User talk:Jenks24/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

EVINE Live

Hi Jenks24

I'm curious about your closure of EVINE Live as moved to Evine Live. As far as I can tell the capitalised form is not just a "trademark" or style issue, per WP:MOSTM, it is actually the registered name of the company, and the form used by most reliable sources. For example, its NASDAQ listing, and a clear majority of news sites, all use the capitalised form. I closed the previous as moved to EVINE Live, and to be honest I still think that's the correct title according to WP:COMMONNAME, and the arguments made during the previous RM discussion. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Please could you relist the discussion so I can raise this point and we can discuss it further before the case is closed? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. The discussion was open for two weeks and no one had opposed, it was as easy a decision as there is to be honest. Regarding COMMONNAME and MOSTM, I will point you to EdJohnston's great closure at Talk:Jira (software)#Requested move 30 October 2015 – basically, when a company tries to stylise as allcaps when it isn't an acronym, we follow MOSTM's decapitalisation rules even if the allcaps version is more common in sources. I'm reluctant to reopen this discussion because I think it will be a waste of time and the editors who did respond in the two weeks will feel hard done by. However, if you read over the Jira discussion and Ed's closure and honestly think there is a chance there could be a consensus to stylise this article as "EVINE" then I'd be willing to consider reopening. Jenks24 (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing me to that discussion - that's interesting. It does seem some discussion happened there regarding the WP:TITLETM policy, but arguments about the all caps title satisfying common name failed because there were not a sufficiency of reliable sources dealing with the matter, which is fine of course. However, I would argue that the case of EVINE Live is different - the exception to TITLETM seems to apply here: "unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark". Do you disagree with that? Is it not clear that common usage in sources independent of the company use EVINE? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the last chunk of Ed's close covers that: "It's always puzzling when WP:COMMONNAME is used as an argument in a style discussion, since we go with Wikipedia style even if another style is more common. However, all MOS:TM is saying is, 'don't apply the Wikipedia downcasing to the name if the result will be a version of the name that nobody ever uses'. Obviously, people *do* use the lowercase style even if it may not be more common." There are sources that use "Evine", regardless of whether they are in the majority, so I think the where will be a consensus to move there. It was the same with Jira, where most (but not all) sources used the allcaps version. In any case, I will reopen the discussion even though I think there is very little chance an extra week will change the result. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Jenks. Let's see what happens then. I'm happy to accept the outcome if the consensus is still that way, although I think if so, we should consider rewording WP:TITLETM to indicate that we use our house style even if a majority of reliable sources use some other format, with the exception only applying if it is completely unheard of to use the alternative (for example iPad not Ipad). According to the current wording of TITLETM, I think my argument is correct. Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Archives Service Center, University Library System, University of Pittsburgh

This article has been renamed to its more descriptive and accurate title. You will find it now if you do a search. The references also contain the name of the archives and the references describe the distinction between the Archives and the rest of the Pitt library system. The secondary sources specifically mention this part of the library as a separate entity. An article for the University of Pittsburgh Library System will be drafted, then this article may be able to be merged with this future article about the libraries at Pitt, but until then, news coverage supports the treatment of this topic separately from the rest of the Library system. Please retain this article under its current and correct name. Best Regards,:Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Barbara. In case you were unaware, a new requested move has been opened at Talk:Archives Service Center, University Library System, University of Pittsburgh#Requested move 9 December 2015 and I would advise you to make your case again there – sometimes the reviewing admin will not realise to look at the section above the current requested move. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for letting me know about the discussion, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Nancy Cruikshank DYK hook

Jenks24, thanks for taking care of removing (commenting out) the hook earlier today. (And also to The Rambling Man, who participated in the discussion.)

