This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lseltzer (talk | contribs) at 15:21, 1 December 2013 (→Summary of dispute by Mdphddr). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Current disputes

Carolina-Cleson rivalry

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Carolina-Clemson rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• LesPhilky (talk · contribs)
• GarnetAndBlack (talk · contribs)
• Sandlap123 (talk · contribs)
• Gamecockpride123 (talk · contribs)
• 2Awwsome (talk · contribs)
• ClemsonC4 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Also located in South Carolina Gamecocks football. There is a dispute on whether the University of South Carolina should be referred to as "South Carolina" or "Carolina" on the relevant pages. 2Awwesome, Sandlap123, Gamecockpride123, ClemsonC4, and I agree that it should probably be changed to "South Carolina" for the sake of clarity and since other sports teams refer to themselves as "Carolina". GarnetAndBlack insists that it remain "Carolina" and argues that someone would be "dense" to confuse South Carolina with another team. Unfortunately, GarnetAndBlack and Sandlap123 have engaged in an edit war over this on both pages and attempts to produce a constructive discussion between all parties have devolved into accusations of sock-puppetry and personal attacks.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I started a new discussion on the Talk page in hopes that the edit warring would cease and we could come to a consensus, but that didn't work. I think an outside impartial party would help the situation.

How do you think we can help?

I think an impartial viewpoint on whether "South Carolina" or "Carolina" should be used would be great. I also think getting people to calm down and talk about it in a civil fashion would help. I think GarnetAndBlack believes making the change is somehow an attack on the University of South Carolina, and we would like him to understand that it is not. Sock-puppetry may have indeed occurred (it seems suspicious), but 2Awwsome and I are not sock puppets, so the discussion is still a valid one.

Summary of dispute by GarnetAndBlack

Summary of dispute by Sandlap123

Although I agree to keep South Carolina when referring to South Carolina, I will not be involved in this debate any longer, as i work in the same office as Gamecockpride123, and do not wish to violate any rules. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandlap123 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Gamecockpride123

Clemson is in North Carolina's conference, the ACC. However, Clemson plays South Carolina as well. Deleting South in front of every South Carolina is only going to add confusion. This is because Clemson has a rivalry with both (North and South) Carolina. Yes, South Carolina's rivalry with them is the topic. So it should be used in the article and even title. I understand that if you say "Carolina" in the SEC then it means University of South Carolina. But if one says Carolina in the ACC, it means North Carolina. Clemson is in the ACC. This is unnecesary verbal confusion that shouldn't be an issue. When it comes down to it, there are two Carolinas. North and South. The only TRUE teams that are officially Carolina, are the Carolina Panthers and Carolina Hurricanes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamecockpride123 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 2Awwsome

Summary of dispute by ClemsonC4

Carolina-Clemson rivalry discussion

Is this the right venue?

Hi, I'll accept this case. However the first thing I'd like to discuss is: Is this the proper forum to resolve this dispute? The dispute resolution noticeboard "is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution and get assistance to the right place; request for comment, conduct RFC, mediation or other noticeboard, if involving other issues." So it is intended as a place for moderated discussion rather than a place to get outside opinions (although anyone is welcome to participate and give their opinion if they want to). If you would like outside input and opinions then I would suggest a WP:RFC which "is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines, article content, or user conduct". If you would like a moderated discussion then I am happy to assume the role of moderator for you. Any comments, questions or opinions on this?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

24 hour closing notice: This case will be closed if no one responds by tomorrow, Monday December 2nd.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Shusha

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Shusha (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Grandmaster (talk · contribs)
• Hablabar (talk · contribs)
• Brandmeister (talk · contribs)
• Roses&guns (talk · contribs)
• Zimmarod (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A detailed explanation was provided here by another user. In short, there's a long running dispute at talk of the article with regard to the foundation of the town. While it is generally accepted (including by major encyclopedias) that the town was founded in 1752, there are also a few primary sources of questionable reliability that may suggest otherwise. In my opinion, presenting the early foundation as a fact despite this view being in minority and contrary to the generally accepted view being the mid-18th century foundation is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. The issue requiring a resolution is how to present the conflicting views on the foundation of the town in accordance with the wiki rules.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The issue was reported by one of the involved editors to WP:FTN, but it did not generate any outcome.

How do you think we can help?

An outside view and an active involvement of the wider wiki community would be very helpful.

