The RM was closed asmoved(Crotalus concolor→Yellow rattlesnake) despite my opposition, another expression of uncertainty, and no direct support. It was originally a contested technical move, and the editor who contested it said they were uncertain "which is really the primary topic". Previously, "Yellow rattlesnake"was a disambiguation page (now at"Yellow rattlesnake (disambiguation)"). When expressing opposition to the move, I raised both questions ofWP:COMMONNAMEandWP:PRIMARYTOPIC,saying "It does not seem clear to me thatCrotalus concoloris most commonly known as 'Yellow rattlesnake' or that it is the primary topic for that term. "No evidence was provided for support of the move on either of these grounds. I also pointed out the difference between the English Wikipedia concept of" common name "(i.e. the name most commonly used in independent reliable sources written in English) and the as the taxonomy concept of"common name"(i.e. a vernacular name that does not follow scientific Latinizedbinomial nomenclature). It is important not to conflate the two. Those concerns still stand. One person expressedconditionalsupport "if there is consensusthat 'Yellow rattlesnake' is the most common name ", but no such consensus was ever established, so this should not be interpreted as support. I do not see how that situation could be interpreted as a consensus to rename the article as proposed. Furthermore, following the discussion, another editorobjected to the move,saying that the move failed to use the common name. Any cursory web search easily confirms that this species does not seem to be a proper primary topic for "yellow rattlesnake". —BarrelProof(talk)21:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn,As noted on the talk page "yellow rattlesnake" is not a vernacular used for the species. I also second whatBarrelProofstates regardingWP:COMMONNAME,and its application to the article. The most commonly seen name in reliable sources isCrotalus concolor,not yellow rattlesnake, midget faded rattlesnake or faded rattlesnake. Indeed the presence of at least three vernaculars makes the binomial the correct choice when looking at unambiguous names.--Kevmin§03:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural closewas Overturn (no consensus): Note that the referred guidelineWikipedia:Naming_conventions (fauna)statesDo not use vernacular names when it is not clear to what the name refers (seeWP:Article titles § Precision).Given the uncertainty in the discussion that the primary topic for yellow rattlesnake is the crotalus concolor or timber rattlesnake the discussion looks to be no consensus.I have heard the timber rattlesnake referred to as the yellow rattlesnake and from quickly searching I get more hits for timber snake and almost no hits (besides from Wikipedia itself) for the midget faded rattlesnake, though that might be because of my location. It probably makes sense to followWP:NOTBUROand just open a new RM forcrotalus concolor=>midget faded rattlesnakeorfaded rattlesnake.PaleAqua(talk)03:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was my suggestion when the discussion was raised on my talk page. The move was closed based on the move discussion, fauna naming conventions, and the contents of the article (which indicated a common common name). --JHunterJ(talk)11:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion from Talk:JHunterJ
I disagree with your closure of the RM atTalk:Crotalus concolor.I think there was a failure to establish whether "Yellow rattlesnake" is a more commonly used name than "Crotalus concolor".Please see the rationale in my expression of opposition to that move. No one expressed support for that move without first determining whether there is a consensus that"'Yellow rattlesnake' is the most common name ", and I therefore see no consensus to move the article. The proposer did not even respond to the comments about that question. —BarrelProof(talk)19:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw consensus to move it from the scientific name. There's no prejudice against requesting its move to a better English name (midget faded rattlesnake or faded rattlesnake?), but there was no reason presented to leave it at the scientific name.Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna):"When there is no common name or no consensus can be reached on the most common name, or if it isn't clear what taxon the common name refers to (as in the sardine example above), use the scientific name." and the yellow rattlesnake does not meet those elements. --JHunterJ(talk)19:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, therewasa reason presented to leave it at the scientific name. Please see my comment about the discussion atTalk:Daboia palaestinaeand the difference between what is meant by "common name" on Wikipedia and in scientific literature. In fact there was no support expressed for that move – only a conditional support for moving if another consensus was established first, and such a consensus was not established. In fact, "yellow rattlesnake" is not sufficiently unambiguous and has not been established as the most common name for the species. For