User talk:Jenks24/Archive 16

Page Delete
You deleted my page why — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guhuu (talk • contribs) 11:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I assume you're talking about JerryJAudio. I actually didn't delete it, did so you'll have to take it up with him. I only deleted the redirects to it after Sergecross73 had deleted the article. Jenks24 (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested moves
Hi there - thanks for your help with that requested move yesterday - I had a bit of a technical glitch with the close and then my laptop went flat - trying to give a hand with the backlog. Steven  Zhang  Help resolve disputes!  09:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No worries. I'm still not really sure why you moved it to instead of Royal Blood, though. Jenks24 (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess I saw Royal blood and Royal Blood as the same target/search term to Royal blood and thought Royal blood (disambiguation) was more standard, but with the hatnote on the Royal descent article pointing to Royal Blood, that makes more sense. Thanks. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes!  12:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK - gotcha. Thanks for helping out at RM, as you probably know it is perpetually backlogged and can always use help. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've done it in the past on and off, but there's a limit to the ones I can do, some of the new destinations already exist and I can't move them due to not being an admin, so I look at that first I guess. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes!  12:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I remember doing the same before I became an admin. Jenks24 (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Pmdtechnologies
Please clean up the messages on Pmdtechnologies. All I did was to correct the spelling of the company name to "all lowercase", but bots and admins turned the page into a total mess. Pmdwiki (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've removed the history merge tag, I completed that several days ago. Other than that, the other tags all look appropriate to be honest. Please read Conflict of interest, it's pretty apparent that you are in some way affiliated with the company. Jenks24 (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Kwamikagami's move at Tagalog
has made another mess of the Tagalog articles by moving them around. It appears that the most recent discussion was at here at Tagalog (disambiguation), which you closed with the result of the language article being left at Tagalog, as per the last relevant RM here, with the dab page at Tagalog (disambiguation). Kwami's moves have placed the language article at Tagalog language, and redirected the base name Tagalog to Tagalog (disambiguation). Would you mind cleaning this up?--Cúchullain t/ c 13:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * However this move discussion, which is the last one to have happened on Talk:Tagalog language, supports kwami's move. Please note how the move from "Tagalog language" → "Tagalog" was opposed by !voters. I do not recommend to simply revert kwami. I recommend, instead, to reopen that discussion again if you are not satisfied that the consensus was to not move the language article to "Tagalog". Khestwol (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For one thing, it doesn't support Kwami's move, in fact it was closed procedurally because the same discussion was already occurring at Talk:Tagalog (disambiguation). That's besides the question that Kwami's antics have left the base name Taglog redirecting to a disambiguated title, which shouldn't happen per WP:MALPLACED.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of this, Jenks.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Cuchullain is correct the most recent RM discussing moving Tagalog to Tagalog language was closed as no consensus, which defaults to not moved. I specifically stated in that close that another RM should be tried, so why Kwami has decided move warring is the way to go is beyond me. Cuchullain is also correct that the RM you are referring to, Khestwol, was closed as being a duplicate of the one I closed. I'm not sure how that can be misconstrued as a consensus to move. I've also move protected the article for 6 months, hopefully that will force people to use a discussion rather than move warring. Jenks24 (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Your move was a clear violation of consensus: First, the long-standing consensus before the disruptive move to Tagalog, and then the consensus to restore its consensus name. Move it back where it belongs. — kwami (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How about this: if you think the article should be moved, start an RM instead of move warring and creating unnecessary problems for all involved.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Kwamikagami, no it was enforcing the consensus decision of here. The only other RM on that page was procedurally closed because it was running parallel to another RM discussing the same issue and was only opened because you decided to move the article while it was in the middle of an RM discussion. Citing it as a consensus to support your move warring is patently ridiculous. The sad thing about all this is that if you had just waited for the process to work through rather than deciding to move war, the articles would likely be your preferred titles right now. Jenks24 (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Protection level of Edit fully-protected
