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=1 August 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 August}}
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 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

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 May

Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration

Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

Sceptre confirmed being unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion - that there is a relevant RfC: Talk:Donald Trump/Archive_212#RfC: Transgender persecution and a very recently endorsed Close Review: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive380#RfC closure review request at Talk:Donald Trump. Sceptre also did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because arguments must be evaluated per WP:RMCIDC and although a large majority opposed the move, many cited the essay WP:SPADE, which is not an appropriate policy or guideline, reflected in the close statement that called this proposal WP:FALSEBALANCE, which is a policy, but not an appropriate one here (as explained by ModlordD in the discussion). The RfCs have found that the term "Persecution" is not used in the sources. An RM designed to move the page to a form that follows the sourcing is not implying that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship - it is the mainstream scholarship. The anti-trans (or transphobic) political weaponisation of the trans issue is both clear and well sourced. But it is not being described as "persecution". A closer must determine consensus, but this closer appears to have assumed that this is a motte and bailey attack on the page subject itself, rather than a good faith attempt to resolve the inconsistency of this title with the well attended and endorsed RfC close.

It would, nevertheless, be hard for a closer not to close this RM as "not moved" on head count alone. And, indeed, there was a good case made by some participants that the new title may subtly shift the page focus. Thus I would not have challenged the close. However, the closer also found for a 12 month moratorium on all future move requests. This was not on the ballot, but 11 (one third) of respondents backed some kind of moratorium after an early !vote suggested this. Of the 11 respondents who wanted a moratorium, only 3 placed it at 12 months, and others opposed that. It is hard to see the decision for the longest possible moratorium, based on a minority of a minority of responses as anything but a supervote, particularly in light of the close comments that do not seem to have properly assessed the consensus. It prevents discussion of a move that resolves the unsourced framing issue, without affecting the article scope - c.f. Tamzin's comments at the RFC close review [1] - an attempt to create encyclopaedic framing is not disruptive, it is what is good for the encyclopaedia. Further, perversely, it also creates a motte-and-bailey attack on implementing the findings of the RfC on other Trump administration pages as discussed at NPOV noticeboard. This was inadvertent by Sceptre, but a consequence of being unaware of the RfC.

Asking that the moratorium be vacated. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Pinging RM, RfC, Close Review, and NPOVN participants: 1brianm7 1brianm7, Ad Orientem, Alexandraaaacs1989, Anythingyouwant, Aquillion, Artimaeus Creed, Astaire, Batorang, BD2412, Beland, Bill Williams, Blueboar, Blue-Sonnet, BlueJeansBlair, BootsED, Buffs, Butterscotch Beluga, Cdjp1, Chaotic Enby, Coffeeurbanite, Cyrobyte, Czarking0, Czello, DanielRigal, Darknipples, District9123, DocZach, DOUGDOUGFOOD, ErnestKrause, FactOrOpinion, Frankserafini87, Gamaliel, Garzfoth, Gaskew7, GlowingLava, GoodDay, Graeme Bartlett, GRuban, Halbared, Historyday01, Ismeiri, Jack Upland, Jessintime, Johnuniq, JzG/Typos, Katzrockso, Kind Tennis Fan, Kowal2701, Kyohyi, LokiTheLiar, lp0 on fire, LunaHasArrived, Magdalenaautumn, Maltazarian, Malvoliox, Mandruss, MjolnirPants, ModlordD, Nemov, Octopusplushie, Pauliesnug, QEDK, Quaerens-veritatem, Qwerty123M, R. G. Checkers, Regulov, Riposte97, RoxySaunders, Sceptre, Simonm223, Slakr, Slatersteven, Sławomir Biały Slomo666, Snokalok, Snokalok2, Snow Rise, Some1, SomeoneDreaming, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction, Steroidaldeer, SuperPianoMan9167, SusanLesch, Tamzin, TarnishedPath, Thebiguglyalien, Urchincrawler, Usr Trj, Valereee, Voorts, Wh1pla5h99, Whonting, Zaathras, Zenomonoz, Zxcvbnm. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Mass pings don't work, as far as I'm aware. From what I recall, it's a limit of 10 per comment or something similar Katzrockso (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I suppose I'll have to post on everyone's talk pages. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

50 per comment, actually. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me, I see that limit now that I searched for the number. Katzrockso (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Involved - While I understand the reasoning in calling for a moratorium, having had move discussions in September 2025, March 2026, and then May 2026, if I were to support a moratorium, I would support as minimal a one as possible (3 months). Though, I do not think presently there has been enough of a repetition in RM to warrant a moratorium. If we start getting them every 1 or 2 months in a more sustained pattern, then a moratorium would have to be considered. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

(Involved) Endorse. The appellant spends half of their appeal complaining about how the result of the close only to say that they aren't challenging it, including a tendentious repetition of their argument about the RfC at Talk:Donald Trump, despite being informed this does not apply to other pages and even more explicitly by the closer of that RfC that it does not apply to this article's title [2] [3].

As for the argument against the moratorium, there are several issues with the argument to revoke it. The first is that there is no requirement for any discussion on Wikipedia that the close itself may not impose something that wasn't asked in the question. Indeed, AfD discussions that start with the intent to delete may be closed not only as keep or delete, but as merge, redirect, userfy, or even move. A recent merger proposal (before those were folded into WP:AfD) achieved a consensus to rename the article, while I've seen Wikipedia:Requested moves end up as merges.