example, I just did a web search and an image search for "yellow rattlesnake", and practically none of the results in the first few pages of search results were forCrotalus concolor,except for Wikipedia pages. Please note that there was no direct mention ofWikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)in the discussion, and the closure is supposed to be a determination of consensus – not an independent decision based on other things that were not discussed. Moreover, it says to use the scientific name when "no consensus can be reached on the most common name", and I do not see any consensus being reached about the most common name. —BarrelProof(talk)22:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I didn't introduce NC:FAUNA. I'm aware of it, and the final!vote as mentioned in the close introduced the common name argument as used there. The lawyery note above introduces arguments, however, which of course I did not consider in the close, since they weren't in the discussion I closed. But refocusing on encyclopedic improvement: "Crotalus concolor" appears from the discussion to be no better than "Yellow rattlesnake" (or "midget faded rattlesnake"or"faded rattlesnake",which already redirected to the yellow rattlesnake article, but aren't bolded there and are listed in a secondary way, behind" yellow rattlesnake ", which would appear to make it more common that the other common names; this however is a new argument, which is why there's no prejudice against moving it to one of those names if needed), and probably worse, based on the discussion there and my previous familiarity with Wikipedia naming conventions (which is part of my adminship, and not to be forgotten in individual discussions, seeWP:LOCALCONSENSUS). And the timber rattlesnake is not know as "yellow rattlesnake" (at least on Wikipedia), so that's no impediment.--JHunterJ(talk)11:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not noticing that WP:NCFAUNA was indeed mentioned during the discussion, although it was a different quote from it that was discussed. —BarrelProof(talk)22:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may notice that someone else has now commented on the page, saying that "yellow rattlesnake" is not a well-known name for this snake. "Crotalus concolor"seems like a very good name for it, since it is well accepted and unambiguous. I plan to open a move review within a day or two. —BarrelProof(talk)15:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may notice that the article itself leads with the identification of the species asyellow rattlesnake.It seems now that you would like me to consider yet another new argument that wasn't present in the move discussion, while at the same time accusing me of introducing new arguments because I'm aware of Wikipedia naming conventions. Seems like a lot more bureaucracy than simply starting a discussion (there) as to what a good name for the article would be, and then getting it moved there. --JHunterJ(talk)17:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a new argument. That argument was raised during the RM discussion, when I said "I tend towardopposeforCrotalus concolor.It does not seem clear to me thatCrotalus concoloris most commonly known as "Yellow rattlesnake" or that it is the primary topic for that term.... "The best idea that I have about what the article name should be is just the name the article already had. My impression is that reverting the name change would be better as an MR than as a second RM since I don't see any real basis for the consensus declaration of closure. —BarrelProof(talk)22:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that discussion, going to follow your advice and open a new RM to consider midget faded rattlesnake and suggest that this be procedurally closed.PaleAqua(talk)20:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse.I think it is clear there was no consensus for the move. One oppose, one uncertain, and one conditional support, if the common name can be established appropriately, and that support is lacking. It doesn't seem clear if yellow rattlesnake is used widely for any of the three species in thedisambiguation pagefor yellow rattlesnake:
Crotalus adamanteus(Eastern diamondback rattlesnake). Yellow rattlesnake is not used by the IUCN (Eastern Diamond-backed Rattlesnake, Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake) or Reptile Database ( Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake) and isn't given as a common name in the article.
Crotalus horridus(Timber rattlesnake). Yellow rattlesnake is not used by the IUCN (Timber Rattlesnake) or Reptile Database (Timber rattlesnake, cane-brake rattlesnake) and isn't given as a common name in the article.
Crotalus concolor(Yellow rattlesnake). Neither the IUCN or Reptile database identifiers appear in the taxonbar (the species needs a Wikidata id). The IUCN doesn't have an assessment (Crotalus oreganus concoloris mentioned in theCrotalus oreganusassessment) and Reptile Database lists Midget Faded Rattlesnake as the common name (as do the other sources in the article). It's not clear where the yellow rattlesnake name came from.