Responding briefly to Hablabar, if pre-1752 foundation is a widely accepted opinion in the international scholarly community, you should have no problems finding a bunch of third party secondary sources supporting this viewpoint. So far you only refer to primary sources, reliability of some of which is highly questionable. But as Brandmeister convincingly demonstrated, all the major encyclopedias and other third party secondary sources point to 1752 foundation by Panah Ali khan. Now if there are different views on the subject of foundation, then according to WP:Weight all notable viewpoints need to be presented in accordance to their weight. As for the "composite timeline" mentioned by Hablabar, it is nothing but WP:OR and WP:Synth, where he merged two mutually exclusive views to present as a fact the existence of the town in medieval times, while this view is clearly not shared by most of the sources. Grandmaster 21:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

the existence of the town in medieval times and the 1752 foundation by Panah Ali khan are not mutually exclusive, because pre-1752 mentions refer to town and fort, while 1752 references point to a settlement that was slated to evolve into a city in the 19th c. Your sources are in minority not those which talk about pre-1752. Hablabar (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Hablabar

The dispute arises from User:Grandmaster mischaracterizes the situation as an issue of WP:Weight in order to avoid the creative handling of timeline. He says that ostensibly the majority of sources say that Shusha was established in 1752. However, the credibility of primary sources making such statements is dubious, as demonstrated on talk pages in Shusha. Also, spinning the discussion around the majority or minority of sources can be viewed as WP:OR, unless there is a secondary source discussing the majority or minority issue in explicit terms. As it was demonstrated, mentioning the alleged establishment of Shusha in the 18th century does not override the evidence that an earlier town and fort existed long before the upgrade of Shusha into an urban settlement in the 18th century. WP:Weight, WP:FRINGE do not support the apportion of sources into "majority" and "minority," and WP:BALANCE and WP:OR invalidate this apportioning. If all mentioned sources supporting the notion of an earlier creation of the city are counted, the view about the 18th century establishment can be well a minority view, if one follows the logic of the Grandmaster/Brandmesiter duo. I suggest to return to the previous version where a composite timeline is put in place, and discrepancies are explained on the side. Hablabar (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Brandmeister

I agree with the above that the issue at stake is how to present the conflicting pre-1750s version in the article and whether that version should be treated in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Personally I found it difficult to find any mention of Shusha before the 1750s in reliable sources, including all encyclopedias which tackle this issue. According to some sources from the opposing camp's version, there was already a fortress in Shusha before 1750s and it was ceded to Panah Ali Khan, but it contradicts the 1750s version, which says that the town's only fortress was built by Panah Ali Khan. This latter version is confirmed particularly by the inscription on the wall of the town's mosque and some primary sources, quoted in the article. Brandmeister 12:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Roses&guns

Summary of dispute by Zimmarod

Talk:Shusha discussion

24 hour closing notice: In light of the fact that several significant participants in this dispute have chosen not to participate here (as is their right), there's not much we can do. This will be closed as futile unless those editors choose to give opening statements before 17:00 UTC on November 27, 2013. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I left additional notes today for some people who have been active at Shusha and hope there may be a response. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks T-man and Ed for your efforts but it seems participation is lacking and so I am closing this case. Please let me know if have any questions or objections. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

First Indochina War

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• First Indochina War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mztourist (talk · contribs)
• Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)
• TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Previous consensus was that the outcome in the Infobox should not state that the result was a Viet Minh victory as the war took place in three countries: Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and the outcome decided at the Geneva Conference saw the partition of Vietnam, the independence of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos and the departure of the French. It is simplistic to describe it as a Viet Minh victory, particularly as the Viet Minh were forced to settle for control of only North Vietnam. Recently some Users have changed the infobox to Viet Minh victory and they seek to support this change with a variety of POV or otherwise non-reliable sources, including out of context or shorthhand quotes (lacking any quality analysis) from authors who are not scholars of the First Indochina War. There are a limited number of reliable sources for the outcome of the First Indochina War and the majority do not say that it was a Viet Minh victory.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on the Talk Page

How do you think we can help?

Independent evaluation of quotes and RS

Summary of dispute by Darkness Shines

Viet Minh won, sources say they won, the sources are reliable. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TheTimesAreAChanging

Darkness Shines was certainly right to revert this edit, in which Mztourist alters sourced material simply because he disagrees with it. The facts are not in dispute: The Viet Minh achieved military victory but suffered political defeat. After looking at this a bit more closely, I can understand why Mztourist would want to omit the "victory" label altogether in favor of a more nuanced description, but misrepresenting sources (changing the source's "Viet Minh victory" to "French defeat") is not an ideal solution. I don't have much experience working on comparable infoboxes, but I would like to know how other war articles handle this type of problem. Is "victory" commonly used to summarize results? Does the failure of the victorious party to achieve all of their war aims impact the results summary?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