I don't think we need to reopen the hook for further review: as it ran for over nine hours on the main page, it has had plenty of exposure; indeed, it got more than the eight hours hooks gets when we're running three DYK sets per day. We typically only reopen those hooks that get only a few hours or less before being pulled. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey BlueMoonset, thanks for this note. I was hoping someone with your sort of experience in this area would be able to make a call on whether it should be reopened, that's why I listed it at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed but didn't reopen the DYK nom. Your explanation here is appreciated, hopefully if another hook does have to be pulled in future I'll be able to decide whether the nom should be reopened myself. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Procedural point of closure

Hi, Im not neceseraly disputing the the move it was clear I was outdebated/voted by 3/1 but why was MrGRA Support not cancelled out. You are not allowed to vote support in something you have nominated. If you did notice should he not of been informed he shouldn't of done this. Blethering Scot 22:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I did notice that the nominator also voted support in that discussion, I simply treated that 'vote' as an additional comment from the nominator instead. There's generally no need to actually strike an 'extra' vote like that because any closing admin should be switched on enough to realise what's happened, especially in a case like this where there were only a handful of participants. If you'd like I can leave a note about this on MrGRA's talk page so they don't make the same mistake in future. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 11:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jenks24. You have new messages at Walter Görlitz's talk page.
Message added 16:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for responding with humility and grace. I lift a glass to you! Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Magic word support is missing

Hello. You have put a line in the support section of Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BethNaught. I suspect that the Cyberpower678/RfX Report doesn't take your support into account, since the magic word support is missing. Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Really? I'd be surprised because I often support RfAs without explicitly bolding a support and it's never caused a problem before. In fact, as of writing, there are 60 supports and User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report is also showing 60 supports. Jenks24 (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

HitnRun phase one

I did a Requested move as you suggested warpozio (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Your proposal sounds good. Jenks24 (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you approve or oppose please? I think per WP:MOS that the current title is not a recognizable name or description of the topic as there are two instances of Hit n Run (Prince album), the HitnRun album by Prince. warpozio (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I've made a comment there now. I was waiting so that I could close the discussion if required, but now another admin will make an assessment of the consensus in a week or so. Jenks24 (talk) 11:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Closed As Deleted, Kindly Recreate It

Hi, You recently deleted the page Anamika Mishra for which I shall request you to recreate it. The person is notable and stands upon the notability guidelines of wikipedia. Here are few sources that I would you to check. http://www.goodreads.com/anamikawrites http://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/pitching-for-change/article7877952.ece http://www.dnaindia.com/lifestyle/report-book-review-voicemates-is-old-wine-but-you-ll-still-like-it-2142111 http://cityplusepaper.jagran.com/551884/New-Ghaziabad/NCR-New-Ghaziabad-Ghaziabad_Vol-9_Issue-46_Date-26-July-2015-to-31-July-2015#page/6/1 http://www.easternchronicle.net/index.php?archive=24.07.2015&city=3# http://www.writersmelon.com/2015/11/penning-down-second-novel-voicemates.html http://www.smartindianwomen.com/an-interview-with-blogger-anamika-mishra/ http://www.socialtahelka.com/too-hard-to-handel-by-anamika-mishra/ http://www.indshare.com/meet-young-author-blogger-anamika-mishra/ http://www.viewsline.com/Interview.jsp?id=122438&/__Anamika_Mishra,_Author_of_bestselling_novel_Too_hard_to_handle/__Interview_With.html http://www.mindthenews.com/interview-with-anamika-mishra-author-voice-mates/ http://paper.hindustantimes.com/epaper/viewer.aspx http://www.sakaaltimes.com/Tiny.aspx?K=a1SMD http://www.millenniumpost.in/NewsContent.aspx?NID=48011 http://news89.com/anamika-mishra/ http://www.anamikamishra.com (official blog) https://www.facebook.com/anamikamishra.page/ (official facebook page) https://twitter.com/anamikawrites (official twitter) http://pilf.in/4th-sept-2015/ www.indianspeakerbureau.com/speaker_details.php?id=841&name=Anamika Mishra&titleAuthor - Blogger - Speaker

and there are more good sources present on web. I request you to know create this page.

Author Bio:

Anamika Mishra is an Indian novelist. She has written 2 novels including Too hard to handle (Gyan books, 2013) and VoiceMates (Jaico books, 2015). She is also a blogger and a motivational speaker. She holds a degree of masters in journalism and mass communication from Amity University.