I expected to see uncertainty about which snake yellow rattlesnake refers to, but it doesn't seem widely used at all. Google for"yellow rattlesnake" -wikipediaonly finds it used as a name by theVirginia Herpetological Society,which lists it was the 13th and last alternative vernacular name for the Timber Rattlesnake. The other hits seem to be photos of rattlesnakes that happen to be yellow. So I'd reverse the page move and question the use of yellow rattlesnake as a common name in the article or the need for a disambiguation page. —Jts1882|talk07:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn.My comment at the original RM was conditional: "if there is consensus that" Yellow rattlesnake "is the most common name". I'm happy to accept, given the comments here, that there is no consensus, without any criticism of the original closer's action.Shhhnotsoloud(talk)09:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis taxon is referred to as theMidget Faded Rattlesnakeon Reptile Database[1]and in some scholarly research (eg.[2]). However it would seem this is a leftover from when it was considered conspecific withCrotalus viridis.As such I would suggest that placing it under its binomen would be the best option. CheersScott Thomson(Faendalimas)talk17:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this MR without reaching a decision on its merits would cause a problem. Until the MR is closed, we do not have a clear understanding of what the title should be if there is no consensus in the second RM. If the first closure was proper, the default "no consensus" title should be "Yellow rattlesnake", but if the first closure was improper, the default title should be "Crotalus concolor".Moreover, I don't see anyone really supporting the original closure (just as there was no one really supporting the previous RM proposal), so why not close this asoverturn?—BarrelProof(talk)14:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
Support move to "Czech lands".Looking closely at follow up comments, most of the bold opposes end up agreeing with the move to the Czech lands, so there does appear to be consensus, with all agreeing on the rationale (that the Czech Republic is a political entity, not the historical geographical area, an objection which seems reasonable (ie not crazy)). I cannot see any policy reasons why this reasonably argued consensus should be ignored. I don't know if this is outside the purview of a move review, but I see there has been something of a conflict over the name of the articleCzech Republicvs a move toCzechia,and a move here to "the Czech lands" might be politic to avoid that argument spilling over into other pages where it doesn't need to.OsFish(talk)03:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reclose as "Move toHistory of the Jews in the Czech lands"I had read this discussion and was planning on closing it to that effect, but got distracted by something and didn't get round to it. There was a clear consensus that this was an accepted alternative (although personally I agree with AjaxSmack and think this is a bad idea; I would only rename it if "Czech lands" covered a different geographical area to the current nation).Number5721:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn.There's anaming conventionin place which clearly establishes 'Macedonian' as the term for nationality. The policy was based on a wide consensus established by a RfC and nobody in the discussion seems to be aware of it.Local consensusdoes not override consensus of the wider community. Perhaps even more importantly, local or any kind of consensus can not ignorereliable sources,the vast majority of which favor 'Macedonian'. There's anongoing researchon this topic. I am not aware of any English language dictionary proposing 'North Macedonian'. The term, while being inaccurate, is also controversial and considered offensive by the nationality in question. --FlavrSavr(talk)20:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not quite true. Use ofMacedonianis cited inWP:NCMAC § Nationalityforfor the routine description of people's nationality in the lead sentences of biographical articles,to be contrasted with article names and categories where this use id discouraged. The sameNationalityparagraph also cites the double formula used in the Prespa agreement and official documents ("Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia") and cites an example which usesNorth Macedonian:XYZ possesses bothAustralianandNorth Macedoniancitizenship.NCMAC does therefore not clearly establish adjectival use for nationality, or at least not the way you write it.Place Clichy(talk)10:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken and you are cherry-picking parts of the policy. It is explicitly clearThe nationality of citizens of North Macedonia should still be referred to as "Macedonian.".This is how consensus unfolded, while it allowedsome"North Macedonian" usage. The particular part of the policy about the avoidance of adjectival usage (1) belongs in a completely new section and (2) has been deemed non-authoritative on several occasions (ex. "North Macedonian elections" ). Maybe we should ping members of the closing panel ofWP:NCMACand the authors of the final draft, to clarify this thing once again? --FlavrSavr(talk)18:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether. The use of neutral formulations such as "of North Macedonia", "in North Macedonia," etc. is preferred.
The specific policy part that applies here isnationality:
The nationality of citizens of North Macedonia should still be referred to as "Macedonian."
.The policy part you're quoting is about the adjectival form of thecountry.Thepeople,the citizens of that country are called "Macedonian" by the policy and by the vast majority of reliable sources. This of course goes for article titles, categories etc. --FlavrSavr(talk)10:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OverturnThe CFD decision is perverse and disruptive. The category tree isCategory:Macedonian people,and this pair seems to be the only exception to the "Macedonian fooers" convention of its subcats.