I count a total of 11 editors supporting a moratorium in the discussion. The appellant's claim that "only 3" of these editors supported a length of 12 months is actively misleading, since it only counts those editors who explicitly and solely said "moratorium for 6 months" (I also endorse a 12 month moratorium temporary account ~2026-24524-49; I support a 12mo moratorium RoxySaunders; Oppose + 12 month moratorium TarnishedPath). This omits all of the editors who supported at least a 6 month moratorium or supported a 6 month or 12 month moratorium but expressed no preference between the two (e.g. I support a moratorium of 6 or 12 months if this proposal fails Maltazarian, I also endorse a moratorium Slomo66, Endorse Snokalok2 [Slomo66 and Snokalok2's comment were in reply to Maltazarian's !vote], I support a moratorium on future move requests for at least six months Qwerty123M [emphasis mine], I would support a six month, or even one year moratorium on name changes like this one Historyday01). Indeed, it appears that my vote and Urchincrawler were the only two to endorse specifically a six month moratorium (Endorse 6 month moratorium Urchincrawler; I would support a 6 month moratorium Katzrockso). As it stands, I have no opposition to a 12 month moratorium (indeed if I opposed a 12 month moratorium I would have specified as such).

As for the opposition to the moratorium, there was only the appellant's comment But, to those asking for a moratorium, I'd oppose that, because if we can workshop a title that is more neutral but satisfies concerns about scope, a new RM would be very much in order and one short comment by SuperPianoMan1967 that a moratorium is unnecessary (Another comment: You don't need a moratorium to close disruptive move requests).

When evaluating the actual discussion about the moratorium, it is hard to come away with anything but a consensus for a moratorium - 11 editors in favor and at most two in opposition. Even that said, the closer is not required to extract an active consensus to impose a moratorium. There are no strict guidelines around moratoriums, but the shortcut WP:MORATORIUM leads to a section of the essay Wikipedia:Attempting to overturn recent consensus which states Where a proposal is made repeatedly, and essentially the same proposal is made again, without new evidence or arguments, only a short time after the close of the previous proposal, administrators closing the discussion may, based upon sentiments expressed in the discussion or an express request, impose a moratorium on future efforts to repeat the failed proposal for a period of time. A moratorium may also be imposed by a discussion achieving the clear consensus of the community. Based on the strong sentiment of opposition in the discussion and the repeated RMs at the page, the closer was well within discretion to impose a moratorium. A year seems like a reasonable length given The duration of a moratorium should be balanced against the likelihood that consensus will change with time.

If the appellant believes there is a good alternative neutral name, then they are more than welcome to start a discussion on the talk page of the article and propose overturning the moratorium there (An existing moratorium may be lifted early if there is consensus to do so). Katzrockso (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:MORATORIUM says: administrators closing the discussion may, based upon sentiments expressed in the discussion or an express request, impose a moratorium It's important to note that the closer Sceptre is not an administrator but a non-admin page mover.

The other guideline in WP:MORATORIUM says: A moratorium may also be imposed by a discussion achieving the clear consensus of the community. 11 out of ~40 people in the discussion who support a moratorium is not a "clear consensus".

When evaluating the actual discussion about the moratorium, it is hard to come away with anything but a consensus for a moratorium - 11 editors in favor and at most two in opposition. "Clear consensus" means that a moratorium is actively supported by a consensus among all discussion participants; it doesn't mean that of those discussing a moratorium, a majority support it.

If 3 of 40 people in a discussion suggest a moratorium and no one bothers to oppose them, then you could also call that a "consensus for a moratorium" in the "actual discussion about the moratorium", but it's not the "clear consensus of the community". I would have expressed my opposition if I thought a moratorium was likely to pass. Astaire (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:MORATORIUM was written in 2015, before the page mover right was unbundled from the administrator toolkit in 2016. The imposition of a moratorium matches the spirit of the essay, though not the letter. WP:BADNAC also does not list the imposition of a moratorium as an administrative action that should only be closed by an admin. Indeed, a discussion at Talk:FCSB [4] had a non-admin closer impose a moratorium despite only one comment suggesting a moratorium, and this was later endorsed at MR [5].

WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote - "I didn't get the change to present my argument" has never been a convincing rationale to overturn anything. You didn't even provide a !vote in the RM, so I'm not sure why you would have opined on a moratorium. Katzrockso (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC) (updated at 16:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC))

WP:MORATORIUM was written in 2015, before the page mover right was unbundled from the administrator toolkit in 2016. How is this relevant? Closing a RM discussion and moving the page are two different things. Non-admins could close discussions in 2015 as well - including requested moves - so the fact that WP:MORATORIUM specifically mentions administrators is significant. The fact that there is now a non-admin "page mover" role affects neither the spirit nor the letter of the essay. And page movers have existed since 2016 - that's 10 years for them to be added to the essay, if desired.

WP:BADNAC also does not list the imposition of a moratorium as an administrative action that should only be closed by an admin. WP:BADNAC includes discussions that are "contentious (especially if it falls within a Contentious Topic)" where the "close is likely to be controversial". This page falls under at least two contentious topics, and imposing a moratorium supported by only a clear minority of participants is indeed "controversial".

Indeed, a discussion at Talk:FCSB [4] had a non-admin closer impose a moratorium despite only one comment suggesting a moratorium, and this was later endorsed at MR [5]. Your summary of what happened is imprecise. The outcome of the discussion (i.e., page not moved) was clearly endorsed at MR, but the question of whether non-admins can impose a moratorium was not resolved; the moratorium only stood because an admin later endorsed it. Per the MR close, the question of whether non-admins can impose a moratorium "needs a RFC" (which apparently never happened). Astaire (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Attempting to overturn recent consensus. I will reply to the rest of your comment here when I have time. Katzrockso (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I think BD2412's comment below clarifies that the essay was never intended to preclude non-administrators from imposing moratoria and so your argument "WP:MORATORIUM specifically mentions administrators is significant" falls flat.

The repeated invocation of "minority of participants" continues to mislead. WP:Consensus is not a vote. The number of editors expressing support or opposition to something is not a primary consideration in evaluating consensus. Katzrockso (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This is my last response here, but I want to provide a full quote of BD2412's comment, since you are omitting the full context: I did not intend that only admins could ever impose one, but there should be a much clearer consensus in favor of a moratorium for a non-admin to impose a moratorium.