After you raised the protection level of to, the protection level becomes inconsistent to the related module Module:Protected edit request and other protected edit request templates. It should regularly be in the same protection level as the other templates using the same Scribunto module.  Eye snore  20:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure exactly what you're asking me to do. My first instinct would be to up the protection level on the module if you think that the inconsistency will somehow cause a problem (do we have some sort of consensus or general understanding that a module's protection level should always match the template?). But on the specific case of, it should be more than semi-protected – it is a highly visible template and in addition to that it is generally used by editors who have passed the autoconfirmed threshold. Jenks24 (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Skip Bayless
Hello, I don't understand why you are deleting portions of Skip Bayless' entry on the basis of NPOV. The sections you are removing are not biased — they are factual and are properly sourced, so could you please explain your issue with them in more detail. I remember having a talk with you last year about the Personal fitness section — you wanted to remove it, but not because it was not neutral. His personal fitness regimen is a major element in his life, and therefore, appropriate to be included in his biographical information. His dedication to personal fitness is sometimes discussed on his TV show and has been included in multiple feature stories published about him. His schoolboy athletic background is also appropriate to include, not only because it was a big factor in him ultimately becoming a sports journalist, but because a lot of incorrect information has circulated on the internet — and in his Wiki entry — regarding his sports background. A year ago, I went to considerable effort to update Bayless' Wiki entry because it was rife with untrue and biased information posted by people who clearly don't like the man. Are you one of those people, someone who has a bias against him? I took great pains to include accurate, unbiased, and properly sourced information. At this point, there is nothing untrue or biased in the entry. I am journalist myself and know the difference. William D. Money (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi William. There are several problems with your edits. The first is don't make wholesale reverts to something you wrote a year ago. In the meantime, I and plenty of other editors have made gradual improvements the article, both for general readability and to comply with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. The bigger problem is that you aren't writing with a neutral point of view – you are writing as a fan ("ESPN2 hit show", "excelled as a schoolboy athlete", "excelled in the classroom as well", "prestigious Grantland Rice Scholarship", etc.) and editorialising. Wikipedia is written in a neutral tone, we do not take positions or make judgements. Simply report the facts and let the readers make their own judgements. The other thing about NPOV you need to keep in mind is undue weight – think about most articles written about Bayless and how many of them cover things like his personal fitness? I am not saying it is not worth some sort of mention, but to give it as much prose as the "Television" section is clearly ridiculous. Not to mention that the clear consensus on the talk page, in a discussion that I was not involved with, was that it was excessive. The sourcing clearly only supports a fraction of what you've written, too. You need to take your opinion to the talk page of the article and try to find a consensus to have that information included. I'm going to undo your latest edit to the article once I've finished this response for the reasons I've elaborated on above. Jenks24 (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Jenks24, to say someone excelled when they did excel is not a nonneutral statement. It is an accurate descriptive statement. When someone is selected athlete of the year, that means they excelled. When they finish their high school career as salutatorian, that means they excelled. There is absolutely no question that Skip Bayless is the star of First Take along with Stephen A. Smith. That is a fact, but clearly a fact that you don't like. Not liking a fact is not justification for the changes you are making. I have no issue with you correcting for style, but you are making wholesale deletions that are unwarranted. You are obviously don't like Bayless, and are making your changes on that basis. That's not right. William D. Money (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Bah, you know what? Have your biased, crap article that reads like it was written by Bayless himself. I have better things to be doing with my time than trying to talk sense and Wikipedia policies to someone who is clearly only interested in promoting someone. I only had the article on my watchlist because people kept vandalising it and overemphasising that he scored 3 points a game in his senior year or whatever it was. Now it's almost worse because it reads as if the man is a saint who can do no wrong and has "excelled" at everything in his entire life. I honestly couldn't care less, I've never even seen this supposed hit show that he's on. Jenks24 (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Jenks24, it's not biased and it's not crap, but your last comment reveals your own bias, as I had already suggested. There is nothing in Bayless' entry that is not a fact. You acknowledge you have never even seen First Take, yet you want to argue that Bayless is not the star of the show. Surely you can see how ridiculous that is. And I have no interest in promoting Bayless — I'm not his agent. My only interest is in having his Wiki entry be accurate. You seem to resent that the man has excelled in his life, but that is indeed what he has done. He excelled as an amateur athlete. He excelled as student. He excelled as a sports journalist and columnist, winning many awards for his work. And now for more than a decade, he has excelled as the cohost of First Take, which is the highest-rated program on any of the ESPN networks. Those are all legitimate facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William D. Money (talk • contribs) 16:00, 28 July 2015‎ (UTC)