First Indochina War discussion

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer (and the current coordinator) here. I'd like to say a few words before this kicks off because I see a procedural snag. Mztourist claims that there was a prior consensus which established the version of the results box before this edit by Darkness Shines which attempts to introduce the Viet Minh victory. There was, indeed, a substantial prior discussion here which resulted in that version, which has been in the article for several months. That discussion included the Viet Minh victory question. Here's the problem from DRN's point of view: Under this section of the Consensus policy, if there was a prior consensus — and I believe that there was, especially since there were other editors (AustralianRupert and Anotherclown) who supported Mztourist's position there — then the only way the article text can be changed in a way contrary to that prior consensus is by the formation of a new consensus. That means that this DRN discussion can only be productive if, given the current participants, Mztourist can be convinced to change his mind, perhaps with a DRN volunteer's assistance though it is also possible that the volunteer will remain neutral or, of course, side with Mztourist. If Darkness Shines and TheTimesAreAChanging do not feel that to be likely, then their only practical choices are to either drop the effort to include the text or to file a RFC at the article talk page to try to bring other editors from the community into the discussion, in which case this DRN listing will be closed. On the other hand, we can move forward with discussion here if they think that they can change Mztourist's mind. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I see no prior consensus to remove this at that link, I see various people being worn down by attrition, that is not a consensus. We do not remove reliably sourced content because one guy don't like it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

abbreviated out of context statements by authors who are not experts on the Indochina War are not RS Mztourist (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging says the facts are not in dispute and the Viet Minh acheived military victory. That is simply incorrect, the Viet Minh won several decisive battles, but they did not militarily win the war. The war didn't end April 1975 style with the Viet Minh capturing Hanoi and Saigon, it ended (like many modern wars do) at the negotiating table at Geneva, where the Viet Minh accepted partition and control of only North Vietnam. Those are the facts. The other point to note is that Indochina War means the war in 3 countries - Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, the Viet Minh won in northern Vietnam not anywhere else. Saying the Viet Minh won the Indochina War is the same as saying the North Vietnamese won the Vietnam War, something that TheTimesAreAChanging has corrected several times recently. The reason why I suggested "French defeat" was because I was growing weary of this debate and sought an outcome statement that might be acceptable. Mztourist (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Karna's talk page

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Karna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Pinkfloyd11 (talk · contribs)
• Abecedare (talk · contribs)
• Dharmadhyaksha (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Basically, there is disagreement over the length and sourcing of the Karna article. While I think we all agree that the article can be shortened by changing prose, the primary disagreement is over content. One side is contending that the article is too boring, too long, and is violating wikipedia policy by including primary sources. The other side is contending that while the prose could be bettered to deviate from in-universe view, the article may be required to be long to fit wikipedia guidelines on building a fictional character biography. Also, that primary sources can be used in an article to describe "plot" of a story, and just not in analysis or interpretation.

@Dharma:

Consensus is not determined by counting heads. Yes, you asked me to stay out of it for a week. I then proposed certain guidelines for you to follow in that week. You never responded and proceeded with edits that violated those conditions. Yet I still did not revert anything and tried to engage y'all with little result. I think in your desire to avoid "mumbo jumbo", you end up providing no examples and no context. Hence, your arguments devolve into "content should be "x way" because "x way" is good, because "x way" is good. Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this isn't the place for it, but stop with the Personal Attacks, remember Misplaced Pages:Etiquette and don't bite the newcomers. Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I would hardly call any of those things that I did complicated or requiring experience. It is wikipedia, not the cracking of CIA code. Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've posted to the talk page per BRD, referencing specific examples and referencing wikipedia guidelines. Some of my contentions really haven't been answered. The editors in questioned have expressed their frustration at the length of my posts. They've gone ahead and done some very massive edits without discussion. They've suggested I go to this board. I've wanted to avoid it, but they aren't leaving me much choice. Of course this is only "my" side.

How do you think we can help?

Maybe clarify the wikipedia guidelines relevant to this dispute? Help judge what kind of plot content is relevant to the analysis? Answer the question if articles like the one in type have a set length limit?

Fundamentally, I want them to engage in conversation with me. A lot of what I am hearing is "primary sources are bad because they are bad" or "delete content because it should be deleted". They want me to refute their specific points while not expecting the same of themselves....

Summary of dispute by Abecedare

Background

The article is about a character from the Indian epis Mahabharata and the dispute as I see it is regarding how much space should be devoted to simple character bio based on (translations or paraphrases of) the primary source (ie, the Mahabharata) versus what secondary sources have said on the subject. For future reference, the starting point for discussion was this version of the article.

