the "there is no primary topic" idea to provide evidence that backs them up. Simply throwing WP:BLUELINKs and unsupported ideas to discussions is not a debate. Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 05:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC) Endorse – looks like a valid reading of consensus to me, and the discussion was going for a while. I am a little confused about the drive-by !vote that was excluded from the closer's assessment of consensus, but it's not a big enough deal that I wouldn't still endorse the close. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 15:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC) Endorse (uninvolved) The closure was reasonable and within the remit of the RM closing instructions. Support !votes had a numerical advantage (however slight) and produced more evidence and policy-based arguments for their position. Opposition from a few experienced WP:FOOTBALL editors is not a valid reason to challenge a close, especially when they were not successful in raising persuasive arguments during the course of the RM. The RM participants included several experienced editors who participate in RMs on a broad range of subjects, reflecting broad understanding of article title policies, guidelines, and practices. I agree that the RM closer is expected to respond here but failure to engage does not stop the rest of us from making an independent assessment of the close on its merits. I find the close straightforward and not in need of explanation, especially since the reason for the close challenge is insufficient. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2026 (UTC) Endorse (uninvolved). The nominator provided ample evidence showing the person in question is the primary topic. The idea that he cannot be the primary topic because he's only 17 or only played x amount of games, as some asserted, is not backed by policy. Jessintime (talk) 12:05, 8 August 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.

Archive

Archives, by year and month

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

See also

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