This isn't a "clarification"; it's what WP:MORATORIUM has always said, as I already mentioned in my comment above. Either 1) an admin closes the discussion and imposes a moratorium or 2) a non-admin closes the discussion and imposes a moratorium when there is a "clear consensus" for it. Neither of these conditions were met here. Astaire (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Addendum: I also find it ironic that the appellant cites Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, an essay, to insist that the close discount the !votes of editors who cited WP:SPADE on the grounds that it is an essay. Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions was proposed for elevation to a guideline in 2023 [6], but the discussion never reached a consensus. Katzrockso (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The guideline, WP:IMR instructs that, when posting here, editors should limit their requests to one or both of the following reasons, the first being [Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI. That the closer may not have done so is evidenced by their confirmation on their talk page that they were genuinely unaware of the recent RfC.[7] This despite the fact it was mentioned by at least two editors, and linked by Astaire. It's a long discussion, but the spirit of RMCI is clear on how consensus is determined:

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.

That cannot have been fully done if the closer is unaware of relevant information raised in the discussion (indeed, also the refutation of FALSEBALANCE given in the same discussion, but repeated by the closer initially as the only reason for not moving). WP:SPADE is indeed an essay, and it is not a relevant one. The rename was proposed because we know, by previous consensus, that "persecution" is not in the sources, and is not encyclopaedic langauge. Tamzin's comments in the close review pertain. They say, inter alia I'd really like to see a communal push toward less emotive word choice in political articles—one coming from a place of caring about good article-writing, and not just the objections of the losing side in various ideological disputes. And that is quite right. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I endorse a close of this discussion and support the continued moratorium as it was stated by Sceptre in the close and stand by everything I said in my comment in that discussion. I feel the points raised by Sirfurboy (herein called the OP) are misleading, per what Katzrockso stated, and is, without a doubt, an incorrect misinterpretation of comments such as mine, which cited WP:SPADE, WP:NPOV, and WP:FALSEBALANCE. And when I said "There is already consensus on other related pages to use the word "persecution,"" I was referring to an articles like Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany,Persecution of Uyghurs in China, Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Muslims, Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, Persecution of Hindus, and Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman decline, not an RFC which "closed with a consensus not to use "persecution"," an RfC for which I did not participate in. I will say that RfC is a separate page from this one, and does not necessarily use the same sources, nor were the same editors involved in that discussion. Otherwise, I have to strongly disagree with Cdjp1 and Astaire. In addition, it is foolish to bring up this discussion again after it hasn't even been thirty days since the last discussion ended (in fact the RM was closed on May 21st, after many extensions). Can we just give this a rest for a while? Trying to go back on this again is very tiresome and a waste of everyone's time. Does the OP want to stretch people's patience with this? I don't understand why this discussion is even necessary at all. Considering the large amount of editors who commented in that discussion, I feel those who favor overturning the moratorium are far too hasty. Instead of this discussion, why not focus on improving the article instead?Historyday01 (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

(Involved) Overturn moratorium per my comment above. The two conditions of WP:MORATORIUM are not met: this was a non-admin closure and the moratorium did not have the "clear consensus of the community"; it was supported by less than one-third of participants. Astaire (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

