Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TransporterMan (talk | contribs) at 14:57, 4 April 2012 (→Frank Zappa discography, Template:Frank Zappa: Closing as resolved). 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.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 15:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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.

List of wars involving Great Britain, List of wars involving Russia

• List of wars involving Great Britain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of wars involving Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

a discussion has been going on about the convenience of using simple list or tables in this 2 articles. i argue that simple lists are easier to read and edit, while MarcusBritish and Dpaajones favor the use of tables. MarcusBritish and i have been the most involved in the discussion , but we have reached a point where he doesn't want to argue anymore and to just leave the article the way it is, which is the state he favours.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Andres rojas22 (talk · contribs)
• MarcusBritish (talk · contribs)
• Dpaajones (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Not yet. Yes, he has.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=List of wars involving Great Britain, List of wars involving Russia}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

i explained the benefits of lists over tables in this type of lists and because MarcusBritish insisted on having a table i suggested a middle point: a table with less text than the current table has, in order for it to be more easy to read like lists are but that it also would allow to have some aesthetic value and a bit more info as MarcusBritish wanted.

• How do you think we can help?

mediate to allow us to reopen a discussion based in arguments and to reach a consensus. check the discussion page and you will see how arguments have been substituted by accusations of all kind. we need a third party without relation to this discussion to help us see the blind spots of the debate we were missing,

Andres rojas22 (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

List of wars involving Great Britain, List of wars involving Russia discussion

Comment

This is a waste of editor's time. Andres simply cannot accept that his method of converting populated tables to basic menu-like lists was border-line disruptive, cutting the GB article down from ~46,000 to ~6,000 characters in one swoop with no regard for the stability or previous input by other editors, and war editing over this format. The matter was discussed between himself and Dpaajones based on the false premise that basic lists offer more functionality (see User talk:Andres rojas22#Explain yourself). Dpaajones invited uninvolved editors via WT:MILHIST due to the continued reverts. I performed a WP:BRD revert and updated the article from bog-standard HTML table to Wikitable and various MOS tweaks. Several MILHIST members support the Wikitable format and not the List. Andres refuses to accept the format, or content. He has not given a good account of the benefits of lists in this case, and if he believes he has, they do not amount to the reasons why a table is required here, per WP:WHENTABLE. The content is multi-level and requires several columns. Andres "proposal" to reduce the content to 3 columns is nonsense: 3 column tables might just as well be presented as lists, so it's really a motion to herd the article in the wrong direction, i.e. quality assessment would degrade, to a very basic layout, with loss of valuable data. Andres has yet to explain why he prefers this minimalist approach, only saying that the data is in each linked article. Firstly, articles are not self-referring and do not refer to other articles, only wikilink. Second, the format he chooses looks little more than a disambiguation index page, and is not good quality. Finally, researchers should not be expected to have to go through dozens of articles to learn the specifics when they can be summarised on one page, in a table, as is the point of such articles. The article is short on citations, but that does not make it "wrong", simply requiring further development. Such articles can lead to FL quality, whilst basic lists rarely exceed the "junior encyclopedia" mentality to be rated as anything above List/Start class. If we're supposed to be developing an encyclopedia here, reverting articles from multi-column cross-referenced to tables into bullet-point lists is backwards, and does not help anyone. It not not aid readers, does not advance Misplaced Pages, does not result in high quality lists. The format and arguments presented by Andres are misguided and ill-suited to the articles in question and he simply does not accept that the majority have spoken in favour of the present format. The consensus, or support for tabular format over basic list, by MILHIST members speaks for itself, a DR cannot be used to override the views of several other editors against one editor who simply has an WP:IJDLI agenda against tables and flagicons. His claim that I am opposed to basic Lists is also invalid, I am simply opposed to their use in this instance, and reducing articles to low-level organisation. As I said, the conclusion has already been reached, if Andres feels the need to revert the format again, against current consensus, I will simply raise it with WP:AN as a war editing issue. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish 04:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding:

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

i explained the benefits of lists over tables in this type of lists and because MarcusBritish insisted on having a table i suggested a middle point: a table with less text than the current table has, in order for it to be more easy to read like lists are but that it also would allow to have some aesthetic value and a bit more info as MarcusBritish wanted.

• This isn't only my opinion, other editors support it. So there is no dispute between me and Andres alone, but me, others and Andres solo. The discussion on the talk page clearly shows that he refuses to "get it" and accept that his edits were not acceptable.

• How do you think we can help?**

mediate to allow us to reopen a discussion based in arguments and to reach a consensus. check the discussion page and you will see how arguments have been substituted by accusations of all kind. we need a third party without relation to this discussion to help us see the blind spots of the debate we were missing,

• I should like to note that I am third party. The issue was originally between David and Andres on his talk page. David invited uninvolved MILHIST members, making me third party. DR is now fourth party. What next Andres.. Arbcom? The matter has simply been elevated because Andres refuses to accept that the opinions of his preferred list format have been out-weighed. DR needs to stop this editor from shopping for support when his argument becomes exhausted. Ma®©usBritish 22:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment

I am not going to waste any more of my time on this matter - I ask that any arbitrator read: Talk:List of wars involving Great Britain#List format .2F content. Furthermore, there are several more editors who agree with my stance on this matter, and none who agree with User Andres (this can be seen on the talk page of the British article, which I have just wikilinked). Thank you. David (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment

History lessens normally gives the start and end (death) date for both wars and people. The previous Great Britain webpage give the dates this allows the reader to see where wars overlap something that the articles on each war rarely say. Who was on each side and the out come are interesting. The information is a summary that permits the effect of the war to be determined. Andrew Swallow (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment

David Misplaced Pages:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, you have avoided discussion since the issue started and tough the original discussion was between me and you, MarcusBritish has been the only editor truly committed to discuss, until recently at least which is the reason i opened this request.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There has been no polling, as has already been made clear. However, a number of editors from MILHIST supported my arguments and reasons for keeping the current format. This constitutes as a form of consensus, and indicates that more editors prefer the tabular format. A consensus does not have to result in a happy-medium, when it is clear that 4 editors disagree with you and you alone. You have suggested that readers/editors prefer lists for functionality, and though asked to invite such people to comment, have failed to do so, which means the claim in unsupported. You refuse to accept a majority opinion and are attempting to push your own preferences (POV pushing) against the majority via this DR. The matter is simple: You changed articles from tables to lists without considering the consequences, you engaged in reverting the opposition to your edits, and as a result the editor, David, was forced to invite outside views. MILHIST members have given their views in support of the original format, not for lists. That is a form of consensus, not a poll. The discussion is pointless because you refuse to accept any views other than your own, and have offered no reasons for your dislike of the tables, apart from suggesting that they don't look good on archaic 800x600 monitors, which, to be frank, is just tough-luck, Wiki can't expect to support old resolutions only used by ~1% of the population. Because the discussion is not making any ground either way, it is required for us to consider the balance of the !votes, as we can hardly expect for an article to be completely changed for one soul editor only. Consensus doesn't have to mean that we use any of your ideas, unless you can prove their benefit. Given that we know that a 3-column table layout with a few words per cell is little more than a bordered list, your only suggestion is neither practical nor efficient use of wikitables. As has been said, the use of dates, flags and outcome helps give readers a broad overview of Great Britain's history of war, whereas a list provides little more than a directory of wikilinks, but nothing material. Such lists lack encyclopaedic value, hence my derision of them as "menu lists", you get the names of the meals, you don't get the ingredients and recipe. That's what leads articles to becoming FLs, rather than lingering in the low-quality List category. Ma®©usBritish 21:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

those are your opinions, i'll refrain anymore comments from my part until an arbitrator takes the case.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not my opinion, this is fact. At no point in these comments do we see any evidence of "polling". We see editors supporting my argument without feeling the need to expand on or repeat it. That does not qualify as a poll in any sense of the word, in policy, or anything else for that matter. What it does indicate is opposition to your changes, but no expansion to the discussion, because there isn't a suitable format that can be used between List and Table that would be practical. So we should be sticking with what is popular and considered acceptable. Ma®©usBritish 22:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cue Hi everyone, I'm a regular contributor at this noticeboard. This is a tricky situation to deal with, and the guidance given by Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines doesn't seem to be conclusive here. MarcusBritish linked to the guideline WP:WHENTABLE above, and this is what it has to say on the subject: "Often a list is best left as a list. Before you format a list in table form, consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. If so, then a table is probably a good choice. If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice." So to follow this guideline, we need to consider what data we want to show in the list - but that is the exact thing that this dispute is over. So this guideline doesn't look like it is going to be too much help here.

Next, we have Andres's argument that using tables makes the list look cluttered, and the other editors' argument that not using tables leaves out useful information. I think both of these arguments are valid, and I'm not aware of anything in policy that would guide us towards choosing one over the other. The only policy that applies here that I know of is that we must follow consensus. MarcusBritish made the insightful point, however, that we should consider how best to get the list to featured list status. If we look at the featured list criteria, we can see that criterion 5a is: "Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked." So it seems that using tables would be more likely to get the list to featured list status than not using them. Whether this criterion is fair or not is open to debate, but it seems to be a good reason to use tables in absence of other guidance.

