User talk:Jenks24/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Talk:The Silver Linings Playbook

I don't think 4-3 decision constitutes "moved" decision. Of course, arguments say sources overcome perceived ambiguity. Speaking of sources, was I too late on providing sources that use "The"? Here are Tiny Mix Tapes, Technology Tell, CNN Philippines, Telegraph, Asbury Park Press, Forbes. --George Ho (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't so much the weight of numbers that convinced me there was a consensus to move, it was that I thought the arguments in favour of the move were better. I'll be honest, those sources would have been convincing in the RM and might have tipped it into 'no consensus' territory. But as a closer, I can only assess the arguments that are made in the discussion. I'd suggest perhaps revisiting this discussion in six months to see how the move has effected things and providing the sources you have here. Consensus can change after all, especially in cases where the previous discussion was fairly close. Jenks24 (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Is six months too long to wait? --George Ho (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It's ultimately up to you, but I think if you do it any sooner you're likely to have people oppose simply because there hasn't been enough time since the last RM. Jenks24 (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, phishing-sense kicked in.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. My bad. HalfShadow 22:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Tamil American

Forgetting something? --George Ho (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) He moved them. User:Filpro moved them all back. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 03:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: (adding a ping because I forgot) -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 03:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

In this case, we should include Filpro's opinions once you relist the discussion. Fair? --George Ho (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Why do people do this after a discussion has been open for over a week and they haven't bothered to opine? And then just reverting without trying to discuss things at all? Surely it's not just to annoy me, but some days I really do wonder. Anyway, I've relisted the RM. Filpro can add their opinions there if they actually want to participate in the discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

In any case, since you were involved in the RM discussion at Talk:African American, why not vote instead? --George Ho (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly enough about the issue to vote in most cases. I only voted on the AA one because I didn't want to close as no consensus and thought it might be enough to tip it into a consensus to move, but unfortunately that wasn't the case. Jenks24 (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Indian Americans

Filpro insists on reverting the name back to singular term. Therefore, that would mean also reopening the discussion and relisting it. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

If Filpro makes a request here or on the talk page I'll look into it, but in the meantime I think it's fine to leave it as is. Sorry it took me a while to get back to this, had a busy weekend. Jenks24 (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

He did so at Talk:Tamil Americans. --George Ho (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Huh. Maybe I'm just in an average mood, but unless they want to come to discuss it I don't think reopening that discussion will be productive. Jenks24 (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

POTD fix

The same error you fixed in this edit exists also in Template:POTD protected/2015-10-08. Could you fix it? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Jenks24 (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

List of Melbourne Football Club players size

I was just wondering what your opinion is on this, I know it's been raised before, but the article size for List of Melbourne Football Club players is getting pretty large and will continue to grow. I was thinking that the tables per decade could be put into templates similar to Template:AFL2015ladderprogression which is used in 2015 AFL season; it would massively reduce the size of the article and editing the tables would be essentially the same. I'm not sure if there would be notability problems though with the templates, so I thought I would ask your opinion before going down that path. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

IMO, templates transcluded to single articles aren't really preferable, as they ruin the ability to directly edit the tables - you have to edit the template, not the article. One way to reduce the size by over 50kB is to remove all of the links to AFL Tables. As every player already has an article, line by line referencing isn't necessary; a single link to the full list of players at AFL Tables is enough. English soccer teams tend to split by number of games played, or by era, but I don't like either of those solutions much. The-Pope (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

In response to editing the template vs. article, wouldn't it be exactly the same way to edit if there's a header included like the one in the ladder progression? So either way it's one click by pressing edit, and it's not a two step process (i.e. clicking on the template and then pressing edit), is there a necessity for the data to be in the article when it's displayed the same way in a template? I just know that in the 2015 AFL season article, the table was originally in the article, then I put it into a template and to edit was exactly the same, just the one click. Flickerd (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I just had a thought, I realise that what I was saying works for editing by section and not the whole page, I just know that I avoid editing whole articles of that size as it lags really badly, so I wasn't really thinking about editing the whole page. I'm just seeing what it looks like in a sandbox with templates. Flickerd (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Only if you section edit the exact section. If you click the "edit section" previous "Ladder" heading in the AFL 2015 season article, you only see

==Ladder==

{{AFL Ladder/2015}}

{{AFL2015ladderprogression}}

which in that case, is a very good thing to deter vandalism, but like I said, I don't think it's necessary yet - there are other ways to shrink the file size that I think are preferable. Also, I think that the main reason for wanting to shrink a page isn't just to get the number of bytes listed on the history page smaller, but to decrease loading times for slow connections. Moving the same info to a transcluded template doesn't reduce load time/size at all, as the exact same info is still served to the client browser. The-Pope (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Flickerd/sandbox/List of Melbourne Football Club players Here is the link to the sandbox with templates replacing the decade tables if you want to check it out.

