Wikipedia:Move review

Administrator instructions

You should look at this flowchart when deciding whether or not to list a move review request.

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 notEdit

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.

InstructionsEdit

Initiating move reviewsEdit

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 requestEdit

 
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.

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=20 September 2020}}. 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/2020 September}}
6.

The discussion with closer and notices required above are sufficient notification; you are not required to individually notify participants in the prior move discussion of the move review. However, if you individually notify any of them, you must individually notify all of them by posting a message about the move review on each participant's respective user talk page.

 

Commenting in a move reviewEdit

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 administrator 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 reviewsEdit

A nominated page should remain on move review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists to either endorse the close or overturn the close. If that consensus is to Overturn Close, the administrator 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 administrator 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"; administrators may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Move review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest MRV log page, if the closing administrator thinks that a different consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

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

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 optionsEdit

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 Close Not Moved No Action Required Closed
2. Endorse Close Move to new title No Action Required Closed
3. Overturn Close 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
4. Overturn Close Move to new title Move title back to pre-RM title, reopen and relist RM if appropriate Open
5. Relist Not Moved Reopen and relist RM Open
6. Relist Move to new title Move title to pre-RM title and reopen and relist RM Open

 

NotesEdit

  1. ^ Those that involve renames (Template:Cfr), for all other types of CFDs use deletion review.
  2. ^ Generally for those that don't involve any proposed or suggested deletion, where only the redirect's target was being discussed or if the redirect should be a disambiguation page, for other (even those that were retargeted where deletion was proposed or considered) use deletion review.