Having said this, in the end it will be consensus that decides what ends up on the page. Contrary to Andres's comment above, we do not do arbitration on this noticeboard. We cannot make any binding decisions here, I'm afraid. If people's opinions don't change, then to get a clear decision on what to do it would be necessary to take this question to an RfC. However, given the number of editors in favour of using tables so far, I'm not sure that an RfC would have a great chance of being successful. Andres, it's up to you if you would like to try or not, but you should be prepared for the fact that things might not go the way you want them to. Because this is a collaborative project, there are times when you will not be able to get your way. It might be that this is just one of those situations where you have to let things go. Let me know if you have any questions about this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 13:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks for your commentary im glad to see you understood everyone's thoughts. i don't have a die hard opinion, since i started the discussion i came with an open mind an willing to compromise to reach a common understanding. i dropped my case for the conversion to list for the sake of consensus but the information contained is excessive and must be reduced in some parts to make it easier to read and write, right now it doesn't look like a big issue but the list today only covers a tiny percentage of the conflicts that involved Great Britain in the era (including many small colonial wars) that when they are added to the list will make it a torturous process for a reader/editor to check the list looking for a war. that being said, since i accept the table format and i believe that would make the consensus, we could end the discussion here and just continue normal editing, but i have the feeling MarcusBritish and i would still clash about the table's style and disposition, he has pretty strong ideas of what he wants. would you recommend to continue the discussion over the style of table or is it enough that we agree that tables are good for this 2 articles? and Marcus what do you say? --Andres rojas22 (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Mr S. has pointed out that WP:WHENTABLE begins with "Often a list is best left as a list." As I have noted before, this article was never a list to begin with, except in name, the original creator created the article as a table. To me this is no different to ENGVAR which says use the variation of English used by the creator, except where there are strong national ties. In this case, the table format was used first, and reverting to a list is bound to bring opposition. I don't have strong views on behalf of myself, or the subject, as I have no previous involvement with this article, afaik. I have strong views in terms of what is presentable, and best relates to policy, MOS, readability, etc. Wikitables are virtually auto-styled once the class is attributed, from there it's a matter of creating rows/columns/data. I do not believe that Andres makes a valid point with regards to "as the table gets bigger, the content is too difficult to edit", because there are many large rand more complex tables on Misplaced Pages, some FL, which are stable and well-managed. Wikitables are simple markup, not complex HTML tags, and so there is no reason for any editor to have major difficulties updating, expanding or editing the content. As for readers, I stand by my belief that a basic list is little more than an index of wikilinks and conveys nothing of value, a 3-col table is just a list with borders and of little value, and a table offers the best way of displaying the data in rows and columns, chronologically, and it's hardly nuclear physics to read down and across a table of only 6 columns. I don't think there's anything else can be discussed, I've given my bit, and other editors agree with the table. I think an RfC would simply allow for more MILHIST editors to support the present table format, as we use them a lot in that project, and Andres would simply be wasting further time and resources to confirm an outcome that has already been determined thrice already, between himself and David, with me, and here with Mr S. noting that an RfC would likely be pointless. I think it's a matter of Andres just letting this one go, as I don't think the table can be reduced anywhere near as much as he hopes, and given that there is more potential for expansion rather than reduction, he could end up digging a hole for himself if he continues to bring attention to the matter. There are plenty of historians out there might find a reason to knock on an extra column or two, because.. because they can, if they have reason enough to believe it is valid, reliably sourced and beneficial. Ma®©usBritish 15:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

you haven't been able to find a common ground or at least try. plus your management of policies and guidelines has been full of flaws: every policies or guideline you have cited supports my arguments.WP:WHENTABLE shatters your argument of the convenience of tables over lists:

If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice.

— WP:WHENTABLE

If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice.

— WP:SAL

you're argument that "this article was never a list to begin with, except in name, the original creator created the article as a table" is weak, just because the article did not begin as a list it does not mean that it's table material. the main point is to: "consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. If so, then a table is probably a good choice. If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice." not who was first the table or the list.

then you say:

To me this is no different to ENGVAR which says use the variation of English used by the creator, except where there are strong national tie

I'm puzzled by this statement, how does a guideline related to the naming of an article relates to the formatting of lists? you have repeatedly made some odd arguments using the policies and guidelines during the discussion.

and WP:TABLE also says:

Tables should not be used simply for layout, either. If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table: Try not to use tables for putting a caption under a photograph, arranging a group of links, or other strictly visual features. It makes the article harder to edit for other Wikipedians. Also, when compared with tables, wikimarkup is more flexible, easier to use, and less esoteric when used for desktop publishing, page elements, and page orientation and positioning.

— WP:WHENTABLE

--Andres rojas22 (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah... perhaps the only thing that is "shattered" or "weak" (weasel words of a persistent WP:BATTLEFIELD nature) is the fact that your initial, and continued argument fails to convince anyone that lists have any superior, logical, or "obvious" benefit over tables. And per your quote:

Tables should not be used simply for layout, either. If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table

The data is tabular, and no it isn't a bloody "group of links", it's a 6-column chronological table with dates (not wikilinks), wars (wikilinked), the aggressors (auto-wikilinked), and outcome (not all wikilinked). So in essence, your point here is ill-conceived, and you don't seem to recognise the differences between "simple" and tabular. As for indicating that is may be harder for Wikipedians to edit, the quote is out of context, because that only applies to where tables have been misapplied to minimal lists. There is nothing "simple" about 6-cols worth of data, over a useless dates/wars menu.

I suggest you rethink your first four sentences because they were bollocks! As is your repeated non-sensical dislike of tables. Nothing you said here is anything but subjective personal opinions, and a further waste of time. Your WP:COMPETENCE is questioned here. Ma®©usBritish 17:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

