User talk:Jenks24/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Proposed deletion of Cameron Bancroft (disambiguation)

The article Cameron Bancroft (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:TWODABS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Maung Maung Ta Haj" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Maung Maung Ta Haj has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 12 § Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Maung Maung Ta Haj until a consensus is reached.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

"Northern Ireland language in Northern Ireland" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Northern Ireland language in Northern Ireland has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 12 § Northern Ireland language in Northern Ireland until a consensus is reached. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 22:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

shamim71

123@@@@@ron 157.119.237.3 (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Jenks24. Thank you for your work on Eddie Fox (footballer). User:Tails Wx, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Reviewing; good work on the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Tails Wx}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Tails Wx 02:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Protected redirect

The redirect from a page move at Template:Special characters is fully-protected, and its target is template-protected. As the protecting admin could you please lower the protection level for the redirect so that template editors can categorize it? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Would if I could but I'm no longer an admin. And as I'm typing this I can see that the protection level has been reduced per a request at RFPP. Jenks24 (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Welcome back

It makes me very happy to see you around again. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Joe, much appreciated. Jenks24 (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Could you please expand David Poltorak with additional references and further copy edit?

Hey @Jenks24, could you please expand David Poltorak with additional references and further copy edit? I expect you search on the National Library of Australia's Trove to find additional references. I tried to improve the article earlier today. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 06:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello. It's nice of you to reach out but to be completely honest, this is not something I have the time or inclination to do. Nor do I think Trove would be of significant help in this case due to the timeframe the subject of the article has been notable. I would suggest that if you search on Newspapers.com which you can access for free via the Wikipedia Library you should be able to find some good sources for the article. If you need any help with how to do this please let me know – I have only recently discovered how to access it myself. Jenks24 (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I have just listed the article on WP:AFD, to see if anyone finds references on the deletion discussion, so they can overcome its potential deletion. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 06:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Did you search for references before tasking it to AFD? I mentioned above about using Newspapers.com via the Wikipedia Library. Jenks24 (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I did exactly what you said, but did not add the references until half a hour ago.

These are the references that I added to the article:

1. Oliver, Robin (30 September 1991). "Quiz champ sold on Sale". The Sydney Morning Herald. p. 56. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Newspapers.com.
2. Potts, John (20 November 1986). "Quiz King's party for hipsters and the arty". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 20 October 2023 – via Newspapers.com.
3. Webber, John (24 March 2001). "David Poltorak: Won $376,000 in cash and prizes". The Sydney Morning Herald. p. 356. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Newspapers.com.
4. Cockington, James (17 June 1996). "Sold on the Sale". The Sydney Morning Herald. p. 58. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Newspapers.com.

Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 22:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Well done, the article is much improved. Jenks24 (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:First Chimurenga

Sorry, but how is this not a supervote? Clearly no consensus to move. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Those in support had significantly stronger arguments that were backed by policy and evidence. Those in opposition had neither. As you would be aware, evaluating consensus on Wikipedia is not about the number of votes (which I noted in my close were split) but is based on the strength of argument by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Jenks24 (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Move review for First Chimurenga

An editor has asked for a Move review of First Chimurenga. 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. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Noted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

RM closing for Vijayawada Airport

Hi @Jenks24, I'm here to request reevaluation of the recent Requested Move (RM) closure pertaining to the Talk:Vijayawada Airport on 10:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC). The RM was closed as no consensus due to equal support on both cases. In the course of the discussion, the opposing viewpoint primarily cited the IATA website as their source for the airport's name. In presenting my case, I furnished multiple authoritative sources, including official website of AAI, official tender documents for various facilities within the airport such as Snacks Bar, MEC,  CISF Accomodation & Fire Alarm & Detection System all of which consistently refer to the airport as Vijayawada International Airport. Additionally, a substantial majority of the news articles from 175 hits & 90 hits (published between September 29, 2020, and September 29, 2023) also refer to the airport as Vijayawada International Airport.