How many opposed? SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Alexandraaaacs1989 ~2026-41674-82 (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, can I ask why I'm being pinged? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Endorse close While I did not speak to the moratorium at the move discussion I am frustrated at a sense that efforts to move this article will continue until a subset of editors get the consensus they want. A break from this constant push would be good both for article stability and the nerves of all participants. Simonm223 (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  It will help the closer if those in favour of the moratorium use a bolded "endorse". You and Historday01 are apparently agreeing while using opposing !votes. Those in favour of overturning the moratorium should use "overturn" or "not endorsed moratorium". Also, per instructions at the head of this page, please remember to disclose whether or not you were involved in the relevant page move discussion.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  I totally agree. This is why a moratorium is important. Having such article instability is not good for a very important article. I would argue that Sirfurboy implied that importance, if you read between the lines from their comment in the previous discussion, even if I disagree with their perspective here and there. Historyday01 (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  I have clarified my !vote. Simonm223 (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  With regard to my involvement I have said I participated in the discussion but to my recollection took no position on the moratorium. I think that is abundantly clear. Simonm223 (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  That helps. I did the same for my above comment as well. Historyday01 (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn moratorium for further discussion. As the original writer of WP:MORATORIUM, I did not intend that only admins could ever impose one, but there should be a much clearer consensus in favor of a moratorium for a non-admin to impose a moratorium. I think the community can negotiate a reasonable moratorium period to give a breather in this case. Perhaps one month, or three months, or six, would be a more reasonable breather. BD2412 T 20:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  User:BD2412, “there should be a much clearer consensus in favor of a moratorium”? Have you read the discussion through with highlighting of the word moratorium? I think that there is a clear consensus among those who mentioned a moratorium. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse - I commented in the discussion on behavioral issues, I don't have a strong opinion about the best title, and I closed the previous RFC that caused this RM. This looks like a reasonable discernment of consensus, and the moratorium is supported in the discussion and a good idea. There is no point re-opening this question within the next year, as the answer will be the same, and we have now discussed it beyond thoroughly. In the meantime there's a lot of work to be done documenting developments on this topic, and more sources will appear that may inform similar discussions in the future. -- Beland (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  +1 TarnishedPath^talk 00:23, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn - or at least set at six months duration. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  The closer already expressed willingness to change it to 6 months in their talk page. Would that be a satisfactory resolution to all parties here? Katzrockso (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  I would not be satisfied. Unless the moratorium is long term, we're going to see the same repeated attempts in the same way that we see regular attempts to soften the pages of anti-trans orgs and figures. Snokalok2 (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse; there have been, by my count, four attempts to move the article in about a year, none of which have come anywhere close to succeeding. Other discussions elsewhere aren't automatically relevant and don't change that broad context. What exactly is the purpose of challenging the moratorium when you acknowledge consensus for a move doesn't exist? Clearly whatever you believe ought to have changed things to cause a different outcome than the last three attempts did not change. I don't believe that moratorium are truly binding; WP:CCC applies. If something genuinely changes then you can always just start a discussion while asking people to overturn the moratorium at the same time. But you have to actually point to such a change, and "there was another RFC on another page that closed differently" clearly isn't it, at least not when the RFCs were so close together timewise. Also, you say Further, perversely, it also creates a motte-and-bailey attack on implementing the findings of the RfC on other Trump administration pages as discussed at NPOV noticeboard; but per WP:CONLOCAL, no such implementation is possible. That RFC affects that one page, and nothing else. And surely if you refuse to accept CONLOCAL in that context, then your argument cuts both ways? The fact that the two RFCs are at odds obviously doesn't mean you can axiomatically declare one to be correct and the other wrong; by your logic, if we ignored WP:CONLOCAL, couldn't you just as easily argue that the RFC at Donald Trump should be overturned? You call it a motte-and-bailey attack, but I don't see how it is; it seems it just directly undermines your argument that the RFC on Donald Trump applies outside that page, and illustrates the fact that decisions about how to word it must be made on a page-by-page basis, because editors have indicated that they favor different standards in different places depending on context. You can't ask for an RFC to be overturned on the basis that it undermines the argument you want to make. (According to a quick search, I wasn't involved in the specific discussion this is about; but I've been involved in other related discussions elsewhere.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  You mean "moratorium" not "memorandum," correct? It's funny because I used to analyze government memorandums in my previous job, which is a whole other story. Historyday01 (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Whoops, fixed. And added a note that I didn't weigh in on this specific RFC... though it says how WP:DEADHORSE this is that I had to check. --Aquillion (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn and allow for closure by an admin This was a definite WP:BADNAC, though I doubt it will change the outcome. Nevertheless, allowing for closure by an editor with proven experience in sensitive discussions will prevent accusations of a SUPERVOTE that will inevitably follow a non-admin close. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn moratorium on principle: even if it were permitted by policy as written (which I contest), there are better approaches. If it's a small number of editors filing appeal after appeal without a new argument, that's a conduct issue, not a content issue. If it's more than a few people challenging it, then there isn't actually consensus and they're right to challenge it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  (This is not about the article in question or anyone in particular) A group of editors who continually raise the same non-policy based issues (even if this is more than a "small number of editors") wouldn't be evidence that "there isn't actually consensus" or that that "they're right to challenge it". It would indicate that a large number of editors tendentiously challenge existing consensus and are engaging in disruptive editing (a la WP:IDHT). Katzrockso (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Endorse closure. Most of the people in this move discussion were involved in the Donald Trump page discussion as well, and the fact as others have said that it just opens the page up to repeated attempts in which those against the move have to win every time but those in favor only have to win once. Snokalok2 (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Consensus can change is a core principle of Wikipedia, so one cannot instate a lockdown simply because they don't like a possible result and fear the "other side" might "win" next time. Lockdowns are typically imposed when the argument remains the same time after time, resulting in a waste of people's time long after an obvious consensus has been reached. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but repeatedly starting similar move discussions multiple times in a 12 month period isn't seeking a legitimate change of consensus, it's an attrition tactic Snokalok2 (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

+1 TarnishedPath^talk 00:22, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved) per Katzrockso. Additionally, a moratorium was very much justified by the repeated relitigation of the proposal. TarnishedPath^talk 00:21, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• The moratorium should be vacated per above. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm happy to take the moratorium down to six months, but I still believe there is consensus for a meaningful moratorium. Given how long some RMs tend to languish in the backlog, I feel anything less than six months just means we'll be back to the same old arguments before too long. Sceptre (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  If we're going to talk about dialling back the moratorium, would it just be better to start a new discussion? I'd be happy to do so given that I think I was the first editor to propose it. TarnishedPath^talk 00:55, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Partial endorse: (involved, supported a moratorium of "6 or 12 months") I think that a 12 month moratorium instead of a 6 month one was a bit confusing, and there wasn't really much of an explanation as to what led to it. After reading the comments talking about moratoriums I do find it a little bit hard to buy that there was consensus for a 12 month one, considering at least as many people explicitly stated they were in favour of a 6 month moratorium as stated they were in favour of a 12 month moratorium, and that many people didn't support a moratorium at all. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 02:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of "Endorse" rationales for saying imposing a moratorium was justified but very few justifying why it should be 12 months instead of 6 months, which I think is the question that is actually in need of being answered. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 15:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

The consensus among the participants who discussed the moratorium was more in favor of a 12-month moratorium. See my comment above - there were 3 editors who opined in favor of a 12-month moratorium, 5 in favor of a moratorium of 6 or 12 months (or 6+ months), and 2 specifically in favor of a 6-month moratorium (one of whom was me who doesn't oppose a 12-month moratorium). Only one editor explicitly opposed a moratorium. That's a rough consensus for a 12-month moratorium. At the very least it's within closer's discretion to close based on that spread of opinion as a 12-month moratorium.