She has delivered a talk along with bestselling authors Radha Krishnan Pillai and Mehrab Irani during the Pune International Literary fest. She is also an active member of People for Animals NGO and Indian Speakers Bureau. Her articles on lifestyle and relationships have been published in TOI, Woman’s Era etc. Anamika loves to travel and do photography. This is her second passion, after writing.

Kindly look into this matter. Thank You! Nancy8668 (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Nancy8668

Hello Nancy8668. I deleted that page because there was a clear consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anamika Mishra (which I see has been recently reaffirmed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anamika Mishra (Author)) that Mishra is not notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. To be notable on Wikipedia, a subject must have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Are you sure that all the sources you list here actually cover Mishra in depth and would be consider reliable by Wikipedia? Do these publications have editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking? Or are they self-published, which means they are definitely not reliable.

If you truly believe that she is notable (not in the general sense of the word, but by the Wikipedia definition) then your best course of action would probably be to create a draft page at Draft:Anamika Mishra. Write it as you would a proper Wikipedia page with references to reliable sources. Spend time on it so it looks good and demonstrates notability – look at other well-written Wikipedia pages for ideas on the style and formatting that is generally used. Once you are happy with it, start a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review requesting that your draft be transferred into the 'main' article space. When making your case at deletion review, the only reason you could use to contest the deletion would be "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page", so again it is very important that you get the sourcing right.

Lastly, you seem very close to the subject and I would recommend reading over our conflicts of interest guideline. If you have any sort of relationship with Anamika Mishra (business or personal) you should not be creating pages about her on Wikipedia. Jenks24 (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Jenks!

And may all your days be merry and bright . . . I hope your Aussie Christmas is warmer than ours in Atlanta. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

You know, I've heard that song so often but never actually watched a video of it. Merry Christmas to you, too, and at 35°C+ I'm sure it will be! All the best, Jenks24 (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

	The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
	Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Technical moves

Hi, Jenks24. Regarding this:

I read the instructions at RM/TR, which said:

• If any of the following apply to a desired move, treat it as potentially controversial:
  • There is an existing article (not just a redirect) at the target title;
  • There has been any past debate about the best title for the page;
  • Someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

These moves always come after a consensus is gained, which is gauged by the preponderance of expressions of support. Inherent in that process is the right of editors to oppose such a move. Who's to say that such opposition is not "reasonable"? Hence, it's pretty much always the case that "someone could reasonably disagree with the move". Hence, I've never used RM/TR.

Either a proposed move:

• can reasonably be argued against, in which case it would never fall within the ambit of RM/TR; or
• cannot reasonably be argued against, in which case there's no need to go through a process of gaining support for it.

We seem to be trying to answer to two masters here. Thoughts?

Merry Xmas.

Oh, and Go Pies.  :)-- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

A Collingwood supporter! No wonder you found difficulty with such simple instructions!

But seriously, I do understand that the instructions there aren't as clear as they could be. The intent of the instructions is to stop people listing moves at RM/TR when they actually think they will be objected to, but they are trying to "game the system" and get the article at their preferred title. I do understand your point that it is nearly always possible to imagine that someone could object to a move (especially on Wikipedia where it can feel like some people will object to anything).

I think the reason the wording was made a bit tighter ("someone could" as opposed to say "someone will") was because some people were abusing the process a bit and then trying to claim naivety as a defence. The idea is meant to be that if the chances of someone opposing is so unlikely that it feels like a waste of a week to go through the full RM process, then RM/TR should be used. The admins who monitor RM/TR generally have a pretty good feel for what sort of moves are likely to be opposed and if one of that sort is listed there, they won't action it but will instead start a discussion.

I'm not entirely sure about your second bullet point, "cannot reasonably be argued against, in which case there's no need to go through a process of gaining support for it". That is what RM/TR is for – by listing it there you are not really "gaining support" for it, you're just asking that an admin make the move by proxy because some moves (e.g. Sydney Crookshank) are impossible to do for non-admins.