Active discussionsEdit

2020 SeptemberEdit

Parasite (film)Edit

Parasite (film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

As even the non-admin closer points out, there is a clear numerical advantage (75%) for those opposing any move in this discussion. The RFC mentioned in the close establishes that "the standard for making disambiguated titles such as Foo (bar) a primary topic among all Foo's that are Bars should be tougher than the standard for titles that don't have any disambiguator". WP:PRIMARYFILM (a specific guideline regarding films) specifically mentions that "partial disambiguation such as Titanic (film) should be made and redirected back to the main disambiguation page or an appropriate section of it" - meaning that this subject area does not make use of "WP:PDAB". In this case, the high standard is clearly not met in this discussion, the film naming convention specifically goes against it, and the number of policy-based opposes clearly outnumbers supports - so this should be reversed and closed as "no consensus". -- Netoholic @ 16:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Added: I will point out that the WP:NCMUSIC topic area is a lot more "accepting" of PDAB in their guideline... one cannot assume this is the case for other topic areas, and WP:NCFILM specifically mentions not doing it. The closer's motivation mentioning their close of Thriller is weak justification - and might actually be seen as insertion of a personal agenda here rather than a fair evaluation of the comments by participants of this discussion who acknowledge PDAB but point out the high standard is not met in this case. -- Netoholic @ 16:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn The decision to move was based on the move of Thriller (album) that was done in 2019. Which had the necessary hindsight to know very well that that album was the album (released in 1982) when someone is likely searching for Thriller the album. Here, it is far far too soon to know if Parasite the 2019 film is the film that people will be looking for over all other possible Parasite films. It may be the most popular but we have to take into account RECENTISM which was ignored in the move closer. --Masem (t) 16:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse my own close, clearly. I made my closure on the basis that of those who opposed the move, nearly all of them were opposing the move due to a personal dislike of partial disambiguation. RMs are not the place to argue that; RfC is, and the most recent RfC allows it. If editors felt like the PDAB primary topic test wasn't met, then they should've brought that up in the RM, but they didn't, partially because I suspect they were aware that the test was clearly met (at the moment, 100:1 against the other films on pageviews; based on the trend of page views of prior recent Best Picture winners, it's still going to be 30–40:1 in a decade's time). Sceptre (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
    Its bold claim that this is about "personal dislike" among discussion participants, when it seems like this close was based more on your personal opinion that the "high standard" is measured by page views (a flawed view because if that were the only factor, we could replace all RM discussions with an automated bot that tracks web stats). Your role as a closer though is to trust that the participants have taken many factors into account and, if they've given reasonable justification for their votes, to summarize the consensus. In this, you seem to have erased many participants from the discussion based only on your guess about their "personal dislike". -- Netoholic @ 18:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • How else am I supposed to read a “per X” argument when X’s argument is based on a strong dislike and absolute rejection of the relevant guidelines? If this was AfD, and a bunch of editors wanted to keep an article “per X” when X’s argument attacks the notability guideline instead of arguing that the subject is notable, then an admin would close the discussion in favour of deletion.
Whether a subject is a primary topic is a valid point of discussion, and page view statistics, whilst not absolute, can be helpful in determining primacy. For the cases of the three films in question, Station1 in particular pointed out that the 2019 movie corresponds to over 99% of page views for other films. The 2019 movie, as I’ve pointed out on my talk page, is also a Best Picture (and Palme d’Or) winner, and winners of the past few decades have measurable significance. The 2019 movie is also hatnoted from the base title, which is almost an admission that people will be looking for the film when just searching for “parasite”. Where the “higher bar” lies is a matter of debate, but if this film doesn’t pass it, then very few other topics will. Sceptre (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – The fact that WP:PRIMARYFILM says the standard for making disambiguated titles such as Foo (bar) a primary topic among all Foo's that are Bars should be tougher than the standard for titles that don't have any disambiguator doesn't mean that this subject area does not make use of "WP:PDAB". That needs to be explicitly stated. Otherwise it's just two guidelines contradicting each other, with no clear indication of which one to follow. El Millo (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse. (Involved) First off, and I can't believe I have to point this out, discussions are not a vote. The close in this case was correct because it is in line with our guidelines for disambiguation, in particular WP:INCDAB. Those opposing the move were either a) unaware of what INCDAB says or b) purposefully arguing against it. Either way, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says those arguments fall flat; it also says means that Wikiprojects like WP:FILM cannot create a fiefdom where such a rule doesn't apply. Masem above is also incorrect that this related to the Thriller discussion. In actuality it relates to a 2019 RFC, which I noted in the move request itself. -- Calidum 20:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn. That’s an argumentative closed based on the closer’s opinions and is not the summary of the closed discussion. That’s a textbook WP:Supervote. Others could have easily closed it differently. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Calidum and Sceptre. The only Oppose argument that isn't trying to re-litigiate the 2019 RFC (which I closed) is the one claiming that recentism means that the PDAB standard hasn't been met (yet). Some of the supporters disagreed, which when combined with their other policy based arguments are strong enough to make moving a reasonable result for this RM. When I closed the RFC without setting what the standard should be, I was hoping that RMs and Wikiprojects would focus on setting where the line should be, not on whether there should be a line at all... IffyChat -- 22:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn. No consensus has developed as to what the standard for determining a PDAB primary topic is. The closer's stated assumption above, that "the test was clearly met" is a faulty assumption on which to base a close against strong objection. Rerun the RM, and focus the discussion on what the standard should be, and how it applies to these articles.--Trystan (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    • The standard shouldn't be decided in an RM for a specific article, it should be decided at the talk page of WP:PDAB, putting notices on the appropriate places. El Millo (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn. No consensus for this move and is a clear supervote. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse. <uninvolved> The closer reminds me of me. I like how Sceptre tackles some of the toughest move requests that would wind up here at MRV no matter who closes or how. Calidum and Iffy show that this is a case of "Damn the torpedoes (!votes), full speed ahead! " (close only per the rationales.) I agree. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 08:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn Close was clearly a supervote. The closer did not assess the responses, they disagreed with them. There are principally two problems with the close:
  1. The discussion did not relitigate Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_51#Primary_topic_and_Incomplete_disambiguation_conflicts. That discussion does not mandate a move to a partially disambiguated title; it actually sets a high bar for such a move: WP:INCDAB states "In individual cases consensus may determine that a parenthetically disambiguated title that is still ambiguous has a primary topic, but the threshold for identifying a primary topic for such titles is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation."
  2. The close states that there is clearly "a consensus that the 2019 film Parasite is the primary topic for all films called Parasite". That is not established for the page title actually under discussion i.e. Parasite (film).
The purpose of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is to essentially settle competing claims for a title: the first criterion states it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. Implicit in this instruction is that the reader is likely to search for that term. The article receives 14,000 hits per day, yet prior to the move Parasite (film) received on average17 hits per day. IMO this does not establish Parasite (film) as a term that readers search on to any significant degree, relative to the traffic the article receives. WP:INCDAB sets a high bar for assigning a primary topic to a partially disambiguated title. At the very minimum one would expect that search term to receive significant traffic i.e. readers would search on the partially disambiguated title as they would a normal search term. In other words, for a partially disambiguated title to be used as the primary topic title, a "high standard" must surely require that the term is in itself a legitimate search term/title for the work in the same way that other primary topic titles are. That was not established in the close and therefore there is no conflict between WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PRIMARYFILM. Betty Logan (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
That's because if you searched parasite film on Google the first result was Parasite (2019 film), and if you started typing parasite on the Wikipedia search bar, the first result with film in it was Parasite (2019 film) as well. People don't search for Parasite (film), they search for parasite film. Parasite (film) being a redirect to Parasite (disambiguation), it didn't even show up if you searched for it on Google. The pageviews show that 99% of people that search for a film called Parasite are looking for the 2019 film. That's why it's the primary topic for Parasite (film). El Millo (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
If most readers find the fully disambiguated article via google or the internal linking system then great, but it means we are inventing a problem for a solution we don't really need. If visitors access the article through the disambiguation page it is most likely by searching on the term Parasite, not Parasite (film). Disambiguated titles are not real titles at the end of the day and we could literally call it anything reasonable: Parasite (film), Parasite (2019 film), Parasite (2019), Parasite (Korean film). In fairness, only an editor on Wikipedia—as opposed to a reader—is likely to type one of those phrases into a search engine. We are not actually gaining that much by moving the article to Parasite (film). At best we save 17 visitors out of the 14,000 per day an extra click, and in return for that we sacrifice full disambiguation. It just seems to me we are giving up more than we are getting in return. Betty Logan (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: so you disagree with WP:PDAB in general, not just when applied to this article. Regarding the sacrifice of full disambiguation, in this case the percentage that searches for the other two films is so minimal compared to this film that the sacrifice is negligible. What we need here is to set a clear threshold to meet for partial disambiguation, but I think that, whichever it should be, this case meets it. El Millo (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
You are assuming that the test for determining a PDAB primary topic, once determined, will look just like the test for a standard primary topic, only with a higher numerical threshold. But the tradeoffs involved with PDAB primary topics are fundamentally different, so there is no reason to assume that the tests would or should be the same.--Trystan (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps not just a higher numerical threshold, but I guess that would be at least part of it. @Trystan: how do you think it should be? El Millo (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Looking at the examples listed at PDAB, the other articles are generally of marginal notability and receive minimal traffic (often much less than 1,000 visitors per month). That's generally where I would put the threshold. The number of visitors shouldn't be measured as a proportion of of the primary topic candidate - that test was designed to determine how best to direct the traffic to the base name. The appropriate comparison is 1) the visitors to the INCDAB redirect and 2) the visitors to the other articles (my comment at Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Requested move 12 September 2020 is an example of the approach I would take.--Trystan (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