IATA database which was cited as a source by the opposing is not without flaws, as evidenced by inaccuracies in the listing of other airport names such as Changi Airport as Metropolitan Area Airport, Frankfurt Airport as Frankfurt International Airport, Manohar International Airport as Mopa Airport, Kherson International Airport as Kherson Airport, Krasnoyarsk International Airport as  Krasnoyarsk Airport and Flanders International Airport as Wevelgem Airport to name a few. I have highlighted this discrepancy in subsequent comments during the discussion. Could you please conduct a reevaluation of the closure and, if deemed appropriate, consider relisting for additional discussion. Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.. — SMorphius (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry it's taken me a couple of days to get back to you on this. To be honest, in the discussion I felt too much effort was expended on both sides to figure out what the official name is when that is largely irrelevant to Wikipedia's article titles policy – what is important is the most common name in reliable sources. On that topic, I think it could be argued that your comments were slightly stronger as they went into an analysis of the search results that seemed at first glance to be in favour of the current name. But I did not think they were so much stronger as to constitute a consensus in a 2–2 voting split when both sides had some reasonable arguments.

I did not elect to relist as the discussion had already been open for over a month and had already been relisted (and the last relist did not bring any new participants to the discussion). I thought (and continue to think) that leaving the discussion open for another week+ is unlikely to result in a consensus being formed in either direction, hence the closure as no consensus. If having read all this you still think I've made the wrong call, I can re-open the discussion and let someone else close it, but I would not be supportive of a relist – I would want to leave it in the backlog for someone else to close. Jenks24 (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jenks24, Thank you for your insightful response. I appreciate your clear perspective on the matter. My goal is to develop and consistently update the article with the latest information. However, I've encountered a challenge, an ongoing edit war related to the page title has surfaced in the history log.

This edit war has the potential to disrupt the addition of relevant information to the article. To address this issue, I delved deeper into the matter, leading to the initiation of the current Request for Move (RM). Upon opening the RM, I discovered that very few individuals are actively monitoring this page, and most of them are not actively participating in the ongoing discussion.

Your observation regarding the relisting is valid; it may not attract new participants to the ongoing discussion. Opening another RM to address this issue doesn't seem like a better option either. As someone new to this environment I'd really appreciate your insights and advice on this. — SMorphius (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

My advice would be this. I think you have clearly demonstrated your proposed title is the official name of the airport. You could update the lead of the article to say e.g. "Vijayawada Airport, officially known as Vijayawada International Airport, ...". On actually getting the article moved to your proposed title, my suggestion would honestly be to wait three (or more) months and try starting a new RM discussion (I generally suggest people wait six months but in your case due to the limited participation I think three would be fine). It can be frustrating to have an article at a title that you think is incorrect but sometimes the best thing you can do to achieve the outcome you want is to wait and try again. If you do that, my suggestion would be when starting a new RM try and explain succinctly in the nomination why your proposed title is the most common name in reliable sources and you can leave neutrally worded notices about the discussion at the India and Aviation WikiProjects in order to try and get more participants in the discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Jenks24, I can't thank you enough for your invaluable advice. Your insights have provided clarity, and I'm truly grateful. Following your guidance, I'll update the article lead to 'Vijayawada Airport, officially known as Vijayawada International Airport.' Additionally, I plan to wait for the recommended 3 to 6 months before initiating another RM discussion, as you suggested. Your recommendation to leave neutrally worded notices at the India and Aviation WikiProjects is duly noted. I'm eager to encourage more engagement.

Would it be appropriate to reference this discussion in the edit note as a precautionary measure to prevent potential conflicts when I update the article lead?. Thank you once again for your thoughtful and informative input. — SMorphius (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. And yes, I'm fine if you want to reference this discussion when updating the article lead. Jenks24 (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Jenks24. — SMorphius (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)