I guess it's an idea that if it no-one wants to be done now then it can be reconsidered in the future, just an idea I thought I would throw out there. My connection is pretty slow, so I feel that pain haha, I was thinking of it more from an editing point of view rather than loading times. I still think splitting to templates can be beneficial, but I can also understand your point of view. Flickerd (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea. My initial reaction was similar to the last thing The-Pope has said here, that the intention of keeping pages smaller was to reduce page load times and this wouldn't make a difference to it. Templates only used in one article occasionally get substituted and deleted at TfD as unnecessary, though having said that there are obviously thousands of cases where that is used. Regarding your sandbox example, I see that if you edit the sections it takes you automatically to the template which is handy, but ultimately no different to the current situation. If it was just me and you editing I'd say go for it if you want, but seeing as The-Pope has reservations and does make edits to the page every now and then might be best just stay as is.

As far as other ways to reduce the page size, the external links to AFL Tables probably could go at some point – most featured lists don't seem to have links as sources like that and AFL Tables is only a borderline reliable source, same with the refs to Demonwiki. Ideally they'd just be replaced with one link at in the sources section at the bottom and we'd also add a book source or two. I've also thought for a while that combining the two debut columns into one might be a good idea (so it just reads e.g. "Round 1, 2010), but keeping it sortable might be a bit tricky. Lastly, the "Listed players who did not play a senior game for Melbourne" section could probably be split off into a separate article. It could be justified as a spinout list per WP:SIZE. Jenks24 (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem, removing the AFL tables links is probably the best way to go at the moment, I'm happy to do it, it just may not be in the near future :) Flickerd (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Dope film

Now that two people have clearly objected, this is not an uncontroversial move. Please restore the page as it was and open a discussion. JesseRafe (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Between films of the same name? It's pretty clear cut about how this article should be titled, but if after reading it you still object then I'll move it back and start a RM. Jenks24 (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but WP:Primary topic as I mentioned on the talk page suggests this should be the home of the film 90 years more current. JesseRafe (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I struggle to believe you read it. Anyway, I've reverted and started the RM, feel free to weigh in there. Jenks24 (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Ikshvaku

Jenks24, the editor who requested that move has been topic banned for this sort of disruption. He had started a discussion at Talk:Ikshvaku dynasty which confused many articles and none of the participating editors were any the wiser. In the midst of it all he had moved some of the pages and then opened this discussion unnoticed. Some of those were reverted but this one apparently wasn't. I'm uninvolved and have been assisting in clean up of this mess (in addition to being involved in placing the AE topic ban). Could you please unclose the move and revert it pending a clean up discussion involving all the articles? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I've undone the close and given it a relist. Feel free to weigh in at the discussion there, as you've noted it was only closed as moved because no one had participated bar the nominator. Jenks24 (talk) 08:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I have no real opinion on the subject, just the issue of one editor causing so much work for others. I'll leave a note on the other talk page asking them to discuss the move. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9mNQICjn6DibxNr

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Sceptical about how random the selection was, though. Jenks24 (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Restarter

Do you object to resubmitting this RM as a multimove? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that should be fine, it's been a long enough amount of time considering the last ended as no consensus and I assume this one will have a slightly different proposed outcome. By the way, any idea what happened in this diff? Jenks24 (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Odd. Could be a keyboard code glitsch. Have been using non-Roman fonts on a touch sensitive mouse today. But haven't seen anything like that before. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Like you I hadn't quite seen anything like it before. Jenks24 (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I backtested today, and am now guessing it appears to have been caused by a coding on a non-Windows Sinhalese font. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:VPP#Titles of articles about ethnic groups of the United States

A central discussion on certain titles has started already. I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Purpose (Justin Bieber album)