I can't foresee anything substantially changing in the next year that would warrant opening this can of worms again, and to the extent that something exceptional does occur and warrants reexamanining the title, per WP:CCC, editors can always agree to suspend the moratorium. Katzrockso (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Overturn. I started this move request. But shortly after that I withdrew it and replaced it with a new move request to a more popular target that had much more support (using the word "actions" in the proposed title instead of "policies"). You can click on that link I just gave to see what the situation was when I did all that, including the then-withdrawn move request, and the new move request to the better target (at bottom of page I just linked). I withdrew the first move request because there was only one support, that supporter indicated he was also fine with the name that became my second move request, and others also said they would prefer "actions" instead of "policies". All of those steps by me were then undone, the move request predictably failed, the second move request was terminated, and now there is a moratorium on restarting the second move request. This was all a tremendous waste of time, much to the delight of anyone who opposed both move requests. The editor who reopened my withdrawn move request and closed my subsequent move request said, "Reopening the discussion as the RM closing procedures....disallow unilateral withdrawals of requested move proposals after they have received support from other editors". The cited WP:RMEC is merely an essay, and another page was also cited; the latter page links to a "guideline" here which says: "the nominator may withdraw their nomination at any time, if subsequent editors have suggested an outcome besides keep...." The vast majority of subsequent editors had done so. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that was me, I did that. WP:RMEC is part of an informative essay (WP:RMCI), yes, but that specific part is explicitly referred to by the requested move procedures over at WP:RM#Closing a requested move. The reference made to WP:WITHDRAWN is just about the fact the person who opened the discussion should strike their nomination statement when withdrawing the requested move. That said, even if you were going off WP:WITHDRAWN it isn't allowed. Admittedly, "the nominator may withdraw their nomination at any time, if subsequent editors have suggested an outcome besides keep...." rather impressively manages to quote WP:WITHDRAWN in such a way as to make it seem like it says almost the exact opposite of it says, with the full policy of course being: While the nominator may withdraw their nomination at any time, if subsequent editors have suggested an outcome besides keep or added substantive comments unrelated to deletion, the discussion should not be closed simply because the nominator wishes to withdraw it. Emphasis at the end being the policy's, not mine. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 05:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Notice the conjunction "or" (i.e. "or added substantive comments...."). Also, in my last comment above, I explained the reasons other than my personal wishes. And I put a note atop the withdrawn move request: "Withdrawing move request because editors have suggested an alternative name that seems more likely to succeed in a move request." And thanks for quoting the whole sentence, I probably would have done better to do likewise instead of merely linking it and quoting some of it. It supports me either way, there is apparently a difference between withdrawing a proposal and closing a discussion (which is kind of weird), and anyway I did not close the discussion merely because I wished it so. I was trying to present a new move request with a new discussion in response to opinions expressed by multiple users, so we would not waste more time, as we have certainly been doing in spades. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse moratorium (uninvolved). The decision to impose or not impose a moratorium has always been at the discretion of the closer, based on the circumstances at the time (and subject to review of course, which is precisely why we're here discussing it). There has never been a requirement that there be some sort of "consensus" in the RM about it, and indeed in many discussions it would be tricky to gain such a consensus anyway, since often those who favour the move will oppose the moratorium in the hope of getting another bite of the cherry. The moratorium exists where an independent closer judges that there is no value to repeatedly rediscussing it. Looking at this discussion, there have been no less than three RMs on it in the space of six months, which drains the time and effort of editors to keep having to relitigate, and is exactly the sort of scenario that moratoria are designed to address. I think 12 months is the correct amount of time as well, since it allows everyone to WP:Drop the stick for a while and move on from this issue, while also keeping open the possibility that a year on, consensus might change. Personally I would have likely imposed such a moratorium too, and I think this is a good close all around. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Endorse: I do not see any problem with the way that discussion was closed, nor do I see the need for new RMs to constantly be started and similar arguments relitigated, in fact WP:NOTBUREAU suggests that this is just wasting valuable time, especially when articles about transgender topics are bound to get many, varied opinions. Why exactly is WP:SPADE an inappropriate guideline to cite? I don't think many discussions follow the spirit of RMCIDC as most people see votes as equally as powerful as arguments so if you need to challenge one closure on that basis then you should find all the closures that have not exactly obeyed RMCIDC. I think you need to just drop the WP:STICK and leave this argument along, there is no problem with the current title and that is part of the reason some of us have recommended a moratorium be placed on future move requests. Qwerty123M (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Endorse: The current title matches the scale of the persecutions outlined in reliable secondary sources. The poster should WP:DROPTHESTICK. Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The well attended and endorse RfC found the opposite.

But looking at the context of how the word is used, the sources presented do not support that claim. This word is used in opinion pieces or attributed to third parties, but rarely or never used in objective news voice.

See [8]. I did not take part in the RfC, nor the close review, nor any prior move discussion on this subject. Please don't personalise the issue. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

"The well attended and endorse RfC" is WP:LOCALCON from another page. It's WP:OTHERCONTENT, not binding on any other pages. TarnishedPath^talk 10:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

It's a finding at the highest WP:CONLEVEL that sources do not use "persecution" - in direct contradiction of the unsupported assertion made in the !vote. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

In my !vote I made reference to a prior RM at Special:PermanentLink/1310776357#Requested move 3 September 2025. In that RM are sources referenced which clearly use the term persecute/persecution. So no, my !vote was not unsupported. TarnishedPath^talk 12:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

They are the same sources discussed in the RfC, are they not? The close statement applies. In the RM under discussion, only one source was brought that mentioned persecution, and that one was definitely discussed at the RfC. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The September 2025 close statement is also relevant; Sufficient sourcing has been shown to support "persecution" in the title. Maybe we should have tried to use your argument (as Aquillion pointed out above) that this September RfC means that the Trump RfC was flawed. Katzrockso (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

So if the more recent RfC looked at the same sources, it is clear where the consensus now is, and at a higher CONLEVEL than an older RM with just 8 attendees. But because there is a discrepancy, and because this RM did not re-assess or find new sourcing, and the RfC addresses all the sourcing and finds it does not support this wording, this rather makes the point: more discussion is required (and also belies the point that consensus won't change, as it is clear it may well with more eyes). That is why we don't need moratoria, and why discussing the matter is not disruptive. To be clear, I don't want to relitigate the same RM. We can certainly have a moratorium on that exact move, and no harm will be done. Neither do I want to start a new RM right away - I believe a suitable workshop period is needed before a new RM is started, and a month would be a reasonable length of time for that. But, again, the moratorium enacted is a misuse of WP:MORATORIUM, and was set at the extreme end of timescales, having the effect of preventing the Wikipedia consensus process from proceeding. It is the wrong close and it should be vacated. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Sceptre does the moratorium apply to all potential RMs for this article, or it is just for those proposed titles that have already been litigated (e.g. Anti-transgender policies under the second Trump administration or Policies affecting transgender people under the second Trump administration).