The closer erred by allowing aWP:LOCALCONto override a naming convention, when the localcon offered no reason to make these categories an exception to that convention. This failure to uphold the naming convention would be an an error in any CFD close, but it is a particularly serious failure when the convention is not just documented, but has been hammered out in lengthy discussions under an ARBCOM-supervised process.
I ampersonallysympathetic to the idea that the demonym "Macedonian" is inadequate in many categories, and am inclined prefer a less ambiguous formulation that includes "North Macedonia(n)". However, these issues are far from straightforward, and I am not well-versed in Macedonian topics... and the parallels with Ireland make me shudder. "Northern Irish fooers" and "Republic of Ireland fooers" may appear obvious to some people, but they would be almost unanimously opposed by people from Ireland.
Extensive discussions have not shown any consensus to create these inconsistencies, and the worst possible outcome is to create inconsistencies where every single category is fought over individually.
Overturnand do not relist. Agree entirely with BHG's view that individual cfds to rename twigs of consistently named trees is disruptive (renames which conflict withWP:C2C,a speedy criterion). Arguments that such individual categories are not 'nationality' would be resolved by re-parenting the category, not renaming it in incorrect parents.Oculi(talk)09:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OverturnBased on the local consensus and what was brought up the initial close was reasonable, but givenWP:NCMACit was clearly a local consensus and should be overturned.PaleAqua(talk)12:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not overturnand applyWP:NCMACinstead:move toCategory:Politicians of North MacedoniaandCategory:Politicians of North Macedonia by party.WP:NCMAC § Adjectival form of North Macedoniastates explicitely thatArticle names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether. The use of neutral formulations such as "of North Macedonia", "in North Macedonia," etc. is preferred.The use ofMacedonianas a demonym for the country (rather than just for the culture/language of the Macedonian ethnic group) cannot be seen as neutral as it follows the fringe nationalist POV in North Macedonia that rejects the North Macedonia name altogether.North Macedonianis disliked for the very same reasons. Any use of adjectives being controversial in the present state, the solution stated inWP:NCMACfor article names and categories is the safest, if not the only, solution.Place Clichy(talk)10:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you are wrong. The essence of the Prespa compromise is that only the name of the country was changed, while it keeps a distinctive Macedonian nationality, regardless of ethnicity - so this is hardly 'fringe nationalist' view. In the country, it's also supported by those who supported the name change. Outside of it, "Macedonian" is the term used by vast majority of English language sources to refer to inhabitants of North Macedonia, regardless of their ethnicity, including an officialBBCstyle guide[3]and all English language dictionaries[4],[5],[6],[7],[8].North Macedonia is not a territory comprised of multiple ethnicities, it's anationwith its own distinctiveMacedonianidentity. The part about the adjectival usage refers to thecountry,not thepeopleand has been repeatedly ignored on Wikipedia. --FlavrSavr(talk)18:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
PerTalk:List of prominent operas#Post moveand the linked discussion on the discussion closer's talk page, this move should be reverted since the close goes against consensus. The closer was asked about the discussion's close over a week ago, and never responded.I believe this close and move should be reverted, and the discussion reopened and relisted.Steel1943(talk) 15:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)(Parts struck out.Steel1943(talk)03:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]
I've struck out parts of my statement I no longer stand by. However, I have no interest or desire to withdraw this discussion, and will not be.Steel1943(talk)03:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus.(uninvolved)The discussion was a mess (as most open-ended move requests are) and I don't see how the closer could say there was any consensus reached.Calidum16:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus.There was clearly no consensus to move from a bad name to another bad name (and there's no good concise name in sight). --Gerda Arendt(talk)19:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.<uninvolved>Two reasons: 1) after a closer has moved a page from one bad title to another, it makes no sense to me to just move the page back to the first bad title, and 2) see this as aWP:NOGOODOPTIONSsituation, so what should happen is that this MRV should be procedurally and immediately closed, a new RM should be opened with hopefully a better, closed-ended choice of name, and we should not ever bring closers to MRV who do their best in this type of situation to pick a title that might eventually lead to an improved final resting place for the article's title.P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there20:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.This type of "supervote" is sanctioned by the closing instructionslinked to above.The closer saw a consensus to change the name of the article; however, there was no agreement as to what the new name should be. In such a case the closer chooses a name from the ones suggested, and any editorat any timecan start a new RM. The