This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Just wanted to say thank you so much for your help towards expanding Diss_(music) with good content on history from hip hop! — Shrinkydinks ( talk) 05:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to Babak Bayat's article. Musiban ( talk) 18:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi thanks for creating Marianella Ledesma, which I’ve just reviewed. Mccapra ( talk) 19:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

– MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 15:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up! I've read the archives of some past infobox discussions, and can definitely understand why these sanctions would be necessary. I'll make sure to keep this in mind as the infobox conversation continues. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk) 15:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Normanism, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normanism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot ( talk) 01:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your close of the RFC on DRASTIC. Please can you clarify your close further, as multiple descriptors was discussed, and the use of just one was (for me) the main reason for the RFC in the first place. I had specifically asked Paine Ellsworth about this in their !vote [1], as the choice of "internet activists" alone is not supported by the bulk of sources. Other controversial subjects, such as Edward Snowden and Julian Assange are given multiple descriptions, reflecting the multitude of POVs in RS. LondonIP ( talk) 00:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reaching out. In addition to the reasons stated in my closing comment, I opted for A alone partly because many of the supporters of A supported only A and no other options, and also because at least one reliable source was supplied (at [2], linked by Shibbolethink in the discussion) that used the "Internet activists" descriptor. I had initially planned to support both Options A and F in conjunction, but there were a relatively low number of users who actively supported both – so as I was writing out my reasoning, I began to feel like closing in favor of both would have been a WP:SUPERVOTE, and ultimately decided that A alone was the best reflection of the consensus. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk) 14:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, however since RfC closures are not determined by counting heads, and since this RfC featured multiple-choice options, your close did not address the WP:NPOV concern that prompted it. As was noted in the RfC, with subjects as controversial as this one, descriptions must be based on what the bulk of RS say, yet most of the !votes did not even cite RS (as also noted by JPxG), and since one of the supporting sources offered was deprecated WP:GLOBALTIMES, you may be able to understand the nature of my concern. There are even a number of new RS that have been published in the last few days and weeks that do not call the group just "activists". I understand your concern about WP:SUPERVOTE, but unless you’re able to address my concern, I ask that you undo it for an administrator to do, as is the norm with controversial topics. I do hope you consider my request, as this is the second RfC on the question, and the first one was not closed satisfactorily either, which is why Paine Ellsworth advised to do a new one. There is also a very long discussion in Village Pump, which notes the history of source misinterpretation in this topic area, and there are even articles in CNET, The Atlantic and The Time about how badly Wikipedia has covered this topic. LondonIP ( talk) 05:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that I'd been purely counting heads - though upon rereading my previous message, I have to admit I phrased it poorly and can easily understand how I gave that impression. The point I'd intended to make was moreso that there's a certain level of support that an option would need if it were to potentially constitute consensus, and that I didn't feel that the combination of A and F met that standard. As for the WP:NPOV concern - there were arguments in the RfC both for and against the neutrality of the "activists" label. (See especially Dervorguilla's !vote in the RfC, and the commentary springing from it, as that's where the use of "activists" was most explicitly debated.) I found the pro-neutrality arguments to be most convincing, so in my view the closure meets NPOV.
I'll concede that the explicit source base for the term "Internet activists" is thin - with only one cited source after the Global Times one is removed - so I decided to do a quick spot-check on a few sources myself, to check whether I'd interpreted the discussion correctly. The sources I checked were this Vanity Fair article (describes the group as comprising both "cutting-edge scientists" and "science enthusiasts", and later calls them "researchers"); this Atlantic article ("a group of guerrilla lab-leak snoops"); this CNET article (simply "a loosely defined group"; also uses "a guerrilla Twitter group" in the headline); this Intercept article ("research group"); and this Newsweek article ("a group of amateur sleuths"). (These were the only sources I checked, and were gathered from the first page of Google search results for "drastic research group".) Based on this selection, my impression is that the reliable sources are highly divided on how to label DRASTIC. (I also note that Options F and G are also backed by just one source apiece, even if their sources were presented more explicitly.) Therefore, I don't think that the bulk of RS can be said to support any particular phrasing, and so I stand by my decision to treat other angles of argument as most decisive. Overall - I appreciate the questions that have been raised, but I still do feel that my closure of the discussion was sound. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk) 16:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

ModernDayTrilobite, I am glad you understand why the close looks like a headcount, but this impression isn't based only on what you said above. You concede that supporting sources for "internet activists" are "thin", and that sources are "highly divided" on how to "label" the group, yet your close treated the RfC as a single choice question. This was the second RfC on the topic, and there have been new sources published since your close, necessitating either a close challenge or a third RfC. If we have to go to a third RfC, the question will be how RfCs should be held on controversial subjects, where there are a multitude of POVs in RS. I have absolutely no problem with the term "activists", but I do have a problem with it being the exclusive descriptor, when RS clearly say some members are scientists. I hope you can accommodate for this nuance, to avoid another unnecessary RfC. DGG and Ymblanter, please can you advise here? LondonIP ( talk) 18:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@ LondonIP please keep in mind that repeated attempts to RFC this question will likely be considered malformed if this closure stands as "reasonable," which I suspect it will.

it is also likely improper to take this closure around to various admins to review it, as that may be considered forum shopping to some.

The proper place to go if you dislike this close is: closure review which would send you to WP:AN to make a case for an improper close. Which, again, I think you would have a very difficult case to make that this is an improper close. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Shibbolethink:, before challenging the close, I would like ModernDayTrilobite to hear my concerns here, and I pinged admins to provide policy guidance. You accused me of edit warring for inserting a descriptor you didn't like, after withdrawing an RfC that would have been closed with it as the favoured choice. I don't think ModernDayTrilobite's close was within policy, and I'd like to see them introduce a nuance into their close so that we can avoid a third RfC. LondonIP ( talk) 19:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

actually, I'm not sure that first RfC would have been closed in the way you describe. I think it's much more likely it would have been closed as "no consensus." And as I've described before, several of the pro-scientist or pro-researcher votes came many days after I withdrew the RfC. At the time I withdrew, it likely would have been closed as one of the descriptors you have said are unacceptable.

If you don't get your way in this discussion with ModernDayTrilobite, that does not give you a license to create a new RfC. Not for a while anyway. Any such RfC would likely be closed as "malformed." You would have to pursue a closure review instead. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 20:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Shibbolethink:, closing an RfC as "malformed" is not in policy. It is is ploy used by some editors to shut down discussion, though we could ask ARBCOM for clarify this, if you wish. You said said you withdrew your RfC because of the multiple choice conundrum, and I have cited several examples of subjects where multiple descriptors were included for NPOV, like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. LondonIP ( talk) 01:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

My closure of the RfC due to multiple choice mayhem has no connection to whether an RfC should be closed with multiple descriptors. My issue was that multiple (redundant) choices had been added very late in the RfC, at which point may persons had already provided input. As well, several choices were described by others as the "status quo" when they in fact were not the most long-running descriptor or the descriptor at the point of the RfC's inception, but instead introduced later. All of this resulted in a useless RfC which was not approaching any sort of consensus at that point, so I withdrew it and said I would love to see a re-done RfC with a wider range of choices. And lo and behold, that occurred. I have no issue with multiple descriptors being used, but I do have issue with the descriptors you've said you want to be used, for the reasons I described in the second RfC. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 01:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@ LondonIP: While I did state that the sources for "Internet activist" were thin, the source base for any other individual wording is equally thin. (Hence "highly divided", as you also cited in your earlier post.) However, remember also that this is just my personal analysis of the situation; my goal as a closer was to reflect the overall consensus of the RfC, not to impose my own view of what the most elegant solution would be. In my view, choosing the single option of A was the best reflection of that consensus. If you feel that a closure review is the best way forward, I'm happy to undergo one. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk) 23:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

ModernDayTrilobite, several sources mention that some members of DRASTIC are scientists, but I agree this isn't something that can (easily) fall into a closing analysis. Assuming that we are all assuming good faith here (I certainly believe you are and hope you do of me), do you understand my concern with your close, and the question of multiple choice vs single choice for controversial subjects? Do you think it would be a WP:FORUMSHOP to post an RfC on this question, as Shibbolethink says? LondonIP ( talk) 01:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I actually never said it would be a FORUMSHOP to post a second RfC. The FORUMSHOP issue is shopping the closure around to different admins to see if they think it's problematic, instead of doing a formal closure review.

However, it would likely conflict with WP:RFC, which states: Anyone who wants to have more comments on the topic can restart an RfC that has ended, as long as the discussion has not been closed. and under "Bad questions": We should talk about this some more. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 01:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

LondonIP, I would oppose a new RfC if your concern is related to ModernDayTrilobite's close. The next step, if you feel discussion here has ended, is to post a closure review at WP:AN. I think I'd be one of many voices to say, "Bad RfC: we just talked about this" were you to start a new one at Talk:DRASTIC. Firefangledfeathers 02:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

LondonIP - I understand your concerns, and the ways in which multiple-choice vs. single-choice conclusions could impact discussion of controversial subjects. But I should restate, I feel that the concerns you've raised have been satisfactorily addressed, and I don't feel that a multiple-option closure would have been an appropriate reflection of the RfC's consensus. (As for the question of starting another RfC: it could be useful eventually, but I think it'd be unproductive to do it so soon after the last one.) ModernDayTrilobite ( talk) 02:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not see that "scientist" and "activist" are mutually exclusive.

But arguments about what word or phrase to use as a descriptor are rarely productive. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC) �

DGG, I agree this isn't productive, but editors chose to settle this dispute by RfC and I am asking you about policy here. Should the RfC have been closed as a single choice? LondonIP ( talk) 19:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Let me help you understand how I work: if i say something like the above, I do not intend to comment further. I'm not the Designated Policy Oracle, and all I can give is my opinion, and I give it only when I think it will help. In addition, some discussions and topic areas I prefer to avoid, for any of various reasons, and that includes this general topic. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC) �

Hey ModernDayTrilobite,

Thanks for bringing up the discussion about the article name for Irechecua. Although I hope we've established why moving back to Tarascan isn't the best idea, I'd rather not just leave it there because leaving it at Irechecua is also demonstrated to be unwise. So would you be interested in a follow up discussion where we decide on a rename? TangoFett ( talk) 22:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reaching out! I'd definitely be open to participating in a follow-up discussion. In light of the points that were raised in the initial RM, I agree that we should avoid the term Tarascan – but there are a handful of other workable titles out there, so I think it'll definitely be fruitful to talk everything through and identify which title would work best. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 03:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! If you can help make that clear in the talk page, we can ask an admin tomorrow to close that up and move on to the next part. TangoFett ( talk) 23:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I've posted a followup over on Talk:Irechecua, where I've created a new section in the hopes of fostering a broader conversation outside of the RM framework. I'd hoped to be able to withdraw my initial RM as well, but the closing instructions specify that withdrawal is only permissible in cases where there's unanimous opposition or lack of response, so we'll have to wait for an admin to come along to close it. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your wit in closing that discussion! 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 ( talk) 21:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@ Nableezy, @ Selfstudier, this is not the place to yell at @ ModernDayTrilobite.

This is for wikilove

- 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 ( talk) 21:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

That was a supervote, and I would request you undo your close for a more experienced editor in a topic area covered by discretionary sanctions. nableezy - 12:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

On what grounds do you consider it a supervote? I feel that my closure made a fair analysis of the arguments made in the RM, but if you feel that there are points that I gave too much (or too little) weight, I'm open to hearing feedback. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

You said you found I feel that "clashes" is the wording with the most solid backing in policy. If you feel that fine, but what an RM is for is assessing what a consensus of editors finds to be the wording with the backing in policy. Your close did not address that the move request was about a substantially other topic, and ignored that the sources presented in support of the name proposed were about that other topic. while usage of "storming" was used more rarely is entirely unsubstantiated as well, there were a ton of examples of that usage. Your close reflected your personal opinion on the evidence, not on the arguments of the participants, and it was better off as a !vote. nableezy - 16:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Your concern is definitely a valid one, but I think the origin of it is based on poor wording in my closing summary, rather than in my underlying thought process. In my evaluation of the COMMONNAME question, I observed that supporters of "clashes" provided a substantial body of evidence to corroborate their claim, and that those users who actively provided sources were backed by other users who simply cited WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS in the rationale for their !votes; sources were provided for "storming" as well, but the "storming" sources were fewer and had more concerns raised about their reliability. Thus, among the editors who weighed in on the sources, I interpreted the consensus as finding that COMMONNAME supports "clashes". (I also disagree that the request was about a "substantially other topic"; though it's true that a subset of the linked sources described the events of April 22 or 29, it was still shown that many sources used "clashes" in reference to the events of April 15, which was the central topic of the article.)
I apologize for my poor phrasing – I was aiming for concision in my closing summary, and in the process I evidently left out too much detail about my rationale. However, I hope this explanation has served to better elucidate my thought process. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 18:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I was not overly impressed with that close, "clashes" is not only plural (the article was about one event), the title was descriptive so commonname doesn't really enter into it. You neglected/declined to say what you thought about the canvassing and you should also know (do you?) that lockstep voting on contentious issues is quite common in IP area. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

"Clashes" is plural, but it's also the title that the consensus supported, and its plurality was a peripheral issue in the RM discussion. I don't feel that it would have been appropriate for me to give much weight to the plurality of "clashes" in my closing. The question of whether COMMONNAME is applicable to descriptive titles is a fair question – the actual text of the guideline doesn't appear to address that issue one way or another. Personally, I feel like COMMONNAME is still relevant for descriptive titles, particularly if there's controversy over them; Wikipedia follows what the sources say in the body of an article, and it feels sensible to follow the same rule of thumb when determining a title.
As for the canvassing, I didn't have much to say about it; obviously I don't condone canvassing, but the responsible party is blocked and I don't believe their impact was particularly significant. Only three users were identified as having been canvassed, and two of them made brief, perfunctory comments that I wouldn't have given much weight anyway. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

So youre unwilling to undo your close to allow for a more experienced editor to close it? Because this is step one of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and if youre unwilling to undo it then I can proceed with the other steps. nableezy - 21:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I feel my close was in keeping with WP:RMCI and I'm willing to stand behind it. I'm happy to submit to a move review if you feel that's the best way forward. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Could you edit the Hip Hop template to look more like this?

24.178.76.27 ( talk) 22:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reaching out. This seems like a useful way to address nested categories and large subgroups, so I'm happy to go ahead with a version of it. (I plan to keep punk rap separate from the rap rock grouping, however, as that's been contested in the past.) For future reference, it's probably best to make these requests on Template talk:Hip hop, as that page probably has more watchers than my talk page. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Punk rap is a fusion of hip hop and punk rock, and punk rock is a subgenre of rock music. (You also forgot to remove rap rock from the General section of subgenres.) 24.178.76.27 ( talk) 15:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I would question the close in respect to the matter of capitalisation. As I can see, there are two editors that would lowercase, two that would argue against this and two that that would suggest this be resolved separately - of the last, both would have opposing views on capitalisation but that introducing the question of capitalisation would further complicate the primary question of the RM. The close would state: This evidence alone didn't suggest a clear consensus for one capitalization or the other ... I would suggest that if there had been a discussion that focused on the specific question of capitalisation, then a conclusion might have been reached. Where the close would state: ... advocates of the capitalized form also emphasized that the capitalized title would be WP:CONSISTENT ..., I can only see one such mention. Per WP:AT, consistency does not have primacy over the other advice therein, including WP:TITLEFORMAT, which gives voice to WP:NCCAPS and consequently MOS:CAPS. See also, WP:CRITERIA that would clearly state that consistency is but one consideration that must be balanced with consideration of other stated criteria. Where the close would state: Thus, the capitalized title proved to be backed by a broader range of policy, the validity of this statement is far from clear. I'm not seeing a broad range of policy being raise to support capitalisation, let alone a broader range. Perhaps you might clarify this for me as I am not seeing that the close particularly reflects the discussion. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 05:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, happy to clarify. First, I want to emphasize that by a "broader range of policy", I merely intended to indicate that the range of policy arguments provided in favor of capitalization was broader than the range of policy arguments provided in opposition to capitalization – not that either range of arguments was especially broad on its own merits. As for the substance of the decision: of the editors who discussed the question of capitalization, the two sides disputed whether the phrase "Wild Card Series" was conventionally capitalized in running text or not; per WP:TITLEFORMAT, that question would dictate whether using the capitalized or lowercase form of the phrase would be most appropriate. Neither side of the debate provided overwhelmingly clear evidence on whether the phrase was conventionally capitalized, however, meaning that the discussion didn't give me grounds to determine capitalization based on a question of WP:TITLEFORMAT alone. The arguments for the lowercase title all centered on the question of TITLEFORMAT, which was disputed, while the arguments for the capitalized title discussed both the disputed TITLEFORMAT question as well as WP:CONSISTENT. (You correctly note that only one person brought up the WP:CONSISTENT question, but given the relatively low number of people who discussed capitalization at all, I felt that the single mention was enough to consider in the decision-making process.) Finally, there were also several editors who supported the proposed move without commenting on the capitalization question, suggesting that the initially proposed title (in the capitalized form) was seen as acceptable by a sizable swath of the discussion participants. This on its own isn't indicative of much, but it's still a worthwhile data point to consider when trying to decide a close call.

I think you're correct that an explicitly capitalization-focused discussion would lead to a clearer consensus on this topic, and I think it would be acceptable to hold such a discussion at this time. However, because the question of capitalization was discussed in the RM, it was necessary that my closure address the discussion that did occur. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. In light of this, can I suggest that you make the last part here (or something similar) explicit in the close since some will see the matter of capitalisation to be resolved by the close as it stands - eg this close does not prevent further discussion of capitalisation of the article title. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems sensible enough, I'll make an edit reflecting that. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 14:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

You closed the recent RM as no consensus, but I think the longstanding title ( Iberia (theme)) should be restored given the much lower level of participation/discussion in the previous RM. I don't dispute the close per se, but I think the result should be a restoration of the status quo ante. Srnec ( talk) 23:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I think that's a sensible call; you raise a good point about the low participation in the previous RM, especially given that – of the people who participated in both RMs – we can see the support for Iberia, Byzantine Empire eroding in the second RM. Moving back to the stable title seems like the best solution until/unless there's a clear affirmative consensus otherwise. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 03:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is wrong. The status quo was "Iberia, Byzantine Empire" since there was a consensus to move it there in the prior RM. Given your close was no consensus, it should remain at that title, per the rules of RM. There wasn't a consensus to move it back.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 07:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a fair point as well. One of the things I found tricky in closing the discussion was that we had a situation where, though there was no affirmative consensus to adopt any single new title, the latest RM had a consensus against the "Iberia, Byzantine Empire" title. Consequently, the "restore the prior status quo" solution was initially appealing to me, as a solution that I felt would reflect both (1) the lack of consensus around a new destination title and (2) the collapse of support for the "Iberia, Byzantine Empire" title. I made the move WP:BOLDly, and I still do think it reflects the will of the overall discussion, but I think there's definitely also a strong argument to be made that I overstepped my mandate by making that move in a mostly-unilateral fashion. At present I'm leaning toward self-reverting my move, but I'm going to think this over a bit first - I was probably hasty in my original action, and the last thing I want is to be hasty again. I'll aim to come to a decision at some point today (in my North American time zone); additional feedback from any party is definitely welcome during this period. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

There were four participants plus the nominator in the first RM back in August. The nominator did not support the result and his/her proposal had one support. An IP proposed (without explanation) the title that the closer chose and it was supported by two others. One of those changed his/her mind in the second RM. If you subtract that !vote, it's a clear "no consensus" in the first RM. Consensus can change and the second RM can reverse the prior one from 'moved' to 'no consensus' even while being 'no consensus' itself. Srnec ( talk) 17:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

(Apologies for the wall of text, but I wanted to explain my thinking on the matter as thoroughly as possible.)

I've given the matter some thought and I think it's ultimately best to leave the title at Iberia (theme). The situation on the ground here is an unusual one: the second RM opened just ten days after the first closed, and while in many cases that would result in a rapid procedural close, in this case the second RM actually attracted a larger base of participants and a richer discussion than the first. Because there was minimal momentum behind proposals for a procedural close in the second RM, it suggests to me that the interested editors did not feel that the first RM had sufficiently explored the issues at play – that is to say, while the closure of the first RM was a sound reading of the RM's consensus, the interested community appeared to feel that the RM participants had not factored all of the relevant PAG questions into their discussion.

What this means in practice is that the second RM was essentially a re-litigation of the first rather than a wholly independent proposal. Accordingly, the arguments from the first RM all reappeared and were discussed in the second one. I turn in particular here to the question of confusion and WP:ASTONISHment, which was central to the first RM. This argument – viz. that the title needed the term "Byzantine" to prevent confusion with other meanings of "theme" – did not have the same decisive power when it was raised in the second RM. This time, a guideline was leveled in direct opposition to the argument (specifically WP:NWFCTM); additionally, with the broader slate of arguments at play in the second discussion, one participant who had !voted for "Iberia, Byzantine Empire" in the first RM changed their mind and ultimately voted for "Iberia (theme)". (This participant, additionally, was one of only two "Iberia, Byzantine Empire" supporters to provide any rationale for their !vote.) These arguments took place in conjunction with a general opposition to the "Iberia, Byzantine Empire" title among the second RM's participants. The aforementioned factors, in the context of the second RM, seem to me to overwrite the consensus that the first RM had found.

When taking all of this into consideration, my overall read of the situation is effectively thus: the community (which I use here to mean the body of editors interested in the article's subject matter) largely ignored the first RM, presumably having no strong feelings about the proposed "Theme of Iberia" in contrast to "Iberia (theme)". However, the people who did participate in the first RM preferred a third title instead (namely, "Iberia, Byzantine Empire"). While they did not have a clear preference for or against "Theme of Iberia" when compared only to "Iberia (theme)", the community did feel that either title was preferable to "Iberia, Byzantine Empire", and thus turned out in larger numbers when the second RM provided them an opportunity to change it. In this environment, the whole picture makes me reticent to say that there is overall a consensus to remain at "Iberia, Byzantine Empire". Returning to the pre-either-RM stable title, meanwhile, allows us to avoid a situation where the article title is left at a widely disliked option due to lack of a dominating favorite alternative. I acknowledge that, by enacting this move, I'm taking an expansive interpretation of my mandate as the closer of the discussion; nevertheless, I think this is the option that most accurately represents the overall will of the full slate of discussion participants. Finally, I'll reiterate my opinion that a follow-up talk page discussion would be helpful to seek out a title that would bring with it a clear affirmative consensus – I may have changed the title of the page, but I don't intend for my move to be a permanent solution. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

November songs

... for a constructive comment in the Laurence Olivier RfC, to which I referred in my arbcand questions. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit for Glass Onion, in which I added a link to the article for Governor of Connecticut? Thanks.

Elendil's Heir

I wasn't the one who reverted your edit; that was MikeAllen. According to his edit summary, he reverted the edit because the character was never a real-world governor of Connecticut. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)