If you can think of any way for the instructions to be clarified I'd be happy to hear it. I'm sure that myself and some of the others who are intimately familiar with the process are unable to objectively see how editors who rarely use the process see the instructions.

Hope you had a great Christmas, Jenks24 (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Circles (company) (December 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Circles (company) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey SwisterTwister. Thanks for the review, but I was just submitting on behalf of 174.130.242.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Could you please post another of these notices on their talk page? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Emilia Ramboldt

Thanks for your edit/close, I'm not sure why I didn't close the discussion. Happy Holidays. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem mate, happens to all of us. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move: Limitless

You closed a recent move discussion, and I appreciate your analysis in the matter. I just wanted to mention that Flyer22 was a little late to the party and had added another voice of opposition. Maybe it's too late and may not have changed your analysis, but I thought I'd point that out. Secondly. while there were 5 editors that supported the move as opposed to 1 "neutral leaning oppose" and 1 oppose, all the initial support came prior to the comments from Erik and myself and 3 of the 4 didn't even add any additional justification. In fact, one supporting editor only said, "seems pretty clear this move is going through" as their reasoning. Per WP:CON:

...consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight.

So I understand that the count was a little lopsided at first glance, but when taking the explanations into consideration, it seems the level of consensus is more in doubt. If we are truly treating so-called "polls" as "structured discussions", then I'm not sure I understand how this could have been clear enough to justify the move, considering the level of response to the opposition was minimal (only the nom commented). I'm not expecting this to change anything. I guess I'm just trying to get a better understanding of how the process works. Thanks in advance! --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi GoneIn60. I think I've seen you commenting recently at a few RMs and you contribute to the discussions well – if you'd be interested in becoming more active at RM I think it would be of benefit to the process. On to your points here, I did actually notice that Flyer22 commented after I'd closed the discussion. I don't normally take into account opinions given after the discussions has closed – after all, when assessing the discussion I can only judge on what's there – unless there has been very minimal activity, which was not the case here. The reasoning behind this, and I assume most other closers will say the same thing, is that it opens up a can of worms and allows gaming of the system (not that I think Flyer22 was trying to do that, but that's why it can't really be allowed).

"Consensus" in the Wikipedia sense is an interesting concept and I sometimes find it a bit slippery to explain (some admins articulate their thoughts on the consensus so articulately and clearly, but unfortunately I'm not one of them). Basically, although Wikipedia discussions are definitely not a vote count, number of votes does play a serious role in determining the consensus – the number of discussions that have had a 5–1 majority in favour (and the majority was not single-purpose accounts) and the closing admin didn't close in favour of the majority would be almost nonexistent. That, however, is not to say that RMs (or any Wikipedia discussions) are votes or that I head-counted in this case. But the number of votes is relevant.

On actually assessing the discussion, BarrelProof and Zarcadia made a strong argument that the film did not meet the usage criterion of primary topic. It is standard practice that "per nom" or "per X" votes are not discounted or given less weight, provided that whoever's comment they are endorsing is grounded in Wikipedia policy or guideline (i.e. a "quality argument"). I counted In ictu oculi's vote as an implicit per nom/above – I can understand that may not be explicitly clear, but he is a regular RM participant and it was apparent to me what he meant (we actually disagree a lot at RM, interestingly). A move review may see his comment as you do though, and that would be fair enough, so I should add that even if I discounted his vote completely I still think there would be a consensus to move.

Your oppose vote was good, although long-term significance is not inherently more important than usage – the two criteria are given equal footing. The problem with the long-term significance/educational value criterion is that is so subjective (this has been my gripe since it was introduced, it makes things difficult for closers). You have made a good argument for why you think the film is more significant long-term. BarrelProof has disagreed about that significance and Erik has sort of agreed but not strongly enough to make a vote and he notes "this significance is not that large". Even you yourself note in your last comment that it hard to make call on. For this reason I wrote in my close that the long-term significance was debatable, and therefore not clear-cut like the usage criterion is. On reviewing the discussion now, I stand by my decision at the time. One criterion clearly favours the move, one is debatable and subjective, combined with a clear majority in favour of the move and there is a consensus.