The Oval
Thank you, Jenks. You're a star. We can have a proper discussion now. Jack | talk page 06:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. I've closed the current discussion but would expect a new (clean) one to start shortly. Jenks24 (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Unmoved articles after NAC closes of RM's
Hello Jenks24! At least two articles that had been in the RM queue – e.g. Talk:List of alumni of Creighton University and Talk:The beast (Revelation) – were recently NAC closed as "Move", but have still not been moved, in the former case now several days later. I mentioned this issue at User talk:Fuhghettaboutit (here) but I believe he's busy with a project right now. Just so you know... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I moved one and the other was moved about 15 minutes earlier. To respond a bit to your query on Fuhghettaboutit's talk, although Armbrust cannot move the articles, he had tagged the redirects for speedy deletion under G6. The problem is CAT:CSD has been pretty backlogged of late and it has taken several days for the deletions to be made in some cases. Once the deletions are made he is usually very quick to move the articles, for example the Creighton University articles you've mentioned above were moved after about half an hour.
 * On the broader topic of whether non-admins should close RMs as moved, by the letter of the law it probably does violate BADNAC and when I was making NACs at RM I avoided those types of closes. On the other hand, Armbrust has been making closes like this at RM for years now (since at least 2012 I think, possibly further back) and I can't recall any issues arising from it. When you consider RM is perpetually in backlog as well, it seems a bit churlish to knock back any sort of help. So, while I would generally not recommend these types of NACs, I don't think we gain much, if anything, by asking Armbrust not to make them.
 * That all said, Fuhghettaboutit has impeccable judgement and has been around the traps for far longer than me, so if his response is along the lines of "yeah, he should stop doing that" I'll probably jump onboard that bandwagon. Jenks24 (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jenks24, thanks for the thoughtful response. I appreciate it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Kia listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kia. Since you had some involvement with the Kia redirect (the move discussion), you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thx
Thanks for the history merge at WP:Don't be high maintenance. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, it was no bother. Jenks24 (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Like a Virgin (song)
I started a move request, which is ongoing. --George Ho (talk) 07:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thoughtless !votes
Will you please keep your distaste for template moves to yourself in the future? A provocative comment with nothing to offer and no basis in fact. Alakzi (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not thoughtless, I assure you, it's a conclusion I've come to over a long period of time seeing templates at RM. They clog up RM for no tangible benefit – as they are used by editors and not readers they do not need to be precisely named. That said, I agree that particular vote by doesn't offer much, either in terms of adding to the discussion or helping a closer make a decision, and in future I will endeavour to provide more of a rationale. Jenks24 (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realised any benefit to editors is not tangible benefit. An intuitive interface is ultimately to the benefit of our readership. Alakzi (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your position, but suffice to say I don't agree with it. Jenks24 (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed you NAC'd it, too. Not a great call to be honest, you might want to have a re-read of WP:RMNAC, in particular the parts about consensus needing to be clear and that "Any editor wishing to express an opinion on the requested move should join the discussion, not close it." Jenks24 (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't buy into any of the NAC prejudice. Furthermore, I did not express an opinion, but simply discounted the !votes which were bogus, as per WP:CON. Alakzi (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I sort of get where you're coming from about "NAC prejudice", I'm actually a fan of NACs at RM usually – the place is backlogged and needs help (and I actually used to perform them a lot for whatever that's worth). But being realistic, that close of yours would not hold up at a review, probably even if you were an admin. I realise the difficulty in trying to be completely impartial, but in this discussion you've just discarded the opinions you disagree with and essentially supervoted – sure my vote was pretty crap, but the others had completely legitimate reasons for opposing that couldn't be completely disregarded as "bogus". That all said, I was glad to see the MRV was withdrawn. We don't need to spend another month on this triviality. Jenks24 (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, besides your not-not-vote, we've had an "if it ain't broke don't fix it", the assertion that the template name should match the section heading, which, though not completely meritless from a usability standpoint, is secondary to clarity within the Template: namespace (by extension of WP:LOCALCON), and - finally - an appeal to WP:OSE. I find the supervote accusation to be rather weak. On a different note, it's a little silly that nobody objects to non-admins closing convoluted RfCs, but RMs and XfDs with really superficial arguments are somehow an issue. Alakzi (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See, things like "is secondary to clarity within the Template: namespace" really read a lot more like your personal opinion than an assessment of the arguments. Additionally, OSE is a poor argument at AfD no doubt (and probably other XfDs), but it is actually a good argument at RM – consistency being highly desirable. On your other note, I agree it is a bit strange and actually quite interesting. Possibly it's because of the way the different processes have developed, with the majority of RfCs only really having formal closures in the last couple of years while RM/XfD have obviously been around a lot longer. The ever-declining number of active admins is probably also playing into it. To change course again, I see someone has reverted your close which is disappointing – even if they disagree with it, there are clear avenues for review and move warring doesn't help anyone. That is a clear case of the "NAC prejudice" you mention above. Jenks24 (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See, things like ... Though it is a judgment call, it is reinforced by policy, and therefore within the purview of the closer. Additionally, OSE ... Consistency is excellent when it's not transparently prejudicial; to argue that the title should be kept ambiguous by virtue of the fact that "Infobox settlement" is also ambiguous is pure nonsense. It is - indeed - unfortunate that it's been reverted, but a template move probably ain't worth getting my knickers in a knot. Alakzi (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, I get your opinion, but I don't think I can agree with it. I'm not convinced that it is reinforced by policy but rather an interpretation thereof. And you've picked apart the weakest of AL's examples. Again, it feels to me more like something that should be a vote rather than a close, though I do appreciate the difficulty of the more you try and defend a close the more you can come across that way (happens to me at least). I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this one? And just to add, I genuinely hope this doesn't put you off making closes at RM. Having seen you around at various places, you obviously have a good grasp what closing discussions is about. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've now commented at the RM, so I guess we're back at square one. Thanks for the encouragement. Alakzi (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Jenks24 on this. It mires RM in proceduralist trivia. Perhaps at WP:VPPRO it should proposed that template renames be handled at WP:TFD (the D in which stands for "discussion" not "deletion"). This would be a normal and routine procedural change, in keeping with how category renames are handled at WP:CFD and stub renames at WP:WSS/P (or at WP:CFD if they'll also affect the stubcat).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I've closed quite a few RMs today and yesterday, relisted  several others, and commented on one. Since I'm quite new to this, I wonder if you might have any feedback. If it's too much work, then no worries. Alakzi (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, happy to:
 * WikiProject First aid: Good call, though I voted there so I'm not impartial.
 * Reception (gridiron football): Reasonable decision, it was a tricky case. I'd probably have called it no consensus and suggested similarly that it be handled case by case, but I don't think your decision was incorrect. I notice that BU Rob13 seems to have taken it upon himself to blanket move all the articles listed there (I think, didn't check all of them), citing your close as consensus, but that's not your fault.
 * Guinea-Bissau passport: Good call.
 * Ceres (dwarf planet) in fiction: Good call. As an aside, it's generally worth creating other proposed titles as redirects unless they're proven to be completely incorrect (in this case I just created ).
 * Arete: Good decision, but you should have also noted in your close that you moved the dab page to the base location and stated there was a consensus for it.
 * Relists all seem good.
 * Good to comment at Six Nations rather than just action it as moved because it hadn't been opposed for a week.
 * Overall, really good. A couple of things that just come with experience, but definitely nothing wrong or that needs to be fixed. You might need to follow up with BU Rob13 about the gridiron football moves, but that's about it – and any RM that's been sitting at the very bottom of the RM backlog is nearly always going to have some complications. Jenks24 (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice - much appreciated. I'll try to stick around; these are usually a lot more interesting to close than TfDs. Alakzi (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Required notice; I quoted one or more of your diffs, and you're one of the closers
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding incivility and related user behaviors. The thread is Threats, aspersion-casting, etc. by Doc9871.The discussion is about the topic DIVA. Thank you. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why you reverted my comment.
Was asked to make a comment about the notice by Bishonen. Not sure why you reverted it? Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the diff. You removed about 12,000 bytes and completely altered the entire page, I'm sure by accident. Were you perhaps editing an old version of the page's history? Jenks24 (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure how that happened, didn't intend to change anything, it was by accident. Accessed the page from the link on my talk page. Was just posting my comment.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, it happens. Bear with me a minute and I'll un-archive the original discussion and add your comment to it. Jenks24 (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, done. See Administrators' noticeboard/Archive273. Jenks24 (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Appomattox Court House
I thought it was settled, per Talk discussion. However that apparently has been overwritten and redirected = which will cause the same problems we have had for years. This redirect will cause the same problem of confusion for some years into the future. What do we do?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the consensus was definitely to turn it into a sort of WP:CONCEPTDAB, as outlined in the section above the RM. I should have noted that in my closure (I can add a clarifying comment there if you'd like). We just need someone to write the new page at – in the meantime it doesn't really matter which article it redirects to. Jenks24 (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Third item added Look it over and see if it looks logical to you. Thanks!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me. I gave it a small tidy-up so it follows MOS:DAB. Jenks24 (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film)
Hello Jenks24! You moved draft to Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film) on my request, and you just reverted all the previous deleted edits. Can you please revert those, and move the article back to draft as it was earlier? I mean delete the edits which were deleted before. The new article was started by me on July 11, 2014. It'd be great if you can do it, please, or just revert it as it was before you moved. Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 14:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. Yes, I deliberately undeleted the history from when it was initially created to when you had deleted in 2014 for a G6 move and the edits between then and now that didn't overlap. It most accurately shows how the article developed. I'm unsure what you're asking here, do you want it back in draftspace? If so, why? Jenks24 (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it's just look unfair, because I started the article and worked hard on it. Just requesting to revert if you can. If you think what's done is better than okay, I've no argue with you (as an admin you're experienced here). Thank you. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll reply more fully at Czar's talk page if that's OK, rather than keeping the discussion split (my fault for commenting over there in the first place). Jenks24 (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever you find appropriate and best. I'll be 100% agreeable with you. I just feel a little tense when I found reverted deleted edits. It's okay now. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please comment back on discussion area, and I think it would be great if you think on that. And after reading your comment, I'm hopeful. Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 01:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Adelie penguin
Hello, I saw that you had deleted a few days ago with the edit summary "G6: Deleted to make room for an uncontroversial page move". It is still deleted but looks to me like that should be a redirect to Adélie penguin with the R from title without diacritics tag. Is there any reason I shouldn't do that? It does have dozens of links to it. Thanks, SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   05:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It was deleted because an editor made a reasonable G6 request for it, saying they would move the Adelie penguin article to that title. However, since I've deleted the page they haven't moved it and have continued editing elsewhere, so I've restored the redirect. You should be able to see all this now in the history, hope it makes sense. Thanks again, Jenks24 (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Keep up the good work.  SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   15:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Article naming question...
Hello Jenks24! As someone who does a lot of RMs, I figure you're also pretty darn knowledgeable about "proper" Article titles, and so I thought that you might be able to help me with an issue I'm wrestling with...