We can't arbitrarily say that an article fails because of a literally non-existent test that may be stricter and different.The guideline says that there is a higher threshold and absent clarification, we can only hold this to mean that that means a higher threshold for the already existing PRIMARYTOPIC test, which is the only metric we have. That being said, the existing test already incorporates page views and long-term significance. It should be easier to apply for partially disambiguated titles because we would be comparing apples and apples versus the apples to oranges comparisons for PT tests at large. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
We could literally have our article titles be random gibberish and it wouldn't impact the overwhelming majority of readers because search engines are smart enough to scan the content of the pages and redirects exist. The precipitous drop in pageviews for "Parasite (2019 South Korean film)" wasn't because that exact title became a less ideal search term, it's because very few people enter full search terms into the Wikipedia search bar, since they usually reach their desired result before that point. Where article pages are more about the principle of the matter (and for those who navigate by URL/non-Javascript search) than trying to match exact search terms in Wikipedia's internal search. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
To add to El Millo's point, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC refers to searching in general, not what people search for using Wikipedia's internal search function. So even if low pageviews of a partially disambiguated title were useful, that's largely irrelevant to the actual question asked by PRIMARYTOPIC, which is what people searching for a film called Parasite expect to find. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse (uninvolved). I think this is one of few examples that the RM not requires a majority vote majority. The move is reach via consensus. I see that many opposer of the move take their arguments based on personal point of view of the year's release of the film with similar name. My argument is those opposing the move were either a) unaware of what WP:INCDAB says or b) purposefully arguing against it. I agree with Calidum and other users said despite i'm not involved in the discussion. For someone who disagree with that guildeline please take to INCDAB talk page to discuss what consensus need to changed. 180.249.244.242 (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn per all the reasons spelt out by Betty Logan. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn (involved). I respect the idea of this closure, since I've seen many good RMs flounder due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT-level opposition, and this one could easily be one of them on the surface. However, I'm not yet convinced that this is a case of an objectively correct move. The conflicting guidelines and intrinsic subjectivity of what constitutes WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (and what the "higher threshold" is) says to me that a partial disambiguation should still require a widely supported RM. Otherwise, you could make the case that any primary topic move is noncontroversial. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't mean to single you out, because several others have raised this concern, but no one at the RM itself suggested that this higher bar for determining a primary topic had not been met. So how could the closer weigh such a consideration then? Regardless, it is clear from page views (not to mention the Best Picture Oscar) that this film is the primary topic for films named Parasite. -- Calidum 20:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn <involved>. I have no doubt that if search engine results were the main consideration, the Korean Oscar-winning film would overwhelmingly become the primary topic of the entire disambiguation page. If consensus accepted such a result then it would become so. However, consensus indicates a majority against partial disambiguation and especially, in this case [as well as in the case of Titanic (1997 film)], against partial disambiguation using "(film)". Furthermore, in subject-specific discussions such as this one, consideration should be focused upon and extended to members of concerned WikiProjects and members of WikiProject Film appear to be strongly against partial disambiguation. —Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 07:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse (uninvolved). While I'm hesitant to go against a clear majority, as the closer notes, despite its unpopularity among some circles, partial disambiguation is still allowed under special circumstances per the linked RFC. Either the policy should be changed, or the voters in favor of including the year needed to provide evidence that the other meanings were more significant than expected. To be clear, partial disambiguation is only acceptable when there's like a 1000x+ difference in relevance, but that criterion is met here - one is a Best Picture winner, the other an obscure B-movie. So the closer was not without reason discarding some of the pro-additional disambiguation votes. SnowFire (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse (involved) with the WP:PDAB guideline as it is now. When the guideline is revised and changed, this RM should be reviewed as well. El Millo (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse (uninvolved). Per WP:INCDAB, partial disambiguation for article titles with parentheticals is allowed, though with a requirement that it meet a high threshold of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC test. The oppose !votes focus on opposing this kind of partial disambiguation in general, and the most-concurred with !vote even cites the existence of real-life parasites to show that the film is not the primary topic for all things parasite. These are irrelevant. The only relevant evaluation is whether the 2019 South Korean film meets the INCDAB primary topic threshold for all films named "Parasite", an evaluation which the oppose !votes did not engage in. Although INCDAB calls for a higher threshold, which many overturn !votes in this discussion have referenced, a higher threshold is not an impossible threshold and doing a primary topic analysis between the two Parasite films would put the 2019 film well above the typical primary topic threshold. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

2020 AugustEdit

2020 JulyEdit

ArchiveEdit

Archives, by year and month
Year 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 alsoEdit