My view

Essentially copying from my post on the article talk page:

The article needs drastic pruning from the in-universe mess that it currently is (On a quick look, sections 2-7 need to be combined into a single 2-4 paragraph summary.) The aim of an encyclopedic article such is this one is not to to provide a cliffs note version of Mahabharata, but rather to concentrate on what modern scholars have had to say about the subject; his portrayal; possible inspirations and archetypes; cultural, literary and religious significance etc. Quotes and paraphrases from Mahabharata should be very limited, comparable to say a plot section of a well developed movie or book article

Here is a sample list of high quality secondary sources on the subject that can used to improve the article by any interested editor. I may give it a try, but will probably not get to it till December.

Suggestion

I think WP:ADOPT or WP:30 would be better avenues for resolving the issues, but have no objection if DRN is preferred by Pinkfloyd11, since an "outside opinion" can often be helpful. Note though that there have been two previous such attempts:

1. I myself entered the picture after seeing this post on the Hinduism Project Noticeboard, and initially commented on the article talk page
2. User:Mdebellis responded to an earlier post at the Teahouse and left this comment

Lets hope, the third time is a charm! :-)

Summary of dispute by Dharmadhyaksha

@Pinkfloyd11: I had left the article to allow you to do whatever pleased you. You said we should have consensus and do nothing without that. Two more editors, and the only two present there beside you and me, are okay with the way i am going towards cleaning this article. Thats WP:CONSENSUS dear. In fact, they both suggested that the article should be deleted and started from stub again which i felt unnecessary. Further to that, on 22nd Nov i asked you to stay out of the business for a week (that's generally 7 days on Earth). There is no dispute at all to run to the DRN; at least yet. Come back after 7 days when the article is ready. And remember WP:WALL. No one reads all this mumbo jumbo. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

With a click, any version of the article can be restored any time. Only if you could keep out and let other editors work, you would know what we are doing. There is so much fuss you created and that too without knowing whats in my or other's mind. So quit wasting everyone's time and edit something else; or better still just go away forever. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Newcomer? 14 days back you were using dabsolver and creating new articles. If you consider yourself old enough to create articles directly in article space, i would think you are exceptionally good or a sock of some blocked account and not a actual newcomer. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Karna discussion

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sprezzatura (talk · contribs)
• Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk · contribs)
• Hafspajen (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute originally started at The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (GWDT), the Misplaced Pages page for the book.

I have prepared a set of family tree charts to accompany the novel and the movie. I am a professional genealogist, and thought I would share the charts with other viewers. There is no charge for the charts, they are free. As elaborately documented in our discussion at the second site, the charts are important towards understanding the movie.

I posted an external link to my charts page, from the GWDT page. Mr. Gareth Griffith-Jones deleted the link.

I have tried to discuss this with Mr. Gareth Griffith-Jones, but the discussion seems to bounce around, with Mr. Griffith-Jones grasping at various pretexts to "win" his point.

Following his suggestion that the book's site may not be the best place to add the link, I moved the link to the film's page, whereby Mr. Griffith-Jones pounced on it.

I am offering genuine value to other Wikipedians.

Note that in his very first communication with me. Mr. Griffith-Jones threatened me, accused me and did not assume my good intentions, which I have.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have had what I feel are extensive and reasonable discussions with Mr. Gareth Griffith-Jones, but he is obdurate.

How do you think we can help?

Allow me to post an external link from the movie page "https://en.wikipedia.org/The_Girl_with_the_Dragon_Tattoo_%282011_film%29". to the charts page "http://progenygenealogy.com/products/family-tree-charts/sample-charts/girl-with-the-dragon-tattoo.aspx"

Thank you.

Summary of dispute by Gareth Griffith-Jones

Summary of dispute by Hafspajen

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Since the genealogy chart shows photographs of characters from the English-language film of 2011, but uses the relationships in the book, which are different, the inclusion of an external link in this case seems to me to be potentially misleading for the reader. Deb (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sprezzatura has expressed a desire to freely share his (her?) work. That's a noble goal and it can be done in a non-controversial way: post the charts to Commons. To do so would be incontrovertible proof of Sprezzatura's good faith and it would resolve this issue. Lambtron (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I have uploaded the Vanger family tree to Wikimedia Commons, under the User ID "Gnarfulous", not because of some sinister attempt to conceal my identity, but because "sprezzatura" was already taken by someone else.

The advantage of linking to the Website is that it offers ten different presentations of the family tree, including Fan Chart, Outline Descendant, Trellis, Timeline, narrative book, and a format that permits printing a large 48" x 22" (122 cm x 56 cm) chart on your home printer, through a process called tiling. I won't be allowed to link to all these options.Gnarfulous (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Linking to your other works would certainly be allowable if those works reside in Commons. Since you've already taken the plunge with one work, why not follow through by uploading the others? As for linking to your works, several options come to mind. For example, you could group your works in a shared Commons category and link to that category from the article. And of course, if one or more of your works are particularly relevant to an article, you can display them directly in the article. Lambtron (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• I am seriously confused: I tried to sign into "Wikimedia Commons" with my User ID "sprezzatura" and password. They were rejected. So I figured "OK, Wikimedia uses a different set of User IDs", so I created a new User "Gnarfulous".