if you're not capable of argumenting you're thoughts with policies and guidelines then just let go of the discussion, don't reply to my arguments that i have supported with 2 guidelines, of which the main points of the extracts are even highlighted in bold text with a disrespectful mock calling them ""Blah, blah, blah.... i take this as what it is, if you're not serious about discussing then let it go, don't make me waste my time writing arguments well based in policies for you to mock.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh quit blowing your own bloody trumpet and spouting crap. The fact of the matter is that you're repeating the same arguments over and over, like a stuck record even with several editors against your views. I think you need to take you own advice and drop the matter yourself, before someone dies.. of sheer boredom. Of course I'm mocking you.. this vain attempt of yours to discredit tables by responding with subjective nonsense.. the same subjective nonsense you were saying a week ago.. is now laughable and cannot be taken seriously. The guidelines/policies/MOS say nothing that supports any good reason to change from tables to a list. And you've no presented a convincing reasons to reduce the table considerably, because they are fairly lightweight as is. So the matter really is closed, because the article is stable and looks fine, as agreed by other editors. You're the only one who thinks otherwise. There's no reason to change the article, because no one supports your pro-list claims. And consensus doesn't mean we have to do anything to suit your demands, only that we're listened and dismissed them. DR concluded. Go find something else to do, this WP:STICK is now rotten. Ma®©usBritish 04:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

you are no judge to declare the discussion has ceased just because you cant come with a decent argument to support the use of tables, every policy and guideline you have misused as supporting you're arguments i have clearly shown shown they support mine's and contradict what you say, the most blatant example being WP:WHENTABLE. of course you don't want to discuss, you cant prove your points! try at least to comprehend a guideline before just randomly throwing a link as "proof" of your opinions. mocking a user who is trying to have a debate is a clear breach of WP:CIV, as is offensive and provocative remarks as "Oh quit blowing your own bloody trumpet and spouting crap". arguments are sustained by policies and guidelines not by attacking the other party--Andres rojas22 (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Waffle.. I see lots of words, but nothing of value. I don't need to provide anything further, other than to indicate that the current format is wider supported and stable. You can change it, but if you do I'll refer it to the war editing board as contrary to consensus. This discussion is over, because you clearly have nothing to say but the same empty words. So I have no reply other than: consensus wins in the form of three or four editors rejecting you wanting a list. I've cited plenty of policy in the past, which Mr S. noted and agreed was relevant, so how you come the conclusion that I haven't either makes you stupid, or a liar. Now I have nothing more to say on the matter. Tables have been supported, lists haven't. I have no interest in your "civility" rants, or anything else. End of story. Ma®©usBritish 13:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Section break

i have agreed on the use of table, not b the table's virtues but onl as a compromise, but with a couple of changes:

• the 2 columns that list separately the ear of beginning and ear of ending of the war to become a single column, and
• reduce the outcome descriptions by removing excessive information of the concessions obtained:territorial exchanges and war reparations.

do you agree?--Andres rojas22 (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No.

Per FL criteria (the ultimate goal of any lists, and so best criteria we have): "Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities."

Combining start and end of wars removes sorting ability. If someone wanted to know what wars began in X-year they could, but they would lose ability to sort by and find wars that ended in X-year.

Provide examples of what you consider "excessive". The matter is subjective, but the outcome of any war is generally identifiable, as long as it is not controversial and challenged by people who think the outcome was something else. Reliable sources should be provided in those cases, and to attain FL each outcome should be sourced. A fairly big task, but not impossible. Ma®©usBritish 20:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

a table with a large number of lines between ever war is not easily navigable, and combining the dates of start and ending in one column would complicate sorting and finding conflicts by the year they ended because visually the only change would be 1900-1901 instead of 1900|1901. if you look a First Opium War you'll see how small is the space occupied by the main information which is the name of the conflict and date compared to the one occupied by the details of what concessions the chinese made, it should say british victory and/or treaty of nanjing. an article should include information that is needed b the user the reader to understand what he is reading, but not too much to the point where it becomes a visual distraction and hinders reading. an example if i listed "First Opium War" without anmore detail i would be forcing the reader to go to the page's article to see the date it was fought but b putting the dates of the war in this list the reader would have a better understanding of the conflict and if he wanted more details he could direct himself to the article's page. self containment and reliance on other articles for further information are both important, but a list even if in table form is just a list and not an article.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

What "large number of lines between every war"? Combining dates is not appropriate, as in some cases wars coincide with each other, so sorting:

• 1066-1070
• 1150-1250
• 1200-1201
• 1380-1400

would produce them in that same order for Start, but not work in order to produce:

• 1066-1070
• 1200-1201
• 1150-1250
• 1380-1400

for sorting by end, as proved here:

As is clear in this example, sorting both start/end is the better option, and what is required for ordering the data, not just for visual layout, which seems to be your concern. People want to be able to find things chronologically, in such tables. Basic lists offer none of these options, hence why they are easy to rule out for this purpose, where the article forms a chronology of events. Am speaking from experience, as I work with a lot of articles that use lists, tables and such, so I know how they function very clearly, and what is suitable format for them.

For all intents and purposes, you're using the word "article" wrong. Everything is an "article" per se, it's it's format that determines if the article is a list, prose based, table, etc. "Article" is an umbrella term, for everything, generally speaking.