closing instructions are specific:if anyone objects to the closer's choice, theninstead of taking it to move review,they should simply make another move requestat any time.Now, isn't that better than getting bogged down here at MRV?P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there03:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Supervoting is sanctioned byWP:NOGOODOPTIONS?Have you read the third paragraph of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS? It appears not, and in any case, some editors are prone to unilaterally writing all sorts of dubious things into RMCI. In this case, it was one of those weak "?" proposals that should be forbidden. The proposer not making a proposal makes for very poor discussions. In that poor discussion, someone suggests a new alternative, someone agrees, and two disagree, others remaining silent on the late mid-RM proposal. That is NOT a consensus by any definition, and the logic of the closer is textbook SUPERVOTE. It was no consensus, and there was no need to do anything. Further, the mentions of AfD being possibly more appropriate (the list is WP:OR) undermines any claim to a consensus. --SmokeyJoe(talk)00:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, and the third paragraph makes it clear. If you think that paragraph should be changed, then start a discussion on its talk page, not in this venue. The RM was all over the map, and there was no consensusonlyfor where to move the page, and there was clear consensus that nobody was really happy with the then current title. Sometimes a closer has to step in and decide, at least for the time being. I've done it many times myself and was never brought to move review over it. This discussion should be procedurally closed or withdrawn by the nom, and a new RM opened when editors are ready with a sound new title. I would suggest using a title that corresponds with what the sources call these operas.P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there01:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The RM was all over the map... there was no consensus", for sure. "there was clear consensus that nobody was really happy with the then current title"? No. Not on your page with the definition of "clear consensus", and not "really happy" is a pretty weak threshold. There was no consensus that a rename was needed. "Sometimes a closer has to step in and decide", sure, but not this time. "I've done it many times myself..." I've seen, and I've quietly approved, but those cases do not justify this over-bold unnecessary supervote. "This discussion should be procedurally closed or withdrawn by the nom" Why?? "a new RM opened when editors are ready with a sound new title. I would suggest using a title that corresponds with what the sources call these operas". And here is the elephant in the room. This list of operas has no sources. It is WP:OR. more below to Red Slash. --SmokeyJoe(talk)05:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with using the sources? Nothing. What is wrong is filtering those lists five or more times on nine sources, that is an arbitraryWP:SYNTHfor "important" or "prominent". If the sources call them "grand operas" and "great operas", then so should Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe(talk)08:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, we agree on something!and there is no reason to use "List of..." in the title. It could be calledGreat operasorGrand operas.I suppose we shouldn't be making such args here at MRV where only the closure is judged. It appears that rather than closing this procedurally or by voluntary withdrawal, we must wait a month or two or three before another RM becomes an option(?) tsk tsk.P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there11:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paine,with the way this discussion is going, I actually would be surprised if a new move request isnotallowed immediately after this MRV closes. And regarding my refusal to withdraw: Honestly, I thought this MRV would have been a speedy overturn, but I was waaayyy off base there per what has unfolded thus far in the discussion. Also... it may be worth stating that even though I started this MRV (quoting what I stated toAmakurubelow): "... during the time the [requested move] discussion was closed and this MRV was opened,this revertof the moveRed Slashperformed happened, so Imoved it back"... so, even though I opened the MRV and didn't necessarily support the status quo after the move Red Slash performed, I take a bit of pride and respect in the fact that Wikipedia is a community project, and know/understand that closes of discussions have to be given the chance for community, uninvolved input whenever applicable... such as why we are here now.Steel1943(talk)20:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good, Steel Man, all good. And I'm all for community involvement to garner consensus, it's certain. I was a little surprised that you didn't withdraw and just open a new RM per the closing instructions; however, that can also be done directly after this review is closed. Best to you!P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there08:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse(uninvolved).I agree with both of Paine Ellsworth's comments above. A careful reading of the discussion and closing summary show that the closer considered all comments and came to a reasonable conclusion. That's not to say that a finding of no consensus might not also have been reasonable, and not to say that the conclusion must be final for all time. All closes are in a sense "supervotes", and are inappropriate only when they obviously ignore