You'll note that I haven't addressed your comments about not having a dab at the base (i.e. undisambiguated) location because very few readers actually want to land at the dab page. While I think your arguments on that are fundamentally sound, and there have actually been RM discussions where I've voted in agreement with similar sentiments, it is not an opinion that is well backed by the guideline (or policy), which as your quote here notes means it is not something given particularly much weight.

So there it is, a rambling response no doubt. I hope that has answered some of your questions at least, but feel free to ask any follow-up questions. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the in-depth explanation. It definitely places the decision in more context and is much appreciated. I think ultimately the issue with many RM discussions is low participation, which is why I've decided to jump in when I find time. Is there any template notice that can be placed at the top of the article when a move discussion is taking place that you're aware of? In high traffic articles, it may be a good idea to have that option in order to draw in more participation. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely I would agree that low participation is an issue with a lot of RMs. There is a template to place on an article to inform readers of a RM discussion, but I can't find it for the life of me at the moment. Perhaps Template:Disputed title? (Wbm1058, can you think of a more appropriate template? I seem to recall there is one a bit similar to Template:Under discussion but specific to RM.) Additionally, you should always feel free to notify relevant Wikiprojects on their talk pages and Template:RM notification is a handy template for that. Jenks24 (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

We used to put the {{Movenotice}} template at the top of articles, but that populated a little-watched parallel universe of move proposals. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 11#Template:Movenotice. The current consensus is that routine move requests do not merit article-notifications, as this is insider stuff that most readers are not interested in. If a close is appealed to Wikipedia:Move review, then readers may be notified by {{mrv}} placed at the top of articles. We have about 35 pages tagged by one of four templates (see Category:Wikipedia title cleanup (sorted by template)) where there is generally a long-term dispute about the title which is generally not the subject of a current requested moves discussion. These templates notify readers at the top of the articles; see what populates the category to get an idea of the sort of articles that populate this little corner of Wikipedia. There is general agreement that low participation is an issue with a lot of RMs. I enhanced RMCD bot to notify talk pages of WikiProjects which aren't subscribed to Article Alerts and whose talk pages transclude templates beginning {{WikiProject of moves of interest, but I'm not sure that helped increase participation. I'm not sure tagging articles would make much difference either, as presumably those with the article on their watchlist already get notified when the talk page is updated by the RM, so a watchlist notice on the article would be redundant to that. However, I could probably enhance the bot to tag articles, if a consensus formed at WT:RM to do that. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I just remembered Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 28#Template:Inappropriate title-soft. See Template:Inappropriate title-soft and Template talk:Inappropriate title-soft. Another example of our problem with limited participation ;) I was thinking about putting that up for deletion; alternatively, the bot could routinely put it on articles (under a better name than "inappropriate") if there were a consensus for that. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Wbm. In general, I think that a notification at the top of the article does little harm. Readers who don't care will just ignore it and if it brings anyone to the discussion who doesn't have a clue about how Wikipedia titles articles then the closing admin can just ignore those comments. But of course to tag pages consistently (especially with a bot) there would need to be some sort of consensus for it. Jenks24 (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for the historical perspective and considering my concern. I also agree that a notice at the top of the page does little harm and is certainly not any more distracting than the various cleanup messages that are permitted (and often persist for long periods of time) already. In fact, looking at the discussion that resulted in the deletion of {{Movenotice}}, many editors in favor didn't seem to take into account the option of having a bot automatically add and remove the notice, ultimately suggested in the related Village pump conversation at the end. Such an automated action would eliminate many of the concerns raised about its potential harmful effects. Of course, it would be redundant in editors' watchlists, but it's reasonable to assume that in medium-to-high-traffic articles, other experienced editors who are not watching the page but land there would be more likely to participate in the RM as a result of seeing the notice. May be worth reconsidering in a new discussion at WT:RM. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: Thanks for the link to the VP discussion, as I didn't recall that. Unfortunately it's tedious to read through it because of one editor's use of {{gi}} to produce a wall of green text, so I appreciate the pointer to the suggestion of bot-notifications near the end. The idea that this might actually draw in readers to give their opinions if we specifically ask them to is interesting. You'll never know whether it will work if you never try it. FYI, here is what the old template looked like:

I'd probably suggest rewording that in a more reader-friendly manner, i.e. get rid of the cryptic "move" terminology and say something like "It has been proposed that the title of this article be changed to ___".