However, now I see that I drifted back into Wikipedia as "Gnarfulous". I don't understand what is going on. I am not "sock puppeting", I will never ever use "Gnarfulous" again if I can figure out how to sign into Wikimedia as "sprezzatura".Sprezzatura (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Deaths in 2013

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Deaths in 2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• AlanM1 (talk · contribs)
• WWGB (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

At Deaths in 2013, there is a dispute over inclusion of well-known related people in the blurb, names which I contend help identify the person, but are objected to by the other editor. Discussion on the talk page, as usual, has yielded just one other opinion (split between the two examples in this case) from one of the other regular editors of the page.

The cases are:

• Edmund Reggie, 87, American politician and Louisiana municipal judge.

or

• Edmund Reggie, 87, American politician and Louisiana municipal judge, Ted Kennedy's father-in-law.

and

• Diane Disney Miller, 79, American philanthropist, complications from a fall.

or

• Diane Disney Miller, 79, American philanthropist and daughter of Walt Disney, complications from a fall.

I contend that the second instance of both cases helps the reader know who the person was – a primary question in the minds of those reading death announcements, particularly here, where there are so many names that are unrecognizable to a given reader because of the global coverage. The vast majority of WP:RS include the additional information in the article headline.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None.

How do you think we can help?

Bring enough neutral, objective opinions to form a real consensus.

Deaths in 2013 is clearly WP:OWNed by a very small number of users. Discussions on the article and user talk pages rarely get more than one other contributor, and the "outsider" routinely gives up. The insider routinely gets their way through persistence. Either nobody else reads the talk page of this highly-visited page, nobody else cares, or nobody else wants to fight what seems to often be a futile battle.

Summary of dispute by WWGB

Deaths in 2013 discussion

• I will assist with this discussion, following statements from all involved parties. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Rikster2 (talk · contribs)
• Epeefleche (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a MOS discussion on tenure year range format at the MOS Manual of Style/Dates and numbers talk page that has long roots. Wiki projects for several major sports (basketball, association football, American football, baseball and to an extent Cricket) have been using an 8 digit. Date format to show tenure with club in infoboxes and templates. MOS currently encourages 6 digit. MOS-focused editors this 6 digit should be enforced, sports editors think 8 digit. My concern is that we were not able to resolve this in a discussion in March/April and this seems to be headed the same direction. An article on an Israeli basketball player (Gal Mekel) has been changed and reverted several times. I have personally reverted it several times because I strongly feel the article should be left in its original state until the date issue is resolved. Please help us. Ideally, someone who understands MOS but is not locked into the current state would be preseferable. Likewise, someone who gets that sport articles are important but is not actively involved with one of the projects that use the 8 digit format. This will continually be a problem - resulting in unconstructive edits and reverts - until resolved with MOS being tweaked one way or the other. Thank you.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have made a formal request to amend the MOS. In my opinion it either needs to be tightened to expressly forbid or language added to allow 8 digit date spans

How do you think we can help?

Please help the MOS review. It needs unbiased mediation,. Right now everyone is either an MOS loyalist or a sports editor. Probably neither can be 100% unbiased. Leaving MOS as is will not result in a happy end in my opinion.

Summary of dispute by Epeefleche

Summary of dispute by others

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

• Hello! I'm Theodore, and I will be assisting with this discussion. I will add further comments after Epeefleche responds. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Australia national association football team

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Australia national association football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• LauraHale (talk · contribs)
• 2nyte (talk · contribs)
• PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs)
• HiLo48 (talk · contribs)
• Clavdia chauchat (talk · contribs)
• Sionk (talk · contribs)
• Jmorrison230582 (talk · contribs)
• Lukeno94 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Proposal to rename the article "Australia men's national association football team" on the basis there is a women's national team too. Proposer argued the name is innaccurate, others argued the current name is sexist, opponents argue it is normal WP:PRIMARYTOPIC disambiguation, born out by evidence and would have impact on every other sports article.

Discussion has become increasingly very heated with poor language and personal insults from several people, particularly from some of the 'support' camp. How should the issue be resolved? (Suggestions have been put forward that it should be taken to a general higher-level discussion rather than piecemeal article name-changing, but WikProject Football isn't a favoured option at all)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Suggested articles be moved to "Socceroos" and "Matildas", their common names. I was initially halfway between the two camps and was trying to grasp a policy based reason to support a name change. Unfortunately driven into the 'oppose' camp by the intransigence and name calling.