I'm going to shortly create an article based on what is currently in my Sandbox. It'll be the third in a series, along with List of United States House of Representatives elections, 1789–1822 and List of United States House of Representatives elections, 1824–54.

Now, here's the question – I was originally going to title the new article List of United States House of Representatives elections, 1856–present, but I got thinking that the "...1856–present" part of that prospective article title might be problematic. I took at quick look at WP:AT, and didn't see any specific prohibition on this. But, in worrying about this, I came up with an alternate title: List of United States House of Representatives elections from 1856.

So, my question is this – is there anything particularly "wrong" or "undesirable" about the first title? Or, is it "OK", and possibly even "preferable" (considering the other two articles in the series).

Thanks in advance for any thoughts you can provide on this! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. Interesting question. There's definitely nothing wrong with the first title, in fact if you look through this search you'll see we have plenty of articles that have "–present" in the title (there's also some unrelated stuff, couldn't refine it as well as I would have liked). Generally at RM I see that format used for wars/conflicts that are ongoing, but there are certainly other cases as the search shows. That said, I do think the alternate title does read more naturally, though as you note it does lose the consistency with the other articles somewhat. Basically, both titles would be fine and I can't imagine anyone objecting to either of them, so I'd assume whichever one you pick will stick. Not sure if that helps you at all! Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it helps a lot. I am leaning towards the first one, especially after scrolling through your search, and seeing that titles like that are already in use... In terms of the second one, I realized that List of United States House of Representatives elections since 1856 would probably a better choice... In any case, I haven't made a final decision yet, but I am leaning towards the first one. Thanks again! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, glad I was some help. Jenks24 (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Changan Automobile
Why would you dismiss my argument and then move the article? --George Ho (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought your argument was weak because you actually seemed to agree the proposed title was the common name (and official name). How can the name of a company be incorrect, when it is what the company calls itself (in addition to being the common name in RS)? If you are worried about pronunciation, you could possibly add some IPA to the lead (see Manual of Style/Pronunciation for more info). As always, you may review my closures at WP:MRV. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding closed requested move 14 August 2015, Rasgulla → Rosogolla.
An attempt to resolve relevant issues with the closer Jenks24 (talk) regarding “Requested move 14 August 2015” Rasgulla → Rosogolla. The result of the move request was "not moved".

The Wikipedia correctly described my issue, “The close was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines, and was not reasonable.”

