Talk:Reform (disambiguation)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There was no support for the proposed move for "Reform" → "Reform (beneficial change)". Those who supported "Reform (disambiguation)" → "Reform" either proposed a different name for the concept article or favored deleting/merging it entirely. The latter would require an WP:AFD, which is not within the scope of the discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) ―Howard • 🌽³³ 16:38, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Reform (disambiguation) → Reform
• Reform → Reform (beneficial change)

– While the current primary topic may qualify as a WP:DABCONCEPT given it doesn't have much content I'm not sure it is appropriate in an encyclopedia. The change meaning has 2,422 views but the think tank has 823, the place in Alabama has 488, the Anglican meaning has 249, the magazine has 132, the horse has 57, the album has 45, the place in Mississippi has 39, the place in Missouri has 38 and the band has 37[]. Reform UK has a staggering 594,811[] much more. Google only returns UK, Images mainly returns UK and books seems to return generic meanings. Given there are a number of uses like the places and magazine that aren't types of beneficial change and UK seems so much more likely I can't see a clear primary topic. I'm not sure on the correct qualifier though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 20:57, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Support but with Reform → Reform (parliamentary). Beneficial change comes across as a little bit POV, although I get the idea that reform is usually intended to be an improvement, it can otherwise just be an amendment. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete this article as essentially a dictionary definition and move dab page to primary. Ladtrack (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• The few references in the article seem like they're worth keeping, and it does make sense to have given that we have e.g. reformism. It could be expanded into a better broad-concept article, though. Given so much reader interest in the political party I would have thought it makes sense to move to the side as e.g. Reform (concept) or even Reform (word), but then I actually looked at WikiNav view of clickstreams, and it only shows 84 + 46 identifiable clicks to the ambiguous meanings. That's really not that much. Surely we can start with just adding Reform UK in the hatnote? A perhaps comparable recent case has been Talk:PVV, though there the party is at least 20 years old, and here it's 5. --Joy (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  Couldn't we just move the relevant information to Reformism? All the non-dictionary references are about that ideology anyways. Ladtrack (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  I think I agree with Ladtrack. Srnec (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Clear primary topic by significance. Those who believe the page is pointless are free to AfD it. This is not the forum for that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear primary topic and broad concept article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Note that deletion is not a possible outcome for move discussions. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 20:57, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose It is the primary topic by virtue of being the topic itself. If this article doesn't meet the merits, it should be discussed at AfD and deleted, in which case the disambiguation page may be moved to "Reform." AaronNealLucas (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2026 (UTC)