How do you think we can help?

Suggest an alternative forum? Discussion is now difficult to navigate or comprehend because of its great length, so I don't know how effective an RFC would be (though maybe an option). If I knew the solution I wouldn't have come here.

Summary of dispute by LauraHale

Also, there are other people involved on the side of the rename in favour of the following WP:PRECISE, WP:NPOV, WP:UDUE and WP:V and who are not included on this list. Why are Rushton2010 , @The-Pope:, @Clavdia chauchat:, @Hmlarson: not on this list? It basically casts the problem as a few well meaning football articles against two people. This is clearly not the case. --LauraHale (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

...or Simeone001, SuperJew, Giant Snowman and Raystorm? I simply included people that had engaged at length in the argument, rather than people that had succinctly commented only once and made their position clear in their comments (either for or against).Sionk (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, coming here appears to be an example taking the "dispute" to another level. People opposing the move have been repeatedly asked to provide Misplaced Pages policies to support their positions. They have only been able to cite WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, where an abundance of sources and WP:PRECISE demonstrate that the men's team is not the primary topic. Rather than work through policies, pillars and guidelines to support a position, we are brought here. Where are the sources that in anyway suggest that the men's team is the primary topic when it comes to WHICH national team recognised by FIFA, the AOC, FFA, ASC, SBS, ABC, the Sydney Morning Herald is the one that says the men's team is the primary topic? These sources all recognise two national teams for Australia and WP:PRECISE implies that when you have ambiguity like this, precision should be striven for. It takes nothing away from the men's game of soccer in Australia to precisely identify which team is being talked about. There isn't one source that supports this position to the extent that WP:PRECISE and other policies should be ignored. This "dispute" exists because WP:NPOV and WP:V are being ignored and sources are not being provided to support the oppose rename rationale. @Sionk: and others are worried that following WP:NPOV and WP:V will result in "false equivalence" between the men's game and the women's game. --LauraHale (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 2nyte

Summary of dispute by PeeJay

My issue with this discussion is that it has the potential to affect articles other than just the one about the Australia national football team, and the user who proposed the move ignored suggestions from the previous RM (also started by her) to take the matter to a more central location. Any suggestion that this RM affects only one page is preposterous. – PeeJay 01:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by HiLo48

I feel that one could summarise the Oppose arguments in two ways. One is given by the proposer above - It "...would have impact on every other sports article". That's clearly nonsense. There are already many examples of men's teams with and without that word. Changing the one in question would not force change anywhere else. Nonsense arguments are very frustrating, and inevitably generate heat. The other Oppose argument seems to be that the men's team is the more important, and doesn't need clarification. That's not the case legally, depends on Google hit counts (always a dodgy approach), and obviously inflammatory. The Opposers really seem opposed to change because they're opposed to change, another heat generator. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Since I wrote the above, we've already had an opposer write "Any suggestion that this RM affects only one page is preposterous." That's just silly, provocative, and ignores what I wrote. The latter, ignoring what I wrote, is even more provocative, and happens all the time with the opposers in this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the above refers to a comment I made, it's only right that I should respond: I did not ignore what you wrote, I responded to it in the negative, in accordance with my opinion on the subject. You need to get over yourself and realise that your opinion is not the only one that counts, and that if people disagree with you, it's because they have the right to think for themselves, not because they want to get your goat. I mean, really... – PeeJay 04:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You need to give a bloody good reason for your different opinion, not just state it. I have given very clear reasons for mine. One of the biggest problems here is the poor discussion skills of soccer obsessives. They simply have to argue against change, without rational reason. It's no wonder discussion becomes heated. HiLo48 (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The oppose was not based on any policy rationale (other than the men's game is superior to the women's game). Indeed, it asks for non-policy views about the alleged superiority of the men's game to be elevated above WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:PRCISE, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --LauraHale (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Clavdia chauchat

This is something which comes up again and again. The last time it was after Misplaced Pages had been publicly shamed by some editors' sexist treatment of female novelists (by ghettoizing them into subcategories). Then as now the move had widespread support and was backed in policy but was derailed and ultimately blocked by WP:FOOTBALL editors. Here the 'no' campaign is basically WP:FOOTBALL +1 (User:Sionk, whose above characterization of the dispute is very far from neutral). The situation where a handful of editors from a very, very narrow demographic assume that their WP:LOCALCONSENSUS should win the day obviously causes frustration. Not only that but the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC argument, in my opinion misses the point: If popularity and coverage really trumped clarity, precision, neutrality, consistency etc. etc. then we'd have one England national team, with hatnotes to the cricket, rugby and all other teams. Ultimately, this matter will keep coming up so deserves much wider input. I've got no opinion on the soccer/football or Australia/n things. I did think edit warring out the NPOV tags while a valid discussion was ongoing was particularly disrespectful and egregious. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

