Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 August

< 2020 July	Move review archives	2020 September >

2020 August

History of the Jews in the Czech Republic

The closer did not follow the instructions at WP:RMCI, specifically the instructions for dealing with multiple outcomes: although the original suggested target was rejected, several users were in favor of moving to "History of the Jews in the Czech lands", with only one opposed. (Note: I and another user asked them to reverse the close on Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Czech_Republic#Revert_of_recent_redirect, and Calidum responded there). It was inappropriately closed as "not moved" with regard to all proposed targets. (t · c) buidhe 09:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 article Czech Republic vs a move to Czechia, 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]

Category:North Macedonian politicians by party and Category:North Macedonian politicians

It was brought to my attention that two CFDs that I closed recently with a strong consensus to rename may not have considered conventions regarding the naming of Macedonia-related subjects (see WP:NCMAC) in the discussion. I think that this is worth taking a look at, so I'm listing my own closes in move review. Pinging the participants of that CFD: HapHaxion, Oculi, Marcocapelle, Carlossuarez46, Laurel Lodged, and Peterkingiron. bibliomaniac 1 5 20:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. There's a naming convention in 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 consensus does not override consensus of the wider community. Perhaps even more importantly, local or any kind of consensus can not ignore reliable sources, the vast majority of which favor 'Macedonian'. There's an ongoing research on 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]
Relist, agree that WP:NCMAC should be part of the discussion, but at the same time WP:NCMAC does not offer a final solution for adjectives. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Marcocapelle: WP:NCMAC#Adjectival_form_of_North_Macedonia says
  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.
  That seems pretty clear to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'of North Macedonia' or 'in North Macedonia' is exactly what I would support instead. We do not disagree. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The specific policy part that applies here is nationality:

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 the country. The people, 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]

Overturn The CFD decision is perverse and disruptive. The category tree is Category:Macedonian people, and this pair seems to be the only exception to the "Macedonian fooers" convention of its subcats.

The closer erred by allowing a WP:LOCALCON to 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 am personally sympathetic 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.

Those who believe that there should be some deviations from the demonym "Macedonian" should open an RFC at WP:NCMAC to define when these apply, so that this can be resolved with a broad consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also want to notify about the discussions on Macedonian activists and Macedonian academics. I've put them on relist with links to this move review. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and do not relist. Agree entirely with BHG's view that individual cfds to rename twigs of consistently named trees is disruptive (renames which conflict with WP: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]
- Moreover Category:North Macedonia people, created recently by Marcocapelle, seems to be contrary to WP:NCMAC. There are areas best avoided, Irish, Australian and anything to do with Birmingham or opera springing to mind. Portals. Oculi (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of prominent operas

Per Talk:List of prominent operas#Post move and 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. Calidum 16:07, 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]
The closer, whom I asked twice to revert the bad close, hasn't edited. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 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 a WP:NOGOODOPTIONS situation, 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. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 20:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Blatant WP:Supervote. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Blatant WP:Supervote. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This type of "supervote" is sanctioned by the closing instructions linked 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 editor at any time can start a new RM. The closing instructions are specific: if anyone objects to the closer's choice, then instead of taking it to move review, they should simply make another move request at any time. Now, isn't that better than getting bogged down here at MRV? P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 03:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Supervoting is sanctioned by WP: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 consensus only for 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. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 01:28, 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]
      - Then you must not consider the provided sources to be reliable? They call them "grand operas" and "great operas", not "important" or "prominent" operas. What pray tell is wrong with using those sources? P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 07:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I read your response below to Gerda Arendt. Had my say and you've had yours, and "never the twain shall meet" (Kipling). P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 08:02, 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 arbitrary WP:SYNTH for "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 called Great operas or Grand 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. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 11:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Paine, with the way this discussion is going, I actually would be surprised if a new move request is not allowed 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 to Amakuru below): "... during the time the [requested move] discussion was closed and this MRV was opened, this revert of the move Red Slash performed happened, so I moved 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. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 08:25, 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. And especially with 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]
- Comment I'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 closer should supervote/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:SUPERVOTE explicitly 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 that closure policy was 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 not how 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. Red Slash 04:33, 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]
    - Hi Gerda 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 for WP: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 are nine 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]
        I find myself curious as to which operas are listed only one, two, three or four times. Probably, I should start with the presumed best, listed nine out of nine, a list that is found at List of prominent operas#Operas included in all 9 lists. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        You are free to write that article, but what has it to do with this move review? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn 1) There was simply no consensus that the status quo title was unacceptable, so justfiying a move by WP:NOGOODOPTIONS is 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 clear WP:SUPERVOTE because 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, the inclusion criteria are 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 criteria WP:LISTN. I wonder if the closer was aware of that. In general, this is one of the most, er, surprising closures 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cg2p0B0u8m (talk • contribs) 15:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn This is the kind of bad closure that led to Sarah Jane Brown and all the debates on its talk page (in hindsight this move review should 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 if WP: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 revert of the move Red Slash performed happened, so I moved 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 considered de facto consensus 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]
  
  de facto consensus – not have seen clear consensus – which is it? We are are here because there was clearly no consensus. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  That comment makes me believe you may need to reread what I said in context. Steel1943 (talk) 02:01, 4 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]