How do you determine they are different WP:CONLEVEL? Both the RfC and the September 2025 RM are "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time". Katzrockso (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the argument above about different CONLEVELs is misleading. The section of the policy talks about the difference between community consensus and local consensus. It does not grant that an LOCALCON determined by an RFC on WP:OTHERCONTENT will ever be controlling over RMs occurring on other pages.

To quote the policy:

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope".

The RFC fits exactly into the category of Consensus among a limited group of editors. TarnishedPath^talk 00:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

A month? What so then we can have had 4 move discussions in less than 12 months? What about when that one fails, as it likely would? Are we ok with 5 in less than 12 months. At what point do editors WP:DROPTHESTICK? TarnishedPath^talk 00:37, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

(Involved in both discussions) I do not currently have the time to review the close itself, but I do want to add some context to @Sirfurboy's posting (thanks for tagging me by the way):

After Beland closed the RfC on the Donald Trump page, there was a close review of that close. In that review, I asked Beland to comment on the apparent issue between the two separate discussions, in part because I had asked for that RfC to be procedurally closed in favour of a more centralised discussion affecting both pages. While I was not particularly happy with that, (because I foresaw this issue/inconsistency between pages still being brought forward as a way to challenge a local consensus on either page) @Beland informed me that his close in no way should be interpreted to prejudice the move discussion at the "Persecution of Transgender people under..." page (the discussion which we are now reviewing).

During the RM, I started work on a source analysis section to the discussion, but I got distracted and never finished making the table (part of it is still on my sandbox, but an entire list I had described in prose form is lacking from it).

In the RM, I endorsed the idea of a moratorium, because I saw this was becoming a perennial discussion. I stand behind that in principle, but I do think the issue should be more closely examined in order to achieve a project-wide consensus. A moratorium will limit the number of discussions by force. A larger consensus may settle the issue in a way that would lead to a more natural deterrent, and thus be preferable to a simple moratorium. In my opinion, a moratorium should only be a local measure, and a more project-wide discussion should not be subject to such a moratorium, and its outcome (in the form of a consensus) should obviously override it/the local consensus. Slomo666 (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse as participant, per Aquillion (though I dislike the closure using the term motte-and-bailey tactics, as in my experience that term itself is a sign of toxic Internet argument culture). Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse - This topic is largely a time sink, though there are probably good reasons to open it up for discussion. That discussion will likely need to wait until there's a time when editors who are not prisoners of the current moment can participate without being drowned out. Nemov (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse the 12 month moratorium. A six month moratorium is the standard. Several participants called for 6 or 12 months of moratorium, and the non-productive discussion is evidence for the need for the moratorium. The closer’s call reflected consensus in the discussion. Impose a 12 months moratorium, dated from the close of this MRV. Moratoriums are needed to counter time wasting discussions, and they come with the benefit of encouraging multi-participant drafted better nominations after the end of the moratorium. The use of a subpage for drafting the anticipated future repeat RM is a good idea. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse 12-month moratorium. « uninvolved » This is a "not moved" decision, which always comes with a usually unstated recommendation to wait at least a year before starting a new RM just to have the best chance of success. To explicitly state the need for a 12-month moratorium emphasizes that editors are getting upset at ongoing and unsettling attempts to rename an article. And more than enough editors expressed this need to authorize a formal injunction. Everyone should support this! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 12:14, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm going to push back on there always being an unstated recommendation of a 12 month moratorium. Firstly, if it is unstated, then, surely it is not there at all. If it is written, where is it written? Secondly, whilst it makes sense that a long moratorium exist for a specific move, it is not good for the encyclopaedia that one failed move prevents any new move discussion. Indeed, it would suggest a gaming of the move process would be possible. Suggest a bad move to prevent any other move for 12 months. Which is what is happening here. See the move nominators comments about their early attempt to withdraw the move in favour of a better one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  If it is written, where is it written?

  It's written above in my argument and in many other recommendations over many years. While the issue of waiting periods following various types of discussions, to include RMs, has been RfC'd and informally discussed several times over the years, no hard and fast figures have managed to get a foothold. So there is no P&G. There is only the common sense that the longer the waiting period, the better the chance of success.

  it would suggest a gaming of the move process would be possible.

  Gaming the system is always possible under any circumstances. It is gaming the system to torque the jaws of editors with RM after RM until their hands fly up in the air in disgust and frustration – the old "I'll keep on trying until I get my way" game.

