User talk:Jenks24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to my talk page! A few notes that may be helpful to read before posting here:

  • I will reply here and will not ping you unless you request otherwise, so you may wish to watchlist this page.
  • If I've left you a message I will have watchlisted your page, so there's no need to leave me a {{talkback}}.
  • I prefer to keep conversations on Wikipedia, but you are free to email me. If you do, you should definitely leave me a note about it, as I rarely check my Wikipedia email account without first being prompted here.
  • If you do leave me a {{talkback}}, {{you've got mail}}, or similar, please remember to sign it so that it gets archived by the bot.
  • If you are following up on one of my admin actions please link the page or discussion in question as otherwise there is a fair chance I will not immediately know what you are talking about.
  • Click here to leave a message. Remember to sign your post using the four tildes (~~~~).

Close of Mother (video game)[edit]

I disagree with your close of the Mother RM. Multiple editors noted that every mention of the new release still primarily refer to the game as Mother. This announcement was a week ago, so there has been no time for sources to call it anything else. To say that the opposers missed this point is erroneous—it was repeated ad nauseam. – czar 12:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Mmmm, you're right to an extent, reading back over it you and another editor did make specific points about what it's being called post-name change. But the bulk of the oppose arguments seemed to be about what it was called in the past. And I disagree with your comment that a week isn't long enough for a common name to change, for an extreme example see Caitlyn Jenner. Regardless, I think the result, which is essentially "it's not moving now and it would be a good idea to revisit it in a few months" is the correct one. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think a week is categorically not long enough, but the point was that the new release's name did not become or try to become its common name in the span of the last week. I don't exactly think the "no consensus" part needs to change, but I would appreciate if your close rationale reflected our discussion. – czar 13:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
That's fair. I'm not sure if I was just in a bad mood or something, but reading over my original close it was overly harsh. I've added a note to my close, hope it's OK. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
No, I strongly disagree with closing the discussion way too early in the EarthBound Begginings Talkpage, it's just make it unfair to everyone in Wikipedia and plus, I think closing this serious discussion too early is really like taking away the supported user's freedom of speech. And also, I was going to give out an another reliable source that I found it yesterday about EarthBound Beggings to boost it up to give out more supports, but, can you might revert your edit in the EarthBound Beggingings talkpage and everyone can might have a fair way to help out to EarthBound Beggings?DigiPen92 (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi DigiPen92. RM discussions typically last for a week and this one actually went for eight days, so it's not as if I was closing the discussion early. It's my opinion, and still is having just had a re-read of the discussion, that leaving the discussion open longer would be extremely unlikely to result in a clear consensus, even if you had another source (or even several sources) to add. So I'm afraid I will leave the discussion closed. I want to make it clear that this doesn't mean the page can never be moved or that we can't discuss it again, just that it would be good to leave it for a few months before revisiting it. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about that, but, it's just still seems pretty unfair and it's pretty pointless and it doesn't make any sense to just close it a day after someone made the latest comment to the topic for the talkpage (no offense though).DigiPen92 (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
If I had thought that leaving the discussion open any longer would have resulted in a consensus, I honestly would have done that. But it seemed to me there was a very clear split that extra time wouldn't have resolved. And although the last comment was a day before the close, the last support was five days before – if anything, leaving it open longer would have likely moved it more towards "consensus against moving" territory. Jenks24 (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Close this technically messy move?[edit]

Please see Talk:Annuity (finance theory)#Requested move 13 June 2015. Though you left comments in the discussion, it seems that you aren't involved and you should still be free to carry out the technical steps. I was going to close it myself but that would be silly, because I don't know enough about the histories to do the steps the way you outlined. It seems that everyone agrees that the main article should be at Annuity, so in my opinion you can close it, if you are willing. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ed. Yeah, I've been thinking about closing that discussion, obviously there's a clear consensus about which article is the primary topic. The only problem is there's a bit of disagreement about what to do with the old history at Annuity – I've suggested one option and then two other users have suggested two separate ideas. I'm happy not to go with my original suggestion, do you think it would be supervoting if I just closed it and said we're going with Ivanvector's suggestion of what to do with the history because, reading over the discussion again, it seems to make the most sense? Jenks24 (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much...[edit]

...for your kind words of support over at my RfA. I hope that I may prove to be worthy of your trust. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Jenks24 (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Australian national soccer team[edit]

Change the Australian national soccer team back to australian national football team as that is its name according to fifa the world governing body — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.152.96.36 (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not my decision to make, you need to take it to the talk page (Talk:Australia national soccer team) and get a consensus. Note that Wikipedia places little store in the official names of things and instead prefers to title articles in accordance with its most common name in reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)