a discussion and/or policy. Andespeciallywith this type of open-ended proposal, with no one really defending the current title or expressing opposition to any possible move, it was a question what to move it to, more than whether to move it, and the closer's choice from among several suggestions was reasonable. The result is not obviously worse than the previous title, and if anyone has a better title in mind, it will be more likely to gain consensus in a new RM than in reopening this one.Station1(talk)06:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI'm afraid I have to disagree with your reasoning. Firstly, the argument that "all closes are in a sense supervotes" is an argument that all closes are, in a sense, invalid. That's what supervote means: an invalid closing. So clearly, not all closings are supervotes. Secondly, I also disagree that there was a careful reading and summation of views. There was simply no consensus at all that the status quo title was "absurd", nor was there any consensus whatsoever that the article might be an AfD candidate. The inclusion criteria - which appear to meet notability guidelines for lists - at no point were challenged. Some of the contributions in the discussion actually appeared to be unaware of the inclusion criteria, which a careful reading should have picked up on. (for example, it is not simply a list of operas by date).OsFish(talk)18:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that "all closes are in a sense supervotes" is an argument that the concept of "supervote" is meaningless. A "supervote" is no different from a "decision". If we agree that discussions are not supposed to be votes in the first place, there cannot be a supervote. A closer is a judge of the arguments presented in the discussion, not a voter any more than the participants are voters. If, for example, a majority of participants argue "Title A sounds better" while a small minority cite policy, logic and reliable sources in favor of Title B, the closershouldsupervote/decide in favor of B. The only question for a move review should be whether that decision was reasonable or not.Station1(talk)21:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SUPERVOTEexplicitly states that choosing the!minority choice because it is clearly more grounded in policy is not a supervote - it's "admin's discretion". People understand that. People aren't simply saying "there was no!majority". The issue here for many is thatclosure policywas not followed. The thing is, and it's quite important,the closer appeared not to understand what the page is about.They were ignorant of the inclusion criteria for the list. They wrote "maybe an opera is important in your opinion, maybe it's not, but if it doesn't show up in Google Books, it's probably not prominent" - but that's nothow operas are selected for inclusion.This meant they could not understand the arguments over "important" or "prominent", or why their suggestion of "list of operas by date" would have been simply incorrect. So they were not in a position to apply policy correctly using admin discretion. That leaves us with trying to establish if there was a consensus. There was none. Not even that the current title was bad. It was an open discussion that achieved no consensus. Elsewhere on this page, someone has suggested that because people were not explicitly supporting the status quo title in opposing a move, they must have rejected it, but that's simply not how it works.OsFish(talk)02:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get hung up on the semantics of the word "supervote", since that's a digression at best. I do want to point out that what you link to as "closure policy" is not policy or even a guideline, so, like the supervote essay, even if it weren't followed, that would not be an automatic reason to overturn. I do agree that if the closer really didn't understand what the page was about, and that resulted in a bad decision, that would be a reason to overturn. But I don't think that that's true in this case. I don't see any argument that "important" is better than "prominent" in the original discussion; even your opposition to "prominent" said only that "prominent" was no better than "important", not that it was worse. Others, below, have said "prominent" is better. I still think that there was more than one reasonable outcome for this messy, open-ended RM, of which the close is one.Station1(talk)05:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are here not to assess which title is better (for what it's worth by "no better" I mean "worse" and in reference to the inclusion criteria), but whether the closure was in line with policy. Several people had expressed a view before the new title had been suggested, so it's not fair reflection of everyone's reasoning. I also have to say, I don't follow the reasoning that says if someone clearly does not understand the inclusion criteria for the list page, it doesn't therefore mean they don't understand the purpose of the list page. Anyway, wouldn't it be better (and simpler) just to have a move discussion again with "prominent" as the new option? The problem was seeded by have a formal move to? discussion.OsFish(talk)07:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"No consensus" would've certainly been a pretty reasonable answer, but it would've left us with a terrible title that no one liked. I think the article needs to go to WP:AFD, honestly.RedSlash04:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Improving something more obviously unsuitable to make it look less obviously unsuitable, but in substance no better, is not in my opinion an improvement. My usual process on looking at an RM is to look through the reference list. Rarely do I find what I found here, that there is no source at all for this topic.AfD, yes.