The closer Jenks24 was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the RM: The argument of the requester is too long, therefore, the requester summarized his argument given below that will clearly reflect how the move discussion was purely based on un-reasonability. Besides that, the closer Jenks24 should have focused on the move discussion that clearly indicates a rough consensus, and considering the strength of the argument the requester has made, the RM should be reopened and re-listed.

Also, the closer Jenks24 did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because he should have focused on the following matters before closing the move request. That the article Rosogolla was not a proposed deletion, but a speedy deletion bypassing a discussion even when there were practical chances of surviving a discussion, in closing this requested move.

Summarized: The requested move would benefit the wider community.

Since, Wikipedia is not a dictionary but an encyclopedia, therefore, the content and title name of an article there, necessarily needs to be encyclopedic, not as in the case of dictionaries. The naming of the sweet cannot straightforwardly choose as Rasgulla. However, the naming in Wikipedia appears to be followed only the Oxford dictionaries, as an anglicize name loaned from a foreign country. But the name obviously misspelled there, as the dictionary mentions rasgullā originates in Hindi – so the name to be disambiguated to avoid confusion with Rosogolla for the reasons many reliable English-language sources mentions the sweet name Rosogolla, The Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets describes Rosogolla is primarily associated with West Bengal, then Bengal in British India. The fact establishes the origin of the sweet is in Bengal - a part of greater India, not Hindi, in Bengal the sweet is called Rosogolla since its initial usage. Nevertheless, here rises a question, whether Wikipedia must stick to its current naming when the naming is misleading or inaccurate.

As per description of Wikipedia, the naming the sweet should be seen as goals, not as rules. Whereas, considering the deleted article Rosogolla's naturalness, consistency, prevalence in many reliable English-language sources, as well as its usage around 250 million Bengali people in Bangladesh, West Bengal, other states in India and world over, the name Rosogolla has come into majority use. The Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets highlights Rosogolla, and describes often-spelled Rasgulla, it is a very new edition published in the United Kingdom and the US. The name Rosogolla has been preferred in several publications in United Kingdom and the US. Some of these books are (1) Milk - Beyond the Dairy: Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food... by Harlan Walke, Page 58. (2) Strategic Management: Formulation, Implementation and Control, by PEARCE, Page 179. (3) Food Culture in India, by Colleen Taylor Sen.

There are too many reliable English sources in United Kingdom and the US those mention the sweet as Rosogolla. A confusing entry in the Oxford dictionaries cannot really overlook Rosogolla’s merit as a title name from the reliable English-language sources.

Therefore, my goal is to move the article Rasgulla to Rosogolla and the move would benefit a wider community.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I stand by my decision that the consensus of that discussion was that "Rasgulla" is the common name. You may seek a review of my closure at WP:MRV, but I feel I should tell you I think it would be very unlikely to be successful. I'd also recommend having a read of WP:TLDR and consider trying to condense your arguments. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Move review for Rasgulla
An editor has asked for a Move review of Rasgulla. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joe Wilson (Australian footballer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Northern Tasmanian Football Association. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. Jenks24 (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Communist Party (Great Britain)
Any thoughts? After the discussion, the article owner has simply moved it back to where he knows it ought to be. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Reverted and move-protected for three months. Don't think anything more is necessary unless they have a pattern of doing this across multiple articles. Jenks24 (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Move review for Communist Party (Great Britain)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Communist Party (Great Britain). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Garageland66 (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Noted. Jenks24 (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

What defines a user as an article owner? The return to the old name does not make sense. This organisation does not use the of Britain anymore and Britain is inaccurate in contrast to Great Britain. The talk page resulted in NO consensus for Britain indeed the arguments for Great Britain were more common and clearly more convincing. As a keen observer of the British left it is self-evidentlly a backward step for the 'owner' of this page to fly in the face of recent history and the compelling arguments to keep the page at Communist Party (Great Britain). (Garageland66 (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC))
 * I could give you a spiel about ownership, but Ownership of content explains it pretty well – I'd recommend reading that. To be clear, while there was no consensus for the proposed title of "Communist Party (Britain)", there was also no consensus for the title that it had recently been moved to, "Communist Party (Great Britain)". So, as is the standard practice for no consensus decisions as outlined at WP:AT and WP:CONSENSUS, we default to the long-term stable title, which was "Communist Party of Britain" having been at that title uncontroversially from creation in August 2003 until June 2015. Jenks24 (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)