To suggest that the term "England national team" refers primarily to the football team is a gross misstatement of fact, and no one would ever seriously suggest that the article about the football team should occupy a page titled England national team. I think this is a case of argumentum ad absurdum, Clavdia. – PeeJay 13:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sionk

I can see why the proposer of the name change has a problem with the current article - it makes little references at all in the lede to explain the article is about the men's team (I added "men's"). But this is a common situation with most national football team articles. In most situations the male football team is extremely dominant in the media and public profile, in this particular example "Australia national football team" is synonymous with meaning the men's team. On the basis "Australia national football team" will be a common search term for the men's team, based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I'm inclined to favour the current means of disambiguation. To blame Misplaced Pages for inequality in football would be the 'tail wagging the dog'.
As for the reasons behind the dispute, well, the proposer accuses anyone who doesn't agree with her of not listening, then repeats her argument, also tag-bombing the article. Two others use insults quite freely (as soon as I voted 'Oppose' I became "sexist", "male" and "chauvinist") and prefer to personalise the discussion. Treating all disagreement as an attack on women will only back amenable editors into a corner. There is some distrust of the proposal because of its piecemeal change-by-stealth, while equally there is a distrust of WikiProject Football ("circle jerk") by the other side. Sionk (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

NB I was unaware of the previous lengthy discussion involving most of the same contributors - the arguments seem well rehearsed and the positions entrenched. Sionk (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You're no doubt also unaware of the five(!) threads I recently deleted from my Talk page, all started by soccer nuts who think that's a way of making me change my mind! LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jmorrison230582

I actually have some sympathy for the suggestion that Australia national association football team should be moved to Australia men's national soccer team (naming consistently with the US and Canada). The Australia men's team has only qualified for the World Cup a few times, whereas the women's team has qualified for most World Cups (in a younger sport) and has performed reasonably well at the last two. I believe Australia is more similar to Canada or the US in this regard than the major European or South American national teams, which have long histories in the men's game. However, I do believe that in Australia the men's team is the primary topic, based on media coverage (e.g. the most recent' women's team game wasn't televised in Australia).

The problem I have is that none of the arguments for moving the article appear to be based on whether or not the men's team is the primary topic. Instead we are told to disregard that guideline simply because a women's team exists and thus having a men's team article as the primary topic is not a neutral representation. I can't accept this because that would logically mean moving every national team article to a gender specific title, even in extreme cases where one team (e.g. 1. New Zealand men's rugby union, 2. India men's cricket, 3. Brazil men's football) has far more coverage and notability than the other. I believe that WP:NPOV means we have to treat subjects proportionately, which means that some national teams in some sports will be the primary topic. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Lukeno94

• This is one of the most ridiculous "debates" I've ever been involved in. I have stated, as many others have, that Laura should've started a discussion on WP:FOOTBALL with regards to where all national football team articles are located; a single article move request is doomed to fail as it would contradict the existing global consensus. From there on in, it has degenerated into a farcical mudslinging contest, initially started by Laura, HiLo and Clavdia, which the likes of myself and other users have ended up reacting to in equally unhelpful ways. The fact that these users seem utterly incapable of actually reading other people's posts, much less responding to them in a helpful manner, has contributed to most of the problem; Laura has constantly spun things round and round in circles by ignoring the answers to her questions, and instead repeating her questions; Clavdia and HiLo have contributed very little but inflammatory content, for the most part (although, at least HiLo did bring up a valid question about which word out of Australia/Australian is more appropriate for the title). Perhaps Laura's worst actions are to edit-war (via tag teaming with Clavdia) in two tags (NPOV and UNDUE) that are rejected by the consensus of most editors, and are simply WP:POINTy additions, into the article itself. This is despite the fact that she has openly admitted her issue is with the title, and therefore this aspect is simply a distraction in order to enforce her views strongly. I should also note that Laura has previously attempted a move of a whole bunch of Australian articles via RM back in 2011, which was soundly rejected as well (two page moves by another user a year later have directly contradicted said consensus, without the formation of a new one). Finally, I should state that I have no issue with the presence of the word "men's" being in the title, or with it staying at the same location as it is currently; however, I do strongly object to the underhanded backdoor tactics that Laura and her tag-team have used, and indeed still are using. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Australia national association football team discussion

• I'll be assisting with the discussion. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 00:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed a few things I'd like to point out before we go any further.