--SmokeyJoe(talk) 05:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)On further thought, I don't think this is an AfD issue, but a small re-scoping and re-titling issue. --SmokeyJoe(talk)08:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What in the section "Lists consulted", linked from the lead, did you not understand? The criteria are mentionings in well-defined lists. Would you really want five to nine inline citations after each opera to know exactly in which of the nine lists an opera was mentioned? --Gerda Arendt(talk)06:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HiGerda Arendt.I would be great to see someone like you take the lead on what to do here. Yes, I saw "Lists consulted". It is a bibliography style reference forWP:Original research.No source contains this list. The criteria for synthesizing this list is arbitrary, sensible but arbitrary, it is not source-based. Why five out of nine? This list would be fine as a WikiProject ProjectSpace page for monitoring and "Lists consulted prioritizing work, but this list is original to Wikipedia. It is not an independently notable standalone list. The alternative justification is that it is a navigation aid. As a navigation aid, it could be worked up as a table listing *every* opera included in any of the nine source lists, or the subset of operas included in all of the nine sources lists, but anything in between is WP:OR, even under the guise of navigation. It could be tabulated, in a sortable table, with a column that is a count of how many times each opera is listed in a source list, which would enable any reader to easily re-create this list by selecting the operas listed by 5 or more. --SmokeyJoe(talk)07:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had nothing to do with the creation of this list, think it's great for some and not harmful for others, life is short, and I mentioned "waste of time" a few times already. There arenine lists(not one) by reputed sources, so each of those is a reliable source, and why five not three, don't ask me. --Gerda Arendt(talk)07:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn1) There was simply no consensus that the status quo title was unacceptable, so justfiying a move byWP:NOGOODOPTIONSis not applicable here. 2) The closer stated that "The current title is absurd, and honestly so is the title I'm moving this to". Not only can that not be justification for a move (it's absurd to resolve a discussion by deliberately moving to an absurd title), the notion that the current title was "absurd" is not something found in the discussion. Combined with point 1, this seems to make the closing a clearWP:SUPERVOTEbecause it fails to reflect the discussion. 3) The closer stated "it makes me think that a list of operas with such subjective inclusion criteria shouldn't even exist on Wikipedia". However, theinclusion criteriaare not "subjective" in the sense that Wikipedians have been making subjective judgements about each opera. They are sourced to the judgements of recognised experts in published works. This meets notability criteriaWP:LISTN.I wonder if the closer was aware of that. In general, this is one of the most, er,surprisingclosures I've seen on Wikipedia.OsFish(talk)09:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and find it odd that the name of this page was changed without agreement on an alternative, particularly since the name it has been changed to creates more confusion: there are pieces in the list considered 'important' by these different standard sources which are not 'widely known' or 'conspicuous', but are important for historical reasons in relation to the history of the form, of the composer and his or her school, or national trends in opera. I can't think of a better term than 'important'.Cg2p0B0u8m(talk)15:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS every editor on wikipedia will choose the sources he or she wishes to use as references or reliable sources, and put other sources to one side - does that make all articles subjective?— Precedingunsignedcomment added byCg2p0B0u8m(talk•contribs)15:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OverturnThis is the kind of bad closure that led toSarah Jane Brownand all the debates on its talk page (in hindsightthis move reviewshould never have been endorsed). Picking a bad title just because the current title is bad doesn't make the encyclopedia better. If this RM is endorsed, I'm reopening that can of worms immediately.Iffy★Chat--15:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.This is a textbook case ifWP:NOGOODOPTIONS.Nobody said they liked the previous title, and although there was no particular consensus coming through in any direction for a new title, it could still be discerned from the conversation that changing "important" to "prominent" is an improvement. Nobody really disputes that specific point, so rathwr than leaving the previous bad title in place, the new slightly improved version is better than nothing. Anecdotally, as someone seeing this for the first time, I would certainly concur that the new title is vastly better than the old one). My advice would be to leave the new title in place, don't go back to the previous version with its meaningless "important" adjective, and if anybody thinks they have an even better idea, then feel free to RM for that. —Amakuru(talk)19:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru:"...I would certainly concur that the new title is vastly better than the old one".As the original proposer of the move request (and this review), I'd have to somewhat agree with that (though I" weak oppose "d it in the discussion), but that's obviously not why we're here now.