Hi Jenks, regarding your deletion of some of the entries at Purpose (Justin Bieber album). I've never seen that done before as the history may still need to be accessed at some point (whether it's a conduct issue or not). So I'm interested in your reasoning? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It's junk history that can't be in the 'main' history because it would cause parallel histories and make the history pretty much unintelligible. Because it's basically fiddling with redirects and reverts to an old page history I judged it unimportant to keep visible. In histmerge cases if it's just a couple of edits like this they are almost always kept deleted, but when it gets a lot more they are sometimes moved out to a separate page, e.g. Talk:Purpose (Justin Bieber album)/other history (generally in the talk namespace because article subpages tend to get deleted eventually). That's something that can still be done in this case if you think it would be in any way beneficial and arguably the 14 edits here are above the arbitrary 'just a few' threshold. As ever with histmerge questions, I'll ping the guru Graham87 to see if he has anything to add. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what you did here. I don't see the point of moving the edits to a talk subpage because they aren't significant enough to preserve, and none of their content was merged into the main article. Graham87 12:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure what I did to deserve it, but appreciated all the same. Jenks24 (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Sam Mitchell

WTF Woodzy7 (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

New mail

Hello, Jenks24. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Replied. Jenks24 (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've sent a small reply. Flickerd (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Move of Binomial

You have recently moved Binomial after a very short discussion in which none of the participant was expert in mathematics. The results was an article name Binomial equation which has nothing to to with the subject of the article, in which the word "equation" does not appear. For saving correctness, I have moved the article to Binomial (polynomial). I have also edited Binomial (disambiguation) to clarify that the word is not ambiguous as a noun, but it is ambiguous as an adjective. With this modification of the dab page, as the noun "binomial" is unambiguous, I recommend to revert both moves, and, possibly, to relist the move request. Could you do that. D.Lazard (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

That discussion wasn't really so short. It was relisted and lasted 16 days, which is far longer than the average RM. As I said at Talk:Binomial (polynomial), I agree with the subsequent move by D.Lazard. But I don't agree with the edit of the disambiguation page, since that edit formulates the dab page as if the mathematics term is primary. That's the heart of what the RM was about. —BarrelProof (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion was listed for over two weeks and there was a consensus that Binomial (polynomial) was not the primary topic. As primary topic is a Wikipedia-specific thing, maths expertise was not required to make that decision. Ideally some mathematicians would have participated (incidentally, could I recommend watchlisting Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Article alerts and advertising any discussions you feel need broader input at WT:MATH?) so that we avoided the apparently incorrect Binomial equation title, but the fundamental question of the RM was met and it was listed for well over the required seven days.

I don't think it would be fair to the RM process and those that supported and then waited patiently for two weeks to overturn that decision simply because no maths experts participated. But because you're introducing new arguments here that were not presented at the RM and the RM was relatively sparsely attended, I will say there should be no prejudice against starting a new RM as soon as you want. If you decide to do so, you'll probably want to link this discussion here as RMs so soon after a previous decision are usually frowned upon. The instructions for requesting a multi-move are at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting multiple page moves. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Move Request Closure for NXT Women's Championship

I have reverted your closure based on this inappropriate edit by a new editor. Due to only one !vote this article was due for a relisting. This editor remove this, and then added his own !vote, leading you to reasonably assume that it was okay to close this RM. If you have comments or thoughts on this, please let me know. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I do wish you'd come here to talk about it first. While the removal of your relist was obviously wrong, there was not a consensus to move the article and I simply would have added a note to my close rather than reopen the whole discussion. I've now reclosed the discussion (the new editor blanked it) and added a note to it. I'll also leave a note on the new editor's talk page about removing or blanking the comments of other users. Jenks24 (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I should have simply brought it up and provided you the option to reopen. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Janet Steinbeck vs. Jenny Steinbeck