Ma®©usBritish 02:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

i see, i agree on the separate columns for dates. but what about the description of the results, i pointed out the descriptions are too detailed and its information that the reader probably doesn't read at all, people get into this lists of wars to search for a conflict and then go to that conflict's article to get more information, they don't read the whole list so they don't make use of the detailed descriptions which obviously cannot compete with the coverage of a full article; and the editor will find hard to fill up what are a huge lists: covering 300 years of conflicts all over the world for the british and more than 700 years for russia! of which only a tiny fraction are listed now. what i propose if to give the results of wars as victor/defeat and/or naming the treat that ended the war, but to put more details to the description is to overcrowd the readers view with exclusive details and set a standard that other editors may not follow or achieve.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think in those cases where a war ended in a treaty it is not always necessary to detail each and every clause of the treaty, even in summary form, a wikilink to the treaty should suffice, and possibly one or two main points per outcome, nothing trivial, may be required in some but not all cases where the result, as part of the outcome, is of great importance to British or even world history, e.g. Napoleonic Wars, WWI, WWII, etc. This, however, would require further discussion between other editors involved in the article, as I'm not willing to make the decision to refactor the Outcome column based on a one-on-one discussion. Ma®©usBritish 20:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

i agree on putting the treaty instead of the details it involved except in major wars like napoleonic, etc. but "further discussion between other editors involved in the article, as I'm not willing to make the decision to refactor the Outcome column based on a one-on-one discussion." is not only impractical but it's a utopia that is never done in the wikipedia because if we asked for the opinions of editors who have previously edited the article we would never have the enciclopedia we have now, it would take forever. that's why the accepted form of acting is WP:BRD, we make changes and if someone disagrees we discuss but we don't have an obligation to previous editors no matter how much hours the invested because articles aren't property of editors. that's why everytime you're making an edit below the Save page button says "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."--Andres rojas22 (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• WP:BRD is not relevant in this case, as that applies when there has been considerable debate regarding an article, but also many edits that are not agreed to by various editors. I already performed BRD by boldly reverting your disputed list format back to the original table, and then discussing the unsuitability with you, for far longer than should be appropriate. If you were to revert back to the list that would be war editing not BRD, because multiple editors support the table structure against and are opposed to your changes, and removing text from the Outcome column is technically not "reverting" anything, anyway. However, you will find that because those multiple editors have made a consensus decision, and that the table is now determined to remain, any refactoring should be presented as a proposal prior to performing them, otherwise you would be seen as bending the rules of the consensus. So, yes it is practical, and no it wouldn't take forever (a hyperbolical expectation). It's the simple matter of fact that you opposed the use of a table in this article, and were highly involved in editing it, previously. As was I. Therefore, in order for bias to be avoided, either way, it is necessary to have your proposed changes presented and discussed amongst uninvolved editors, transparently. We do not make edits and then expect them to be discussed reactively in every case, we often discuss edits proactively, to avoid controversy, war edits, etc, in order to maintain article stability until the idea can be considered, and approved, a bit like a sandbox. That is consensus, also, and what is required here, regardless of how long it takes. Wiki does not work by deadlines, nor are editors supposed to enforce deadlines and personal timescales in order to push through their edits and not give people ample time to consider the effects. So I recommend you back down from being pushy, as it will not be taken lightly, no one likes to be rushed unnecessarily.
• The wording below the Submit button is just general advice, per the Creative Commons licence Wiki operates under, and bears no relevance either. It simple means, WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour is not allowed here. We may not have an obligation to discuss each and every change with previous editors, but we have an obligation to respect consensus, and you have an obligation to recognise that the table format has been widely approved, 6:1 against you, and that you would be "safe" and sensible to discuss any ideas openly with the community, rather than acting of your own accord and disrespecting their majority, no matter how slight the edits may seem to you.
• I recommend you open up a new discussion on the article's talk page, and await enough responses for about two weeks, minimum, before making any changes, as that may be considered war editing, by myself or others, and reverted or reported. Ma®©usBritish 17:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

t

you are making a strange blend between two very different things (consensus and ownership), we have already agreed on keeping the format as a table which was the point of the discussion but now you and i are discussing details that are not part or the consensus. i have well proven the point in my last comment that polling to ask whether i'm allowed to make changes in the article is not supported by any policy and contrary to the interest of making an encyclopedia which is accomplished by editing and not by throwing fences and claiming ownership of certain articles. i'm not going to reach out and ask for the opinions of uninvolved editors because articles are not private property in which one need permission to trespass.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Blend? I think you'll find that I made a distinction, and that once consensus favours a particular choice, any soul editor going against the consensus would be claiming ownership, possibly. What we are discussing now is neither unique nor new, as it was raised in your initial discussions with other editors, that you wanted to minimise the content, reducing it to something more functional, apparently, therefore the views of other editors that the table is appropriate also includes its current content. The matter of what you want to change incorporates your initial views that the table contains more information than you would prefer. Therefore I am requesting that you discuss the matter with a wider array of editors, and not just myself. This is nothing to do with private property or trespassing, this is to do with you claiming that you are making "unique" changes, when in fact you are wanting to make the same content reducing edits as before, only within the table layout. Trying to WP:WIKILAWYER yourself around the matter does not change the fact that your proposals should be discussed, before resorting to these subjective edits. Please follow simple community procedure, and stop trying to act of your own accord, aka WP:POVPUSHing as I have no interest in this repeated circular debate about what you want. The matter is unbecoming, and frankly, you are selfish to disregard the comments being left by editors on the talk page, and below. The constant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude is now very irritating. So I'll put it like this: The community rejected your list format, and may potentially reject your minimal Outcome format. So in order to avoid having the article reverted, to avoid war editing, escalation to lengthy RFC, and other further time consuming efforts, it is in your and wiki's best interests to discuss the proposal with interested editors. If you don't feel you should have to that's your choice, just don't be surprised if the removal of a lot of text gets reverted because you failed to seek consensus and give suitable reasons to remove so much content that may be relevant to others. WP:CONSENSUS is exactly the policy that applies here, despite your belief that Wiki is free for anyone to edit, that does not mean an editor can force their revised opinions when other editors have rejected their earlier attempts, and expect them to be welcome. Ma®©usBritish 21:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

