Talk:Evan Jenkins (politician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 2014[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Clearly no agreement on whether he is the primary topic. Number 57 11:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Jenkins (politician) → Evan Jenkins – This is the page of the most commonly sought "Evan Jenkins", as evidenced by page views. Epeefleche (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. This Evan Jenkins had 2083 hits in the last 90 days, nearly ten times as many as the footballer with 210. The other entry, Evan Meredith Jenkins does not require disambiguation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC) (he needs support)[reply]

  • Oppose Due to WP:Recentism caused by the current election. Before the subject became a candidate, page views were not indicative of a primary topic, with all pages getting around 50-80 hits a month, varying in which was higher. It was not until the candidacy was announced that the spike was changed. If he is elected, I think it will be likely that he would remain the continual primary topic, but as of now our concern is with longterm notability, which cannot be clearly determined. The colonial governor, although at a page that includes his middle name, cannot be dismissed in these calculations because "Evan Jenkins" remains a plausible search term for him due to its use in reliable sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a bald assertion, not backed by facts. Check the 30-day page views one year prior to the ones indicated by User:Ritchie333 above. This Evan Jenkins had 284 hits in those 30 days, seven times as many as the footballer with 40. There's no recentism issue here. Epeefleche (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it's supported by facts. He announced his campaign last July and the link you gave was from October. I'm not sure why you would point that out. Go check out June.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the past 15 months, the politician has beem the most commonly sought "Evan Jenkins", as evidenced by page views. By a very wide margin. Each month. A multiple of the other fellows views. Looking back not just over the recent past, but further --- over 15 months ago -- the number looking for each was typically within 30 views, for each. The person most likely to be looked for - today - is clearly the politician. By a 10-1 margin. 2,532 views in the past 90 days. To 235 views for the footballer -- who last played 80 years ago, and died a quarter of a century ago. And is unlikely therefore, unlike the politician, to be creating any new news. Epeefleche (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Yaskar. I find it very hard to believe this politician is primary over the man who oversaw half of the partition of India, even though the latter has a nearly blank article. —innotata 03:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion is between the living politician, on the one hand, and the footballer who stoppled playing football 80 years ago, and died in 1990. Epeefleche (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The governor is also referred to as Evan Jenkins in reliable sources, and Meredith was merely his middle name. In other words, he's not a partial title match. If there were only two people of this name, the move would make sense, but there are not. —innotata 04:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Ritchie above, on this point. But in any event, this is about who people are looking for. Maybe people should be looking for the governor in larger numbers, if teachers were teaching about him. But readers seem just mildly more interested in him than they are in the fellow who stopped playing football 80 years ago. 292 views in the last 90 days (versus 2,532) ... they are 8.6 times more likely to be looking for the living fellow. Epeefleche (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's wrong, disambiguation is required; WP:PRIMARY refers to usage and long-term significance. —innotata 04:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's true. A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. That is the case here. Both today. A year ago. And, as this fellow is alive and still creating news, likely a year hence. As to whether it will have greater long-term significance, in terms of substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term, its probably hard to say (though the football player won't). It would be difficult to crystal ball that the fellow born in the 1800s will suddenly be of great enduring notability and educational value. If you are certain of it, we may disagree. But I fall back to Richie's point in any event. But I'm also glad we agree as to the deceased footballer.Epeefleche (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move review[edit]

The name of this page is under move review, here. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 January 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. EdJohnston (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{requested move/dated}}

– This (the US Congressman) is the page of the most commonly sought "Evan Jenkins", as evidenced by a vast margin in page views. 94.6% of the searches of Evan Jenkins in the past 90 days have been for this one. In addition, he is a current US Congressman; he therefore also has long-term notability.

This Evan Jenkins had 8,327 hits in the last 90 days. Thirty-seven times as many as the footballer with 224 -- who last played 80 years ago, and died a quarter of a century ago. And 32 times as many as the governor, born in the 1800s, who had 253 views. He has been the primary focus of searchers for the better part of at least two years.

The other two are also long-deceased, they are unlikely therefore, unlike the living Congressman, to be creating any new news in the future. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC). Epeefleche (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This seems premature. Rep. Jenkins has been a member of Congress, and therefore a politician at a national level, for three days. Furthermore, he isn't a senator or a governor, he's just a representative. The office isn't really important enough to confer assumed long-term significance on everyone who holds it. There are 435 of them at any given time, and they only have two-year terms, so there's a lot of turnover. It's entirely possible for a representative to spend their time in Congress without accomplishing any notable achievements that would ensure they have long-term notability once they leave office. As just one example, look at Roger Williams (U.S. politician), who was elected in 2012. What did he accomplish during the term that just ended? Well, based off his article, apparently nothing. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we should wait until has notable accomplishments rather than assume he will, since there's plenty of precedent to show that's not a given for the office he holds. (Additionally, pageviews over the last 90 days are so high due to that large spike that coincides with the immediate aftermath of the US midterm elections.) Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He is the primary person with this name. His page views outstrip those of the other two not just the last 90 days (all that the scrip conveniently shows in one diff), but the last two years. Being the primary does not require that he be world-famous; just that he be the primary subject of the three with the name. Which he clearly is. Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The politician is the clear primary topic. It's irrelevant that he's "only" a congressman and not a governor or senator. -- Calidum 02:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose seems like WP:RECENTISM. We have another politician, so the current disambiguator is rather poor, and instead should be Evan Jenkins (U.S. politician), due to the British political figure (as well as Knight Grand Cross and Knight Commander). Longterm significance would also apply to the knight. [1][2][3] Certainly, the British one seems to be more internationally significant. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that the current disambiguator is not good. Vote below. Andrewa (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per both criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - one is obvious, the other a little less so, but at the least the score is 1-0. Red Slash 23:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Other two biographies are stubs, while this article has most content. --George Ho (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:RECENT. Evan Meredith Jenkins may only have a short stub, but he was governor of the Punjab, which is a large area of India and Pakistan, and as such an important historical figure. He has at least as much notability as the recently elected congressman.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Classic case of the figures don't tell the whole story. No way that the US politician can be sensibly considered the primary topic at this stage, by either criterion. I do note that he's had an article for longer than either of the other two, and that he's a rising star (I almost said young star but the photo is deceptive although very recent). He'll probably qualify in a year or two, but leave it as is for now. Andrewa (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evan Jenkins (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evan_Jenkins_(politician)&oldid=1207813830"