A variant of {{Inappropriate title-soft}} might be better. My notice about that template has been archived now, so probably best to initiate a discussion to resolve this question, before the topic gets forgotten again. Also note the archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 24 § Template:move notice. There was just one IP editor pushing the idea of bot-notices, so I didn't pursue it because of the lack of more widespread interest. My bot could easily post the notices, but they would be manually removed by either the closing admins or someone like me patrolling Category:Fulfilled page move requests. I'll try to put together a request for comment by early in the new year. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again for taking the time to revisit the issue and offering to initiate an RfC at some point. I'd offer to, but I think I'd be in a "winging it" kind of position and wouldn't have much to offer in the way of a solution. If there would be a way to create a bot or modify an existing one so that these notices are automatically removed when the RM is closed, we may want to consider that first prior to the RfC, as having that kind of feature added to the proposed solution may sway more interest in supporting it. Just a thought. Feel free to ping me when the RfC is started, and I'll be happy to comment. Thanks again! --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

If the bot could remove the notices I suppose that would be ideal, but even if it can't I don't think it would be too much trouble to add it to the lost of what a closer should do when they've closed an RM. A majority of RMs already require some sort of edit(s) to the article after they're closed anyway. Jenks24 (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Excellent point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

A unanimous RM

One of the RM discussions closed as "no consensus" by TheJack15 is now unanimous support, in case you'd like an easy case to close: Talk:An_Post-Chain_Reaction#Requested_move_22_December_2015. Dicklyon (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hah, got this message just as I was closing it, what a coincidence. Jenks24 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambig on Rebecca Ferguson

Hi there - Just a query. If the hat-note disambig from Rebecca Ferguson (singer) to Rebecca Ferguson (actress) is not valid, should not a similar disambig on the latter's page also be removed? Cheers Hogyn Lleol (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I'd only looked at the singer's page before. I've now removed the hatnote from the actress's article. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

James Chisholm (Senior)

Dear Jenks24

Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Chisholm_(banker)

First, thank you for accepting and editing my article on James Chisholm.

Title: I notice you have changed the title from James Chisholm (Senior) to James Chisholm (banker). This is neither correct nor appropriate. Although he was involved in the early history of the Bank of NSW, he was far more a merchant, political reformist, educator, landowner and pastoralist, than a banker. A more appropriate title would be "James Chisholm (merchant"). However, there is a significant reason for using the term James Chisholm (Senior). This is to distinguish him from his equally important son, James Chisholm (Junior), who was a politician and pastoralist. These titles (using "Senior" and "Junior") appear in all major sources and contemporary documents about these men. People familiar with their history would use these terms. Nevertheless, I would be happy to accept "James Chisholm (merchant)" if you would prefer. I would be most grateful if you could change this, as "James Chisholm (banker)" is misleading.

With thanks Chis Maxwell Chis Maxwell (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chis. I can understand your confusion, but it wasn't actually me who changed the title of the page – it was Epistemos (please feel free to weigh in here, Epistemos). Now that you're here though, we may as well try and resolve this. I agree with the general idea of Epistemos's move because using "(Senior)" is a very unusual (possibly never used) form of disambiguation on Wikipedia. Generally if people are known as Senior or Junior in that style their article title is "Joe Bloggs, Sr./Jr.", e.g. Gary Ablett, Sr. and Gary Ablett, Jr.. So my suggestion would be either for James Chisholm, Sr. or your alternative of James Chisholm (merchant), whichever you and Epistemos prefer. I'll be happy to make the move once we come to an agreement.