• Does everyone feel that this is the appropriate venue for this dispute? I think a DRN discussion might be useful, but both sides seem very steadfast in their viewpoints. If we begin a discussion here, the goal should be to hammer out some kind of consensus. If participants feel that this might be impossible, formal mediation might be better.
• If we proceed here, is there any interest in discussing the Australia vs. Australian issue? The main point of contention seems to be the men's/women's dispute, but I'd be happy to address both.

Thanks, and feel free to comment below. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, entrenched views. Good luck! My personal view is that article's title should read "Australian national men's soccer team". So, "Australian" rather than "Australia" because it's how most people talk and write about the team, "men's" for obvious clarity and equal treatment with the more successful women's team, and "soccer" because that's the single, unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia. Nobody calls it "Association football" in Australia. More than you expected? Maybe. But you asked. HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've divided the space below into three separate sections for the individual disputes. I think the men's/women's issue is the primary one we should address, but discussing the other areas won't hurt. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure this is the best place to discuss things. This appears to be an attempt to circumvent consensus by delaying a move proposal based on a non-policy decision based on an inherent POV situation. I'd be game if we could see some indication that there was acknowledgement of other policies and that this issue should not be passed off to the association football project. I have difficulty understanding from their point of view why the football Wikiproject should be involved in the naming decision for Australia men's national goalball team. I am also unclear policy wise why WP:PRECISE and WP:UNDUE and WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are not relevant to the discussion. These issues for me are fundamental to any possible mediation. I have no interest in expanding the scope beyond single issue of policy, pillars and guidelines and their use solely as it applies to the article where the title is about the national team (of which there are two) and the article text which is about the men. --LauraHale (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't see how this is helpful either. The original dispute that faced extreme difficulties to reach agreement was about the addition of "men's" into the title of the article. The subsequent quibbles are entirely different and can probably be dealt with elsewhere far more amicably. Turning this DRV into a discussion about "Australian" and "association football" is circumventing the main problem. Sionk (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of "men's" and "women's" issue

I have nothing to add beyond my summary above. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Nor I. A DRN on a specific page move is not anywhere near the global or WikiProject-wide consensus that is really required for this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of "Australia" vs. "Australian" issue

I think this is clear-cut. The name of the team is "Australia". That's what appears on the scoreboard, the media coverage and so on, because the governing body regulations state that the team name must be "an appropriate political and geographical description of the countries or territories of the Members whose teams are involved in the match or competition...". It isn't necessarily an "Australian" team because national teams often use people (either coaches or players who change citizenship) with foreign nationality. There is no requirement for grammatically perfect English in article titles. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of "association football" vs. "soccer"

This is an issue as to which term is more applicable in each country. In the majority of countries just "football" is the dominant term, in a few (e.g. the US) soccer is the dominant term and in some countries (e.g. Australia) both terms are used to a similar extent. I have no strong opinion either way. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

OS X Mountain Lion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• OS X Mountain Lion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lseltzer (talk · contribs)
• Mdphddr (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On 28 November user Mdphddr removed a contribution I made. I believe the reasons are inadequate. On October 22, Apple released OS X 10.9 (a.k.a. Mavericks) supplanting version 10.8 (a.k.a. Mountain Lion). In the past, when Apple has released a new version, they have continued to provide security updates for at least the immediate previous version and provide the updates at the same time as the release of the new version. It needs to be so because when they release the new version they disclose vulnerabilities in the old one that are fixed in the new one. But Apple did not, and has not since release a security update for Mountain Lion to address the vulnerabilities disclosed in it on October 22. I am a contributor to ZDNet and did a good deal of research on this, including consulting with Apple. I wrote a one-paragraph contribution to the OS X Mountain Lion page describing the issue and citing my own article. Shortly thereafter, Mdphddr removed it, saying "Instead of complaining about security updates, we should either wait for new ones to be released or wait until Apple declares ML unsupported." The problem with this position is not only is it irrelevant to the truth and usefulness of my contribution, but Apple never declares a version of OS X unsupported. They just stop supporting it. I specifically asked Apple when or if they would release updates for OS X Mountain Lion and they specifically said they had no comment. There was another problem with the OS X Mountain Lion page which I declined to address: It still listed the product as "Supported." Since then, an unidentified user changed the status to "Security updates and printer drivers." This is untrue, as Apple hasn't and appears not to be providing security updates. The status should be "Unsupported" and the same change should be made to OS X Lion and OS X Snow Leopard, both of which are inaccurately listed as "Security updates and printer drivers."

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I made an entry on Mdphddr's talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Someone authoritative should restore my change. I'm uncomfortable making the change myself without outside input, as I imagine Mdphddr would just remove it again.

Summary of dispute by Mdphddr

It is under 2000 characters Larry Seltzer, Editorial Director - BYTE 15:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

OS X Mountain Lion discussion

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution