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.

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

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

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

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

CfDs^[1] and RfDs can only be reviewed here if the relevant discussion was limited in scope to renaming; CfDs or RfDs^[2] involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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.

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=
}}  ~~~~

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.

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}}.

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.

Swindon Stadium (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

User:HurricaneZeta was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: the stadium has closed in December 2025, which materially changes the context for naming the article; numerous reliable sources (BBC, ITV, Racing Post, Swindon Advertiser, Insider Media, local councils, GOV.UK) consistently refer to the venue as "Abbey Stadium," and the trading name "Swindon Stadium" is no longer in current or historical use in coverage of its closure. The title "Abbey Stadium, Swindon" is also precise and unambiguous, while "Swindon Stadium" is ambiguous and conflicts with WP:PRECISION and WP:COMMONNAME guidelines. Therefore, the closure of the move discussion should be reviewed in light of these significant new circumstances and sources. Icaldonta (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The previous RM and current RM that is being move reviewed were practically the exact same requested move, they both said that the page should be moved due to the recent closure, and out of the resources listed, there was no evidence that anything has changed since the previous RM as all of the sources were from early 2025. Either way, there actually was an opposition, and that was from ApricotFoot. I think this is a case of User:Icaldonta wanting the move to happen, and not actually being concerned that the move was wrong; if you notice, in both RMs, User:Icaldonta partakes in Wikipedia:BLUDGEONING the opposition. – LuniZunie_(talk) 22:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The initial move failed to cite sources, that was my fault, however the secondary move cited numerous sources, therefore not making it the same. Icaldonta (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You only cited sources after it was brought up that your second move review still had no sources, not to mention, once again, all sources provided were from before the first RM.

And once again, there was an opposition vote, and there was not support. – LuniZunie_(talk) 22:38, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to establish that the opposition was noticeably weak, they mentioned they would provide sources and failed to provide any. Whilst I provided a massive list of reliable, third-party sources. I would kindly ask the merits of WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISION, and the closure of the stadium to be focused on here, I feel there is too much focus on the strength of opposition and timing of sources.Icaldonta (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to establish that the opposition was noticeably weak
Which is exactly why it was closed as no consensus rather than not moved. – LuniZunie_(talk) 23:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there is too much focus on the strength of opposition
I'm sorry, but what do you mean by this? The focus is weighing the opposition and support. – LuniZunie_(talk) 23:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. To be clear, my concern is not who opposed or how many opposed, but whether the close adequately reflected policy-based arguments in light of material new facts.

The stadium’s closure in December 2025 is a substantive change in circumstances that directly affects naming considerations. This was not meaningfully addressed in the original RM discussion, nor weighed in the close. WP:RMCR allows reconsideration where significant new information emerges, and the closure is precisely that.

On WP:COMMONNAME, the body of post-closure coverage from BBC, ITV, Racing Post, Swindon Advertiser, Insider Media, local authorities, and GOV.UK consistently uses “Abbey Stadium”, not “Swindon Stadium”. This is not a marginal preference but a dominant naming pattern in reliable, independent sources when discussing the venue historically and at closure.

On WP:PRECISION, “Swindon Stadium” is inherently ambiguous and no longer functions as a clear identifier now that the venue is closed, whereas “Abbey Stadium, Swindon” is precise, unambiguous, and aligns with how the subject is described in sources.

Regarding opposition: policy is clear that consensus is determined by strength of arguments, not vote counts. An opposition that does not engage with COMMONNAME, PRECISION, or the impact of closure carries limited weight compared to multiple policy-grounded arguments supported by sources. My point is not to dismiss opposition, but to refocus evaluation on policy application rather than procedural framing.

In short, this is not about relitigating the same RM; it is about whether the close remains appropriate given new, relevant facts and sourcing that materially alter the naming analysis. I believe that warrants substantive reconsideration. Icaldonta (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"I think this is a case of User:Icaldonta wanting the move to happen, and not actually being concerned that the move was wrong"

This attacks motives rather than addressing the content of their argument. Wikipedia policy discourages speculating about another editor’s intentions (WP:AGF – “Assume Good Faith”). Icaldonta (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question, are you using AI or is this just how you are formatting? You seem to be saying Wikipedia policy discourages speculating about another editor’s intentions as if it is quoted from WP:AGF, but it isn't. You also have been using a lot of bold, using curly quotes, and haven't actually been using links to Wikipedia policies, but are rather writing them as text. Are you using something like grammarly? – LuniZunie_(talk) 23:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have not quoted WP:AGF directly anywhere. Wikipedia policy discouraging speculating about another editor’s intentions is valid. It may not explicitly outline this, but is still in the tone of what WP:AGF talks about.

Politely, you are again coming away from the main discussion here. Any concerns about the use of formatting are better suited for my talk page please. Thank you. Icaldonta (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse There are two issues here: the first is that you haven't actually convinced anyone else the page should be moved, and the only other person who engaged was against the move, so you can't boldly move it. Now, this isn't necessarily your fault, as you have provided a lot of links showing your proposed page title is a possible title. My advice would be to wait six months and try again, especially if sources in the next six months use Abbey Stadium more than Swindon Stadium. SportingFlyer T·C 06:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, my only concern there is that the stadium is closed. We might not have many sources to work with, so waiting six months may not provide such clarity in sourcing, but I appreciate your input here. Icaldonta (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It may, it may not. But there have been two move discussions in short order, so the six month suggestion is more of a cooling off period than anything else. If you request a move again, you may also want to add a link to the move request to a relevant Wikiproject to get more participants, but I should also note there look to be valid arguments for both titles here so you can't expect a different result next time. SportingFlyer T·C 10:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I note that it was a Toosoon renomination. A lack of participants is a feature of a Toosoon renomination. Do not renominate before two months from the close of this MRV. Use that pause to work on a better, more persuasive nomination next time. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting America (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

I was surprised upon returning from the holidays to find that this RM was closed with consensus to move, as it seemed to me that a "no consensus" close was imminent, or even a rough consensus against a move. As the closer notes, both sides presented strong, policy-based arguments, but the closer asserts that the supporting side successfully "rebutted" the arguments of the opposition, without explaining how. I do not see evidence of this in the discussion: whereas opposers cited multiple PAGs in support of the status quo, including WP:CRITERIA and WP:NAMECHANGES, supporters relied heavily on anectodal evidence about what they have heard internally within their organization (which is not representative of the general population), personal opinions on the name's "correctness" (which we are not required to consider as long as it meets our other naming criteria; moreover, this isn't even a valid argument because the status quo ante is a perfectly valid alternative name as the legal name of the organization — like the DoD and Kennedy Center, only Congress has the power to change the organization's official name), and their interpretation of NAMECHANGES (which was refuted by the opposing side with counter-evidence demonstrating that NAMECHANGES has been met, and that it is merely a supplement to WP:COMMONNAME that clarifies how to determine the common name in the event of a name change, not a blanket rule to always use the name most commonly used by reliable sources even if it contradicts other PAGs, which would be following the "letter" and not the "spirit" of "the rules").

Several supporters (and the closer) also had a "conflict of interest" with the article subject, being actively involved in that organization and thus likely keen on having their organization presented in the best possible light, in accordance with their preferred branding guidelines that we are not bound by. Finally, although consensus is not determined by the number of raw votes, the final tally was 5–4, including one "weak support" !vote that cited personal preference rather than policy (WP:IJUSTLIKEIT) — this was clearly too close to call. Given the equal strengths of both sides' arguments (I would venture to say that the opposing side has an edge, but obviously, I'm biased), this should be overturned as "no consensus" or consensus against a move. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (involved). The crux of this request was WP:NAMECHANGES, which states that "Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable, English-language sources ("reliable sources" for short) written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." It was clearly demonstrated early in the RM that sources clearly are routinely using the new name at this point, many without ever referencing the former name at all. It's true that some sources were shown in the debate which continue to use the old name, and that might have invoked the NAMECHANGES clause which says "If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name when discussing the article topic in the present day, Wikipedia should continue to do so". But this was rebutted, many of the sources presented such as [1] were using "Boy Scouts" generically, not the name "Boy Scouts of America", noting explicitly that it is now called "Scouting America". So ultimately those sources weren't sufficient to override the clear evidence that the new name is used by many sources. As such, the closer correctly determined that despite a close vote-tally, the policy argument was stronger for naming. By contrast, some of the oppose votes hinged on the arguments not grounded in policy, such as that we should default to the old name because it was in use for so long (not a consideration under NAMECHANGES), or that people won't recognize the new title (unlikely, given that it still uses the word Scout, and in any case irrelevant when sources assume their readers do know). Overall, a good close, cutting through the noise to extract the policy and evidence based result. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I've said this many times by now, but you are quoting NAMECHANGES out of context. NAMECHANGES is a subsection of COMMONNAME; it does not have equal standing with the other naming criteria described on AT. All it does it clarify how to apply COMMONNAME in the event of a name change. However, it is not the only consideration we give when identifying the common name, and certainly not the only consideration we give when determining the article title that is best for readers. (It clearly fails in that regard, because even supporters agreed that I'm sure if you polled a random sample of Americans, most who are familiar with the organization would refer to it as 'BSA' or 'Boy Scouts', while a substantial number of people would be unaware of the official name change at all.) These other criteria invoked by opposers were not given due weight by the closer, instead solely focusing on NAMECHANGES. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If an authority or community announces a general policy, guideline, law, etc. (a “rule”) based on general principles, and then provides a more specific rule for the application of the general rule in a specific circumstance, the more specific rule typically controls. See Lex specialis (not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, but a general description of how humans tend to interpret rules). You are appealing to the general rule to overcome the prescription of the specific rule. You are basically invoking WP:IAR, but it’s not clear to what end. Dustinscottc (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (uninvolved). I would have closed this the same way. Support was slightly in favour of the move. I also believe those supporting demonstrated WP:NAMECHANGES was met, even though those opposing strongly argued their point. Since this is a review of the close, I also checked the arguments of those opposing to make sure the rebuttals were appropriate, especially considering all of the articles presented in opposition, and concluded that of the spot check of the dozen or so articles I was able to access, very few of them were on the actual parent organisation as opposed to individuals or specific groups, and the ones that were had written articles in a historical context, so NAMECHANGES was not sufficiently rebutted. SportingFlyer T·C 12:44, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (involved) The discussion centered less around whether the move complied with WP:NAMECHANGES as traditionally understood, but whether other factors were more important, like whether reliable sources still mentioning the old name after the new name in articles means that the new name is not accepted yet. From my perspective discussing whether to change the WP:NAMECHANGES policy would be the better approach here but, when that was suggested by another editor, there was disagreement on that too! So take my perspective with a grain of salt. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (involved). Those who favored the change did not “rel[y] heavily on anecdotal evidence about what they have heard internally.” While a few supporters mentioned anecdotal evidence, the primary evidence was several national and international large media sources that had begun referring to the national organization as “Scouting America”. Some participants argued that the inclusion of “Boy Scouts of America” to note the recent name change in those sources indicated that “Scouting America” meant that “Scouting America” had not become the common name. However, WP:NAMECHANGE is clear that the standard is whether reliable sources have begun to routinely use the new name. Since that guidance is more specifically applicable to this situation, WP:NAMECHANGE supersedes any arguments derived from other principles in WP:COMMONNAME because there is already an encyclopedia-wide consensus on how to handle an organization’s change of name. Dustinscottc (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Multiple supporters asserted that "Scouting America" is a commonly recognizable name simply because they personally [are] involved in scouting and [have] conversations with current and former scouts, leaders, camp counselors, council board members, council employees, and council executives, or they are heavily involved in Scouting outside the USA and therefore to [them] the common name MUST be Scouting America. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure. But the way you phrased it above, you make it sound like supporters relied almost exclusively on anecdotal evidence, and opposers did not. But supporters also cited reliable sources, and some opposers continue to cite statements of other editors, out of context, regarding their hunch about common use. Dustinscottc (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I wrote, supporters relied heavily on ... followed by a list of three pieces of weak evidence, each separated by commas, whose flaws I then identifed in parentheses. You cut off the rest of that sentence and made it sound like I claimed supporters relied almost exclusively on anecdotal evidence — that's not what I said. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Sometimes I don't understand what seems to be the intensity of the concern at Move Reviews. The issue is usually which of two titles should be primary and which should be a redirect to the article. Why does it make that much difference? I understand the intensity of some participants in Deletion Review, which really is about whether an article should be in the encyclopedia, but does it matter that much what its primary title is if readers can find it with both titles? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that one reason NAMECHANGES achieved community consensus was to reduce reader astonishment to a minimum, a concern that's been around for almost 25 years. I think editors in this RM were also very concerned about reader astonishment. If you're a parent, and you're thinking about enrolling your young boy in scouting, WP might seem to be a good place to learn about it. You type in the old name, and you're redirected to the new name. One measure of whether or not you'll be astonished is believed to be the routine usage of the new name in reliable sources since the name change. So to answer your question, yes I think it matters a lot if we don't want readers to say, "Pew, that freakin' Wikipedia really sucks!" ;>) P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 19:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and if this article were titled Boy Scouts of America, hardly any readers would be astonished because they are extremely likely to have heard of this name (i.e. recognize — that's where "recognizable" comes from, people, and if readers don't recognize the name as supporters have acknowledged, then this is not a good article title) unless they have been living under a rock for the past *checks notes* 115 years. On the flip side, many readers will be astonished if they (1) are randomly redirected to this page when clicking a link to "Boy Scouts of America", (2) are unable to find a match for "Boy Scouts of America" when looking for this article in a list of search results or DAB entries, or (3) see a wikilink on an article that says "Scouting America" but fail to realize what it refers to. Mr. Ellsworth, did you consider this reader-centric argument when reviewing the discussion? InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! You reveal here why NAMECHANGES is not my favorite policy. Not long ago I closed a NAMECHANGES move request as "not moved" because the only recent sources were newsy rather than routine usage of the new title. NAMECHANGES requires "sources" – plural, more than one source – that use the new name routinely – vague. In the case of Scouting America, supporters were able to show multiple sources that use the new title routinely, and yet you were able to provide a strong argument that America was still not yet ready for the loss of "the BSA". You were not just up against supporters in this RM, you were battling the community consensus of WP policy. In this case the fact remains that there will be for a long time to come those readers who will gasp in horror when their beloved "Boy Scouts of America" search reveals an article titled... "Wha?" I've seen this type of thing drag out for as many as 10 years or more. The new title meets our policy, the consensus of our WP community. Consensus can change just as names can change. And NAMECHANGES needs more work and a new consensus, IMHO. On WP it's not enough to be right – one's correctness must also be in agreement with the community. And pragmatically, that is not always the case. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 02:36, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This comment troubles me — I am the one gasping in horror now. Are you are saying that you found consensus to move this page despite the fact that you also found that supporters failed to demonstrate how this move would not be detrimental to readers, i.e. they failed to rebut this argument presented by opposers? As I'm sure you are aware, consensus is not determined by majority rule but by comparing the strengths of the arguments presented by both sides; if you found that one side demonstrated that its position was in the best interest of readers whereas the other failed to do so, then the outcome should have been clear. During the discussion, opposers invoked multiple PAGs (explicitly or implicitly) when arguing why NAMECHANGES should not be the be-all and end-all, including CRITERIA (the name should be recognizable to a general audience), ASTONISH (we should not astonish readers), WL (we should follow the spirit and not the letter of PAGs), IAR (if a PAG is in conflict with other PAGs or readers' best interest, we should let it get in the way of common sense), etc. Did the supporters' argument that we should blindly and only follow NAMECHANGES to a T else trump all of these other guiding principles? What is the WP:PURPOSE of Wikipedia? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are not alone as regards your first four words and your final question. As for the rest, already asked and answered. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 06:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing the current standard with a different one would be straightforward:

... If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name without mentioning the old one, Wikipedia should follow suit. ...

Rather than debating to what extent the name change policy should be applied in individual name change discussions, proposing revisions to WP:NAMECHANGES directly seems more likely to build consensus. (No idea if the community would support such a change; I'd likely be neutral.) RevelationDirect (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding the intensity of the concern, what we should call something is an inherently political processes, unlike deletions, which are more fact based. SportingFlyer T·C 20:41, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• It was a bold close, and I am uncomfortable with it being a non admin close. And the closing statement was, while correct, unimpressive. However, on reading it through a couple of times, I would certainly have !voted “move”. Was this listed at Wikipedia:Closure requests? If yes, I thank the closer. If no, it should have been. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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