By the way, nice work on the article – it's great stuff, especially for your first. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I moved it- the bit in brackets is simply a disambiguation for people with the same name, and not a big deal. Senior is a term we rarely use, Junior is dabbed as (politician). (merchant), (pastoralist) would be fine. (Australian pioneer) may be better but we don't seem to use that one. I second the compliments above, clearly you are family but you have managed to avoid all the associated pitfalls and write a very respectable article Epistemos (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I would be happiest with James Chisholm (merchant). James Chisholm himself also used this term to describe himself. Many thanks Chis 58.111.140.55 (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Glad we were able to resolve this so quickly and amicably. Jenks24 (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Pomona (Manchester) Metrolink station move

BAD decision. We now have a disambiguated title that doesn't follow any of the standard naming formats (but instead seems to be a mish-mash of all of them), and won't work with {{MLstation}}. Useddenim (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. As I elaborated in my close, I also dislike the practice is using disambiguation basically in the middle of the title, but that's what WP:NCUKSTATIONS prescribes so that's what we have to live with for the moment. If you want to start a discussion about changing the titling practices for UK stations (or even just Manchester ones) you would have my support. As for the template, I see it has been fixed to deal with this move. Jenks24 (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You also didn't base your decision on the discussion that within the requested move, instead opted to follow your own heart. There was with no doubt no consensus to move, and the move should have closed that way. I'll give you a chance to review (or revert and leave it for someone else) your own close before I take this up for review. Jeni ^(talk) 10:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I've just re-read the discussion and I stand by my decision. Please read my closure to see that I did not base this on my own personal preference, as you've suggested here and at the talk page. I'd also remind you that on Wikipedia, assessing the consensus is based on the strength of argument, not the number of votes. But feel free to start a move review if you wish. Jenks24 (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Even someone who supported the move disagreed with your decision - surely when people on both sides of the argument disagree with you, that's a sign that you've made a poor decision? Jeni ^(talk) 10:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Some Gadget Geek did not comment on the RM at all. Perhaps you are confusing them with Epicgenius? Jenks24 (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

(Discuss) – Portobuffolè → Portobuffolé – we're 3 agreeing and 1 opposing after 2 weeks, an admin is needed to move pages entitled "Portobuffolè" to "Portobuffolé" both in English and in all other languages Wikis, please could you do it Jenks24? 151.20.118.9 (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello 151.20.118.9. I have looked over that discussion, but I haven't closed it because I'm recused from closing RMs that involve the addition or removal of diacritics and this RM could broadly fall under that banner. I hope there will be an admin willing to close that discussion soon, but remember consensus on Wikipedia (or at least en., not sure about other languages) is based more on the strength of argument in discussions, not just the vote count. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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.

MYS77 ^✉ 15:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Looking into this now but it might be a little while before you get a response, seems there is a bit of reading to do. Jenks24 (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Now replied. Jenks24 (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Feyli people and language dispute

Dear English Wikipedia administrator, Due to some ethnocentric efforts by some ambitious users beside pale presence of realistic users, the page Feyli people has converted to page Feyli Kurds. As you see in talk section of this page [1], the effort resulted in widespread resistance and confusion by other users especially in relation to their Lurish ethnicity and language identity. Recently very authentic citations and resources about this subject is appended to the main page and also there has been a Move Request to move the page from Feyli Kurds to Feyli people. Please review this request and help us to promote more precise and valid Wikipedia without ethnocentric and irrelevant subjects.--Shadegan (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Shadegan. In between you leaving me this message and me reading it, the discussion has been closed by Number 57. I agree with his decision that, with the discussion being open for several weeks, there was no consensus. When an admin reading over the discussion only sees two participants, one asserting one thing and another asserting the opposite, but neither with sources, then there is little that can be done except call it no consensus. And I'm afraid I don't have any knowledge of the subject area, so I cannot say whether you are right or wrong. I would suggest that if you try to rename the article in the future, you cite respected reliable sources sources (preferably in English) that clearly use the title you are arguing for. Also it can be useful to leave neutrally-worded notices that a discussion is ongoing at relevant Wikiprojects, e.g. in this case at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups, to try and increase participation, in particular from editors who may have some expertise but are still neutral about the particular issue. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)