(Dang, it can be difficult to attempt one's best to be non-biased in a move review after being obviously biased in its respective discussion.)Steel1943(talk)20:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943:Well, why are we here then? Evidently you object to the move close, since you opened the MRV here. But you say you somewhat agree with the outcome, so do you want it pushed back to the old title, or don't you? In the end, given the lack of any sort of consensus for any other title (in particular "List of operas by date", which was rejected as not accurately describing the page), the only decision the closer is left with is whether there is a preference for the use of "prominent" versus "important" in those!votes which directly address that question. And in effect, despite your "weak oppose" to using prominent, you clearly didn't like the previous title either and you actually expressed a preference for "prominent" as the best option if the page had to be titled that way at all. (At least that's how I read your comment at the RM, and you seem to be affirming it in your remark here). So that means, in directly assessing the "important" versus "prominent" options, 3 preferred prominent and 1 (the final!voter) preferred important. Admittedly all the previous voters were not consulted, and if someone wants to relist and ping them in to see what they think then I wouldn't be averse to that. But equally, I think the argument that "prominent" is more objective than "important" could be carried from the arguments presented, and that's what the closer concluded. Prominent carries a suggestion of being well known and highly regarded in society as a whole, while "important" is more of a personal thing - I might think a particular opera very important while you think it's junk. —Amakuru(talk)21:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru:"Well, why are we here then?"Concerns with the close, so thus I opened this request due to my and others' concerns with the close (regardless if I liked the new title or not) and the status of the discussion I linked on the article's talk page since... and because no one else filed the MRV, even with that section's level of participation... since that's what MRV is about: concerns with the close, but at the same time not being the place to start" move discussion, part II. "Steel1943(talk)21:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fair enough. And of course that is what MRV is for, not starting new discussions. But fundamentally, disregarding any personal views I may have on the matter, and the terminology, do I think this close is defensible? On balance, yes. I would quite likely have closed it the same way myself, or at the very least relisted with a request for someone to come up with a good reason not to make the switch because that's how the conversation seemed to have ended up. —Amakuru(talk)21:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"I would quite likely have closed it the same way..."That stance (most likely reflected in your" endorse "stance), plus the stances of others who said" endorse "is the reason why I brought this here: MRV exists for uninvolved editors to provide their opinion from the outside looking in to make sure the actions after a close have a community-backed consensus basis. To illustrate, during the time the discussion was closed and this MRV was opened,this revertof the moveRed Slashperformed happened, so Imoved it back(though it's looking like I was wrong about the "temporarily" part in my edit summary... ha),considering the move Red Slash performed is consideredde factoconsensus unless/until the move gets overturned here. Either way, in regards to the discussion close being "defensible"... I'm not sure, but IMO, if I were an uninvolved editor making a decision on the move discussion, I would have relisted it since I would not have seen clear consensus, since the discussion had not been relisted yet, and since the discussion had not been open for an incredibly long period of time (which, to me, would be a month.)Steel1943(talk)22:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.Reading over the entire discussion, nobody advocated for the current title and most comments wanted the title to be changed. There were several options thrown out, and of all the options that were given, the one that was ultimately chosen by the closer had the most support/least opposition.Rreagan007(talk)02:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When the discussion happened, it was "List of important operas", and four users opposed a move, of not too many (no time to count exactly). I'd call that no consensus. A title describing exactly what the list covers would be too long to work with, and "prominent" (sounds a bit like "well-known" to me) seems not better to me because some are important in other respects. English is not my first language, though, and I was told just today that "before" and "formerly" mean the same. Willing to learn, --Gerda Arendt(talk)08:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus.I don't see sufficient support for a move in the discussion. Re "no good options," the problem is that people who supported some sort of move were asking for mutually incompatible options, so it's not clear supporting a move to "by date" implies support for "prominent". The RM was already open-ended, so it's okay if the result is that nobody has a title that has consensus - in which case the long-term title should "win" for stability reasons.SnowFire(talk)19:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