Hey, Jenks. Can you check your references and Oz newspaper archive to get a WP:COMMONNAME determination for Aussie swimmer Janet Steinbeck? I'm pretty sure she went by "Jenny," but I've got conflicting sources regarding her nickname and her full name, and I don't have access to NewsBank.com. No rush, please let me know what you find when you have a chance to run the search. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Dirtlawyer. Happy to run the search, but unfortunately it didn't generate a clear result. The archive I have access to really only covers from 1980 onwards so I got two or three hits for each of the three variations of her name I tried (Janet/Jenny/Janette), definitely nothing conclusive enough to call the common name. I also tried a Trove search (which is accessible to anyone) which has good coverage of Australian papers up to around 1960ish. Unfortunately the results were similar in that I got a few hits for each variation, but no clear winner (though I did stumble across this amusing article where Australia's swim team manager declares they won't send any "fatties" to the Olympics). I'd just say back yourself to choose whichever name has come up most in sources when you've been writing the article, either name is arguably correct. Jenks24 (talk) 08:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. Bothersome. I was hoping for a definitive answer. The "Jenny" nickname I can understand, but the confusion over the Janette vs. Janet spelling of her given name is annoying. Clearly, there is a single correct spelling. Is Janette a relatively common spelling in Oz? It's virtually unheard of, in my personal experience, in the States. We would use "Jeannette", pronounced Jen-ette. As an aside, we northern hemisphere swim fans do appreciate the fact that the Aussies don't send any "fatties" to the Olympics and other international championships. They're usually among the more photogenic athletes in competition. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"Janet Steinbeck" does appear to be slightly more common than "Janette Steinbeck", but not by a massive amount. Generally, I would say Janet is a more common name over here, though Janette is not unheard of (a former PM's wife springs to mind). Maybe post a request at WP:AWNB to see if anyone there can dig up some more definitive sources? Jenks24 (talk) 07:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Jenks, thanks for your help and insights on this one. Absent a review of her birth certificate, there may not be a definitive answer via online reliable sources. I ran into a similar problem with a cluster of three or four American swimmers from the 1960s who were all named Susan or Susanne. Susan is the more common American spelling, Susanne somewhat unusual, but the USOC listed them all as "Susanne," but at least two or three of them were clearly referred to as "Susan" in other reliable sources. I'm guessing that someone at the USOC arbitrarily decided that Susanne was the correct spelling, but I have no way of confirming that USOC was wrong, and the other sources were right. It's frustrating when old mistakes are carried forward and perpetuated.

I will take your suggestion and see if anyone at the notice board has any further insights. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Looks like you're getting somewhere at AWNB, I'll keep an eye on that discussion and chime in if I find anything else. Jenks24 (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

My Malformed CSD

I was trying to nominate Bethlehem Steel S.C. for deletion, as that is the redirect with no incoming links. I'm not sure why I was on the wrong page, but I'll be sure to pay better attention in the future. What would the proper rationale for deleting a redirect with no incoming links be? — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, no problem. You can see the speedy deletion criteria for redirects at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirects. It obviously doesn't fit R2 (cross-namespace), so if you were to nominate it for speedy deletion it would have to be under R3 (implausible typo). I think there would be a chance that the assessing admin would delete, but also a chance they would decline as "SC" is arguably a plausible typo of "FC" even if there are no incoming links. My suggestion would be to take it to WP:RFD where a discussion can be had about the merits of the redirect. Again though, I wouldn't guarantee it would be deleted that way because redirects are cheap. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! — Jkudlick ^tc_s 17:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Followup to followup

Thanks! That worked out very well (and that hook had, frankly, been even more dubious than mine). It's one thing to suggest something like that; it's another thing to see it put it practice! Once again, I thank you. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Al-Khwārizmī

Just out of sheer intellectual curiosity. What where the steps of reasoning used to reach this conclusion? —Ruud 22:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

A general perusal of google books and google scholar, which I'm sure is not an answer you'd like to hear. I apologise if the following sounds dismissive, and I normally am more than happen to discuss my votes and closures at RM, but I'd honestly prefer not to get into it too much. I'm still burnt out from all the diacritics discussions back in 2011/12 and I've resolved to try and stay away from them in general – the only reason I voted at that discussion was because it had been sitting in the backlog for a while. Jenks24 (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

thank you

— Ched :  ?  06:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, it was an easy fix. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 06:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bertrand du Guesclin

added a link pointing to Jean de Montfort

Hennebont

added a link pointing to Jean de Montfort

Siege of Vannes (1342)

added a link pointing to Jean de Montfort

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Jenks24 (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

merge

Is there a way to merge a sandbox article with a current article? The two I'm wondering about are:

• User:Ched/1954 in NASCAR
• 1954 NASCAR Grand National Series

I don't want to hurt what anyone else has done - but I hate to lose what I did as well (even if it was a while ago.) — Ched :  ?  05:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

In general, yes it is often possible to merge sandboxes with articles but not always and can be a bit tricky. In this specific case, I'm not sure. It would be technically feasible to merge the two pages, but I'm concerned it might give a distorted view of how the article developed. A histmerge would make it appear that you had created the article in 2011 and that Nascar1996, in June 2013, actually rewrote the article to cut it down from your ~5,000 byte draft to ~2,000 bytes, which is obviously not what happened. So for that reason, and because you are the only person to contribute significant content to the userspace draft and hence there would be no attribution problems if you decided to just edit the article to put your draft in, I would recommend against a histmerge in this case. It's certainly not an unreasonable question to ask though, and if I'm honest I have seen some admins do more questionable things than that when fiddling with page histories. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Ahhh - credit for the creation. Hmmm - I'll think on it, maybe talk to Nascar1996 and see if we can do some sort of merge manually where everything is included. Then maybe mine to a dab page? Anyway - thanks for the input. Much appreciated. — Ched :  ?  17:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, obviously any manual merge by you (as you are the only significant contributor to the draft) will be fine. And just from a quick perusal of the two pages, it does seem yours is a bit more detailed. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 07:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Please clear the requests. --Galaxy Kid (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm midway through having a bash at the RM backlog and RFPP is not really my forte anyway (Special:Log/protect/Jenks24). Maybe try an admin who is active there or a note at WP:AN if you think the backlog is getting huge. Jenks24 (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Non-consensus RMs

Hello - non-admin User:Natg 19 just closed four RMs as "no consensus". As I noted on the talkpages, since each was recently moved without discussion, no consensus RMs should result in moving them to the previous status quo, per WP:RM/CI. Since Natg 19 is a non-admin, would you mind making the reverts? The pages are:

• The Lawsuit (opera)
• Balladeering (album)
• Slights (novel)
• Counterpart (TV series)

Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pedant (and I can understand if you might be frustrated in this case, I would be), but the RMs should actually be re-opened and then closed by someone who knows the difference between "no consensus" and "consensus against moving" and the problem with conflating them in the same closure. If I was just to move them now, I would catch a tonne of flack considering it is unclear what the closer actually meant. I'm off to bed now, but I'll review this in the morning and will re-open the RMs if no one else has in the interim. Jenks24 (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries - I get it. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry guys if my wording is a bit confusing. My intent is "consensus against moving", but I guess my wording made it sound like "no consensus". Should I just change the wording on the RMs, or do the RMs still need to be reopened? All the RMs that I closed (opened by Dohn joe by the way) have strong arguments for not moving, with only the nominator arguing for the move. Natg 19 (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a note - I didn't open any of the RMs. Anthony Appleyard and Ed Johnston opened them, after not carrying out my requests to revert bold undiscussed moves. Which I still disagree with, but c'est la vie. Dohn joe (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Natg 19: if you were to strike out your closures and replace them with something like 'Not moved, consensus against moving' it would satisfy the formalities. Though you'd need to be able to defend these as a correct reading of all the discussions, which I gather you believe they are. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Natg 19 (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. In general, I'm not a huge fan of altering closures like that, though I can understand why in this case people thought it would be less bureaucratic to do so. I'm certainly not asking you, Natg, to undo what you've done – I think there was a consensus against the moves. But the whole process for these four discussions has looked unfair and I think that's something we should try to avoid. I cannot understand refusing to make reverts when they are requested in good faith and the original move has not been discussed. To then have RMs opened in your name (when you would obviously make a different rationale for a proper RM than a RM/TR request) and have the close appear to favour your opinion but then be altered to be against it... well, I would feel like the process had not given me a fair chance. Jenks24 (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

What's more important is that four clearly not remotely primary topic articles which were inserted/created into baseline slots are judged by the overwhelming input of multiple editors to not be primary topics and are now at the right positions. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but if it was clearly the case that these titles should be disambiguated, then what does it matter what location they're at while the RM is ongoing? In the interests of fairness to all involved, if an undiscussed move is disagreed with by a good faith editor, then the move should be reverted and the onus should be on the person who wants the move to start the RM. I realise this will sometimes result in odd situations where for the duration of the RM the title is clearly against the consensus (Talk:Dope (2015 film) springs to my mind), but the benefits of due process (a sense of fairness, not letting people game the system, etc.) far outweigh the negatives of having the title at a less than ideal location for a week. Additionally, the situation as it currently stands, where some admins will action these revert requests and others will not, is clearly untenable and breeds distrust of the process. Jenks24 (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Are you online? Could you possibly be a good chap and remove the section break at the bottom of the Talk:Ana Ivanovic put in by Rambling Man, I don't see the need for a separate section like that, neither does SMcCandlish apparently. Obviously not asking you to change another editor's words, just the section break. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, online (just got your ping there in response to my oppose). I'm not sure it would be best to remove the section (I agree it's unusual) because discussion has continued on above the section break. If I remove the section break whoever reads the discussion later (especially someone trying to close it) will lose the context and it will be unclear why comments with older datestamps are appearing below those with newer datestamps. Open to other options, but I'm not sure just removing the section break makes sense now discussion has continued separately. Jenks24 (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Well could you do something please, because at this end it is rather unpleasant. You could insert a second break and continue the RM, or indent it. Or - here's an idea: Insert Relist? in the obvious place as a new section? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, sorry only just back online. I see you've added the "relist?" section which seems fine to me. Do you think anything more needs to be done or is it OK? Jenks24 (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Beavis and Butt-Head

Thank you for closing the RM discussion at Talk:Beavis and Butt-Head#Requested move 13 November 2015. Since then I believe I have successfully renamed (with some assistance from Anthony Appleyard via WP:RM/TR) all articles that contained the string "Beavis and Butt-head" in their titles. However, I notice that Category:Beavis and Butt-head retains the prior capitalization. I am not familiar with how to rename a category, and I wonder whether you could provide advice and assistance with that. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup work, it's always greatly appreciated when nominators put in the hard yards (and sorry to ping you for it while making the close, but I've just had some poor experiences where proponents of a move want to leave all the cleanup to someone else). Anyway, renaming categories following a move is (usually) fairly simple. You nominate for renaming at the WP:CFDS page and it's easiest to do using Twinkle, which glancing at your contribs it appears you use. Go to the category you want to rename and select "XFD" from the Twinkle drop-down. Then change from the preselected "CFD" option to "CFD/S" and then select the "C2D: Rename to match article name" criterion. In the reason field all you need to do is link the relevant article. Repeat the process for any subcategories that also require the change. You're then done, an admin will process everything after a 48-hour hold period (assuming no one objects in the interim, then a full CFD will be required).

You may notice I'm hinting that you should do it rather than doing it myself. This is for two reasons: it's a useful process to learn; and I recently spat the dummy at CFDS and promised myself I wouldn't go back there for a few months (which is unprofessional I know, luckily though we're all volunteers). But if you have any trouble with it or don't have the time, please do let me know and I'll end my self-imposed exile. Thanks again, Jenks24 (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Now  Done. Jenks24 (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I apologize for not doing it myself, but I was on a Wikibreak at the time. I didn't want to attempt something new until I returned. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Jenks24 (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Move of Meuse

Hi Jenks24, I've just gone through all the remaining links to Meuse and am satisfied that they all refer to the river now. So I think we're ready for you to move Meuse (river) to Meuse as the primary topic in line with the consensus we reached. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for following up on this. Jenks24 (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding An Ember in the Ashes (BOOK BY SABAA TAHIR)

Hi,

I'm a massive fan of the book, and I've made some changes to the page, ostensibly, created by you. (I've added the "Development" and the book cover image.)

I'm unable to give a finishing touch to the info box for the book cover.

Please help! D;

An Ember in the Ashes

Dawniniceland (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Dawniniceland and welcome to Wikipedia. I've added an infobox to the article, hope it looks alright to you. You can see the template for the infobox at Template:Infobox book, but it can be tricky to wrap your head around. Often I find the best thing to do is to find an article on a similar topic you think looks good and try and copy what has been done there. I'm curious why you think I'm the creator of that article though – as far as I can tell, I've never edited the page before now. In any case, I'm happy to help if you have any further questions. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. I was searching for the original author and somehow stumbled upon your name.

Have you removed the "Synopsis"? May I ask why did you do that if you actually did it? :)

Thank you for all the help!

Dawniniceland (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I was happy to help. And yes, I did remove the synopsis section because it was a copyright violation of the Goodreads summary. It had just been copy/pasted directly across, but when adding material to Wikipedia it needs to be in your own words unless you're using short quotes (I know it wasn't you who added it the first place, just explaining). Unfortunately I haven't read the book, so I am unable to write a summary in my own words and just had to remove it completely instead. If you wanted to have a go at writing a plot summary for An Ember in the Ashes that would be great. If you're interested, there is some handy guidance on how to write a good synopsis at WP:PLOTSUM. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)