  In truth, since we are all volunteer editors, any moratorium is actually a volunteer event. It will rely on the common sense of all who are involved. And thank you for the "push back" – these things need to be said every once in awhile. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 15:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  The moratorium wasn't suggested because of one failed move. There were three discussions where the result was Not moved in a relatively short period of time. TarnishedPath^talk 22:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support vacating the moratorium While I understand the concern that these discussions can consume significant editor time, I do not believe that consideration outweighs the importance of discussion. Evaluating controversial additions is one of our core responsibilities. While these conversations can be time-consuming, they are a healthy part of the editorial process and ultimately strengthen the encyclopedia. Coffeeurbanite (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  Fiddling of titles in already disputed cases is rarely import discussion. “Evaluating controversial additions is one of our core responsibilities” is NOT true. Wikipedia should follow the sources, not the evaluations of editors. Time between repeated discussion on the same narrow question improves the quality of later discussions. The alternative is that editors get exhausted and go elsewhere. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn moratorium, after reading the above and comments by sirfur, alien and others. Halbared (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Support 12 month moratorium While I agree with Sirfur's claim that there may not have been sufficient consensus for a 12 month moratorium initially, and while I appreciate the courtesy ping, I think a moratorium is appropriate here because I am not convinced the arguments may reasonably be expected to yield new discussion results, mainly because I am still unconvinced by the arguments I've seen thus far.

The notion that creating an article saying there is persecution in Wikivoice is inherently unencyclopedic, as expressed in Tamzin's comment and endorsed by Sirfurboy, does not sit well with me. We have many articles entitled persecution (Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Uyghurs, etc), so if we're going by precedent, it does not seem unencyclopedic at all to call something persecution, especially if we are using more emotionally charged words than "persecution" such as "genocide", including in featured articles like Armenian genocide. The idea that because in Adolf Hitler the word "persecution" is used sparingly we therefore should not use the word to describe modern political phenomena does not sit well with me either - I don't think anyone would bat an eye if the word "persecution" was used more prominently in the Hitler article (or in other examples like Nero), so I think that was a weak analogy made by Tamzin. But regardless, while the idea we should present things in an encyclopedic tone is one I agree with, I suspect the reason the tone of "trans persecution" feels unencyclopedic, in the eyes of some readers, is because we are describing modern political and controversial phenomena on which many readers happen to disagree. Imagine if The Holocaust article existed in 1943 Germany: of course it would feel unencyclopedic to readers at the time because it is making an emotionally salient political assertion about a contested issue on which there was no social consensus. Feeling unencyclopedic is not an excuse to sanitize language; doing so directly contradicts WP:CENSORED, in addition to WP:SPADE, which yes I believe applies per my reasoning above.

As for the sourcing issue: dozens of high-quality RS were presented supporting a sentiment of persecution, including many that explicitly used the word persecution. I view entitling the article "persecution", despite an absence of widespread use of that specific word, to be a form of editorial discretion in summarizing RS consensus as digestibly and directly as possible in WP:WIKIVOICE.

These arguments have been made before, and resulted in the previous RfC closing with consensus in favor of "trans persecution" in the title. If I were to support overturning the moratorium and opening the door to a new time-consuming RfC, I would need to see new and compelling arguments be made, hence my support for the 12 month moratorium. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia (closed)

International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia – Procedural close – please use correct venues, which are WP:RM/TR for undiscussed page moves and WP:RPP for page protection requests. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 19:49, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified) - WP:COMMONNAME Three editors undiscussedly moved the page after RM. Please change the move permission for this PageID/curid. Dudzcar (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2026 (UTC) Not the right place. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, and to have a page moved back after an undiscussed move you can also go to WP:RM/TR. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ 16:10, 20 May 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.

Confederal entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina (closed)

Confederal entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina – Relisted * Pppery * in solidarity 02:42, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Confederal entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified) Consensus was not adequately determined. As far as I can tell, no one actually said they liked the current name, several just opposed the move target, but not necessarily the alternatives. For whatever reason, the user seemed to weight final !votes extra in their closing rationale (if I'm reading it right). They did prompt me to revert the close if I disagreed with it, but I think I'm not supposed to do that, though I am not sure. Finally, I do believe that there was at least one RM option that no one disagreed with. While I really don't know what the proper choice was for this RM, I don't think that not moved was the correct one. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 21:15, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Even if several didn't like the proposed title, they opposed. Oppose is oppose, and it does not mean their arguments do not count towards consensus. Summary: Several opposed because they thought the title did not fit the subject well. Their arguments count towards consensus regardless of context. Robloxguest3 (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Okay, but I'm gonna give a count of the votes w/o weighting. Yes, Wikipedia is not a vote, but most editors provided decent reasons for why. Support Administrative (nom) Oppose current name, oppose administrative, Support political, weak oppose territorial or plain entities (Me) Support political Support political Oppose Confederal, Support administrative divisions or plain entities Strong oppose Administrative Oppose administrative So, if we organize it by votes: Political: Three people supported political, four did not mention it (incl nom) but two of those opposed the move in its current state (to administrative entities) Confederal: 5 people supported some kind of move away from Confederal (incl nom), two opposed the move in its current form Administrative divisions: Three oppose, one strongly (incl those who opposed the use of the term administrative broadly), One support, Three did not mention (incl nom, though the nom supported administrative entities) Administrative entities: One support, four opposed, one strongly (incl those opposed to the term administrative broadly, three didn't mention (although one supported administrative division) Plain entities: One support, One oppose, five did not mention at all. Territorial: One weak oppose, six no mention So, as you can see, one of the least popular options is Confederal (aka the one you chose). I'm not trying to be rude here, but I think in this case there are several justifiable options, but that is not one of them. My guess for best option is either political (although I may be biased as it's my personal favorite) or no consensus. Note for readability, every term is placed in terms of _____ entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In other words, when I say political, I mean political entities of.... The exception is administrative division, which replaces entity with division. If this doesn't make sense or I got a vote wrong, please feel free to let me know. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 02:53, 16 May 2026 (UTC) Honestly, actually, I don't think political or no consensus would be best, I think the best would be a relist. Consensus is still not clear. Also, you do have a point that perhaps the votes against the move in its current form could be counted as votes against political as well, although I'll leave that up to the reviewers. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 02:56, 16 May 2026 (UTC) If anything, I would say no consensus would be appropriate. Now, this discussion is a mess, there are a billion ideas, and, at time of closure, it did not appear anyone was participating recently. If there was participation on the day of closure, I probably wouldn't have closed it. Still, not moved or no consensus, the article wouldn't've moved. -RG3 Robloxguest3 (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC) There was no participation because that's generally what happens with AfDs. If you wanted more discussion, you need to relist. Once it ages past seven days since list (or relist) rarely does anyone vote. Rather, the question becomes of closure. And there is a distinct difference between "not moved" and "no consensus". To quote WP:Requested moves/Closing instructions, "While it is usually bad form to re-request a move if consensus is found against it (until and unless circumstances change), it is not considered bad form to re-raise a request that found "no consensus" to move. (Successful move re-requests generally, though not always, take place at least three months after the previous one. An exception is when the no-consensus move discussion suggests a clear, new course of action.)". 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 01:53, 17 May 2026 (UTC) By AfD, I meant RM. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 16:54, 20 May 2026 (UTC) Given that we've went over this topic several times now, and that the status quo doesn't really have a lot of consensus support either, I think we should do another relist here instead of cutting off discussion again. --Joy (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC) Endores <involved> without prejudice to a new RM. Three RMs in a row is unusual but I'm not sure relisting will help produce a consensus given the clear consensus against the proposed title. Srnec (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC) So in other words... basically a no consensus close? My whole issue here was with the distinction between no consensus and not moved. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 12:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC) Not moved, as in there is a consensus against the proposal in the RM. There is a lack of consensus about other things but the actual RM question is resolved. Srnec (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2026 (UTC) Relist or Overturn to no consensus. I'm not sure if I'm involved, I closed the RM on the same article for quasi-procedural reasons, I didn't comment on this one though. This discussion is quite the mess to determine a consensus for, I don't think a consensus against moving the article developed, though. Feeglgeef (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC) Endorse. « uninvolved » There is a fairly clear consensus opposed to the renaming of this article, so this closure is reasonable and in line with the spirit and intent of the closing instructions. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 12:25, 4 June 2026 (UTC) Relist or overturn to no consensus per the nom. I'm uninvolved but it does seem that editors did not like the current name. FaviFake (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC) Overturn. A shocking insertion of the synthesized notion of a "confederal entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina" into the encyclopedia against all core content and article title policies, with nothing like consensus for such a destructive change (and any consensus for such an absurdity is a categorical impossibility). An embarrassment to Wikipedia.—Alalch E. 22:23, 13 July 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.

Fascist Romania (closed)

Fascist Romania – Relisted. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:06, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Fascist Romania (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified) Closed without explanation after the minimum period with one !vote in favour and one against. Close came less than 24 hours after the last comment/!vote (which was in favour). Closer likened the oppose !vote (mine) to JUSTDONTLIKEIT when it was clearly disputing the CONSISTENCY claim as mere OTHERSTUFF. Should be reopened and relisted to allow for actual discussion. Srnec (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2026 (UTC) Relist and advertise, as one of the support !votes had been blocked as a sockpuppet. A 1-1 tie (without the sockpuppet !vote) is not consensus to move. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2026 (UTC) Endorse. « uninvolved » While the last voter was found out to be a SP, their argument was sound, which is why I think the closer's decision is also sound. Had I voted, I would have voted to move; had I closed the RM, I would have closed it the same way. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 04:56, 5 May 2026 (UTC) Their argument copies the nominator. A sockpuppet !voting text copied from the nomination is a sockpuppet generating a fake edit history, it is not a !vote to be accepted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2026 (UTC) That doesn't really matter, because as the closer noted on his talk page, Your oppose stated in its entirety It's the Italy one that should change. That's not really an argument to sway any discussion, more like a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. So it appears that the closer did not count this nom's, editor Srnec's, vote. Whether or not the SP's vote should count (gray area imho), the RM closure is reasonable and in accord with the closing instructions. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 06:23, 5 May 2026 (UTC) Relist. Note the closers rational in their discussion elsewhere as a !vote in support. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC) Comment. In rebuttal to some of the above, this is a gentle reminder that all RMs are "advertised" both on the widely watched WP:RM page and on the project pages ("Article alerts"), so this RM was well-advertised to both the European history and the Romania WikiProjects. Also, since the closer found consensus to move, and since this RM was open for a full seven days, then there was, and is, absolutely no valid reason to relist this RM. Relisting is only necessary when there is no discoverable consensus. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 15:12, 5 May 2026 (UTC) Relist. (uninvolved) On its face this was a low participation 1:1 discussion after 7 days. These are almost always relisted at least once to generate more participation, and this one should have been. WP:RMNOMIN allows for closing low participation RMs when no one has objected. Someone did object. Closers must evaluate the strength of policy-based arguments and not just count votes, but the 'support' arguments here were incredibly weak. The nom presented only one article title as evidence that the proposed move would be consistent, and the appropriateness of the other article's title was challenged. Perhaps Srnec could have expanded on their objection, but it was straightforwardly a challenge to the argument from WP:CONSISTENCY. Another editor parroted the nom's rationale and cited a second article for consistency, with a title using a different word, and did not attempt to engage with the objection to the first example. The sockpuppet revelation provides an additional reason to overturn/relist, but to be clear I find cause to do so even before considering this. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2026 (UTC) Relist. Even ignoring the second !voter was a sockpuppet, there was no consensus for anything here. The nom's argument was weakly presented, the objection was weakly stated but directly rebutted the nom's argument. The support vote just parroted the nomination, included an irrelevant other article as colour, and failed to address the objection at all. That the support voter turned out to be a sockpuppet makes it even clearer. Additionally, I'm familiar with this sock from RfD where there contributions were very similar: parrot someone earlier in the discussion with a link to another page (usually not relevant) and move on. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC) Endorse. « uninvolved » The move arguments were stronger and the close was proper. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:21, 7 May 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