after we conclude the discussion i will edit the article (taking into account the consensus, that is that the format remains a table) and if an editor expresses his objections to my changes then i will cordially accept a reversion and discuss the differences with him, as has always been the way to do things in wikipedia. that's the process of editing an article.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Then I have to formally warn you that the revert and objection will be made by me, reported to WP:ANEW and I shall insist there that the matter be discussed as a community consented change, first, if necessary a WP:RFC. As I have already stated, you do not represent a WP:NPOV, and your stake in the matter is based on a disposition than precedes this discussion. "I will cordially accept a reversion" is ownership being expressed, and prelude to another length round of exhaustive discussions, and unnecessary discussion. A discussion that precedes the matter would be more intelligent. I invite you to begin that discussion, now, on the talk page, and have some courtesy for once, and change your attitude towards not provoking a dispute, or I shall open the discussion.. and then you will have no choice but to wait. I refer you to WP:CONADMIN#Consensus-building pitfalls and errors which states: "Tendentious editing. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process." Take note of the bold, and that I have asked you, repeated, to seek an open consensus, and that you have refused, and dismissed the strength of such an action. See also, WP:NOTUNANIMITY, and WP:What is consensus?#Using the consensus-building process which states:

1. Freely exchange your interests and concerns. Also try to understand policies and guidelines that represent the interests of the Misplaced Pages community at large.
2. Offer a proposal that best meets everyone's interests and concerns, to the extent that they are reasonable.
3. Modify the proposal based on further feedback from the group.
4. If necessary, begin a new discussion and repeat the consensus building process with a wider range of editors.

As is evident in this tiresome DR, there has been no proposal that has attracted group interest, and you attitude has been condemned below. Your post on WP:ANI was a wasted effort, as I won't back down from my views, as scare tactics don't work on me. And as this discussion is not on the article talk page, and is mostly a 1:1 basis, is not targeting the right audience, from which to gain feedback. Consensus overrules your interpretation of "the process of editing an article", which lacks transparency and is WP:POINTY. Your own words: "i will edit the article (taking into account the consensus, that is that the format remains a table) and if an editor expresses his objections to my changes then i will cordially accept a reversion and discuss the differences with him" is the quintessential example of pointy behaviour, i.e. "I expect trouble, but I'm still doing it my way instead of working with others to avoid it", as summarised in WP:GAME: "Filibustering the consensus-building process by reverting another editor for minor errors, or sticking to a viewpoint that the community has clearly rejected." In your case, you are sticking with the minimalist viewpoint offered in your original edit. It should be discussed first, applied only with approval, which may require revisions to the proposal. As you can see, there are many policy and guideline quotes referenced herein, so I suggest now you stop playing this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT game, and open the discussion. The sooner you do, the sooner progress may actually be made, as you won't gain any here, as each time you jam your foot in the door to force your edits down our necks, I'm going to kick it and request that you do things openly, and neutrally. There's no policy in your favour against me requesting that you seek consensus, you'll find, in fact policy is highly in favour of such action. I've quoted it, so now you should by a good little editor, and follow it so as not to attract negative attention from frustrated editors/admins. As I stated earlier, I may support some form of trimming the Outcome column, but I expect it to be proposed, discussed and refined before applied; so I am not opposing your idea, only insisting that it be discussed. If no other editors discuss the matter to oppose it, you can assume there are no objections and proceed accordingly, having gained silent consensus. The process is hardly complex or one-sided, with this being the case. And you would be illogical and tendentious, having just read this long reply, to once again claim that policy is in your favour. Time to drop the stick, and move on, before you start looking foolish. Ma®©usBritish 02:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

this discussion would be so productive if you defended you're point with policies and not trying to make some kind of equation on what you think my behavior is. you still have to prove why i should have to consult with uninvolved editors about a discussion that only involves us. you already expressed you're agreement to reduce the content on the outcome column so we reached a consensus there, therefore i (or you) can edit the page to implement those changes. you think this is some kind of collegiate procedure when one has to call a board meeting for every edit to the article, well you're so wrong. as is normal practice i would edit the article as per the consensus we reached on the outcome column and that's the end of the story unless someone else has a different opinion and reverts me or simply the article just keep getting edited b x editor, and that's the cycle of article building.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

and apparently in you're opinion you can just change what we agreed to the article, the sortable date columns without consulting anyone more , but i need to consult to ever editor who has collaborated in this article if its ok to change the content of the outcome table. Double standards.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this just another further repeat of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, or are you always this arrogant?

• "this discussion would be so productive if you defended you're point with policies"  Done - multiple policies quoted above, to your none.
• "you still have to prove why i should have to consult with uninvolved editors about a discussion that only involves us"  Done - Wiki involves everyone, I refuse to discuss the matter wit you, because you are biased, and I am on the opposing side, thus neutral editors are needed.
• "you already expressed you're agreement to reduce the content on the outcome column so we reached a consensus there" - false - I stated an opinion "I think in those cases where a war ended in a treaty it is not always necessary to detail each and every clause of the treaty..." followed by "This, however, would require further discussion between other editors involved in the article, as I'm not willing to make the decision to refactor the Outcome column based on a one-on-one discussion." - Do not draw false conclusions from my words. I requested a discussion. A consensus is a mutual agreement, and I cam to no agreement with you. Because:
• I do not consider you a neutral enough editor to determine who wars are major, which text needs trimming, and which only require treaty names. I request a discussion, so that other editors, possibly with greater NPOV skills than yourself, can pitch in and help with the refactoring. I suspect you will butcher the Outcome column to suit your feelings about superfluous info,and that this entire discussion is a pretence, and I will not be baited into allowing myself to allow you to do so without appropriate consensus.
• Once again, you and I have reached no consensus. I have not agreed anything specific, only a broad statement that the Outcome column might benefit from from trimming, but that you are not the best editor to do it, based on your prejudices expressed earlier.
• You agreed with separate columns for dates, and they are sortable as part of the WP:TABLES and WP:FL standard. Your edits are subjective, and affect content, not layout so don't be petty, it's pointless and you're not being smart challenging minor edits, just tendentious.
• Once again, another 2 hours wasted on this discussion. You could have opened a discussion on the talk page by now and gotten feedback by now instead of whining further. I'm starting to suspect that you're afraid the community will reject your proposals, in which case I redact any support for any refactoring of the Outcome column, even though it barely exists anyway, until feedback has been requested and given by the uninvolved editors. Now you have no choice, and I have nothing more to say until you do. I've been candid; step back and offer the floor to other editors, and stop trying to force your opinions. Ma®©usBritish 11:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Andres, there are six editors disagreeing with you in the discussion at Talk:List of wars involving Great Britain#List format / content and none agreeing with you. I think it's time you admit consensus is not on your side and Drop the Stick. Mojoworker (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

you can see in the article discussion page that what was being discussed was if the list should be in table or in a stand alone list. i have agreed on this wp:drn to keep it as a table so that discussion is over, now there's a new discussion on how the table should look. so the stick you're talking about was dropped a long time ago this is another discussion.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cue Andres, not taking sides here, but saying "the stick was dropped a long time ago" doesn't mean that the issue isn't relevant. Remember, consensus can change, and it appears to have done so in this case. Sleddog116 (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Request closure

Could a clerk please review this DR from the "Section break", comment, advise, conclude and close the matter. I believe it is becoming too circular, and that Andres' WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT stance is becoming excessive and leading to blatant WP:GAMING and/or proposed WP:POINTY behaviour. Some formal intervention is required here, possibly Admin warning, as he clearly won't listen to reason, no matter how many policies/guidelines I refer to, and he remains a proverbial "bull in a china shop" intent on making edits without even seeking a minimal form of consensus. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish 03:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done yet. I think we can still prevent this from escalating. See below. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Section break: Reassessment

Comment by Sleddog116: I regularly assist here on DRN, and I would like to comment based on my assessment of the situation. Okay, it seems that, unfortunately, discussion has broken down here a bit. I will admit that I am not entirely "up" on the issue at hand (I couldn't really get through all of the text above; it was very long and involved, and I don't have the time at the moment to fully review it), but I get the basic gist of it. I don't think we need administrative action yet, so I'd like for us to hang on here for a little while. Even if this doesn't work, I still think that the Mediation Cabal would be a much better avenue at this point than going to ANI - ANI discussions are rarely very pleasant for anyone involved, so it's better to avoid that if at all possible.

To Andres rojas22: As I mentioned above (before the section break), please remember that consensus can change. Just because something was "settled" a long time ago does not mean that it is not open for debate. On Misplaced Pages, nothing is ever set in stone. If the broader community is by and large rejecting your viewpoint, don't be a crusader. If you repeat the same argument, you get the same answers. In other words, "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten." If you want to make your case more effectively, bring new arguments, not the same ones.

To MarcusBritish: Please assume good faith. Just because Andres does not seem to be accepting consensus does not mean that he intends harm to the project. In the above discussion, you have turned the discussion on the editor rather than addressing the merits of the edits.

To everyone involved: Please, please, please keep your comments brief. All of the involved parties have given very long, detailed, complex responses that could be stated in much simpler terms. Remember to thread your comments appropriately. Doing otherwise (from anyone - I'm not accusing any particular editor of tendentious editing) is counterproductive. No one is going to be able to navigate the walls of text that are being posted in this discussion, and it gets stalled when that happens. If it is a large issue, take it point by point - don't try to hit every single thing at once. Nothing will get done that way.

Now, let's back up, stay cool, and try to resolve this without having to go to unpleasant means. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I will WP:AGF when Andres actually shows some per WP:DGF; WP:AGF is a guideline, not policy. Until then, the persistent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude is simply a tactic being employed by Andres in the hopes he will wind me up enough to drive me out of opposing him, through prolonged ad nauseam repetition, so that he can get his own way. Won't work. I'll simply escalate this matter to an Admin board, long before then, and will even request a topic ban if he edits the article contrary to current consensus. Simple as that. I know how harsh ANI can be, yes. But I welcome it, as when an editor is clearly being stubborn and time consuming for their own ends they are not exhibiting WP:COMPETENCE. Per WP:SPADE, the more Andres prattles on, the more disruptive he is, and my time is more valuable than "listening" to his stuck record, or WP:HORSE as you call it. I addressed his edits long ago, and have no further interest in them unless he refers them to uninvolved editors for consideration, per policy. Now I am addressing his behaviour which is disturbingly obsessive and tendentious. At this stage, until Andres ceases his forceful demands, an RFC is required. There is nothing to mediate between us, because he has a strong POV, and further editor involvement is required to develop the article, not mediation. Ma®©usBritish 20:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Marcus, I realize how frustrating it can be, but accusations of bad faith serve no practical purpose. I have already addressed Andres's conduct on this noticeboard, and assuming good faith means giving him a chance to respond in kind. Every editor, yourself included, has a POV of some kind. That is human nature. The point is, regardless of his point of view, I have seen by his edits that he does not intend harm towards the encyclopedia - edit warring is not vandalism. Also, AGF is a policy. Quoting directly from WP:AGF, "the assumption of good faith is dictated by Misplaced Pages policy". I am trying to prevent this from escalating - if you are truly trying to improve the encyclopedia, give this discussion a chance to restart without taking drastic measures. Give the other editors a chance to respond. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This DR has been going on since 25 March, and Andres has shown no interest in giving ground to allow other editors to play an important role in discussing his proposals, because he is afraid of them being rejected. My POV is that consensus be obtained. His is that he does not need to and that he can do what ever he wants. I have no intention of restarting this Punch and Judy farce, whatsoever. I have detailed guidelines and policy in great detail, and still Andres retorts with claims that I have not supported by argument. It's like talking to a child. WP:AGF can stick itself, because it actually reads "This page documents an English Misplaced Pages behavioral guideline." The part you quoted applies only when accusing an editor of bad faith, which I have not done. I simply don't assume good faith, nor will I be dictated to. Note: "Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively, because just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed." A consensus has been reached. Consensus may change, but it cannot be forced, as Andres is attempting to do. I have attempted to request Andres seek clear unambiguous consensus, the fact that he refuses to to do so, and persists in denying WP:CONSENSUS is akin to bad faith, in the form of WP:GAMING. I stand on firm ground with regards to the policy that requires editors work collaboratively in order to develop articles. Andres rejects those principles, which is disruptive. All I see now is "blah blah blah" each time he response, the same stick, the same retorts, demanding the same unapproved edits. I'm bored of this guy and his nonsense, and the only "resolution" I will accept is that the previously rejected edits he proposes be presented on the article's talk page for other editors to consider, discuss, and refine. That can either be done by his own hand, or an RFC started by any editor, allowing close scrutiny of the proposals and potentially better feedback pre-edit. A DR requires there to be "a dispute". There is no dispute here that can be resolved between ourselves, due to polarised POVs. Therefore it is necessary to request further opinions from interested editors looking to develop the article without it being subject to POV or edit warring. Simple as that, and well within policy. Ma®©usBritish 22:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Sleddog, i'm gonna try to sum my answer, we started a discussion on April 25 as to whether to change the article's formatting from tabular to stand alone list and we agreed on keeping it a table but reducing excessive content. now instead of finishing up to discuss and implement the changes he agrees on the changes but come with the marvelous idea that they don't be implemented. that i must go to the talk page of the article and seek to discuss it with editors who have nothing to do with this discussion because he claims previous editors have some kind of rights to be consulted before i change their edits. putting an obstacle on the implementation of changes to which we had agreed "where a war ended in a treaty it is not always necessary to detail each and every clause of the treaty, even in summary form, a wikilink to the treaty should suffice, and possibly one or two main points per outcome, nothing trivial, may be required in some but not all cases where the result, as part of the outcome, is of great importance to British or even world history, e.g. Napoleonic Wars, WWI, WWII, etc." (. -Andres rojas22 (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Redacted due to being taken out of context – I agreed to nothing, only gave a broad opinion. Awaiting talk page discussion or RFC. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT continues. Ma®©usBritish 09:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Mantas Šiaučiūnas

Closing as: Outside of English Misplaced Pages's pervueCurb Chain (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate)

• List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate) is/was a very large article with a very large and cumbersome notes column. User talk:This, that and the other (unrelated to this conflict) suggested on the talk page that the notes section be removed all otgether because all the information there is in each general's respective article. I (User: Brightgalrs) did just that, and went through removing the notes section among other changes. User: IcarusPhoenix undid my revision and posted a message on my wall. This conversation followed.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Brightgalrs (talk · contribs)
• IcarusPhoenix (talk · contribs)

I feel as though IcarusPhoenix is nonchalantly undoing my edit without the intention of making the article better at all.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) 20:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate)}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I've initiated the third opinion step here and posted on the WikiProject Military history talk page here

• How do you think we can help?

Mediate this argument and end the edit war.

Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) 20:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate) discussion

"Imagine if you will that you had done the same amount of work that you just did on these articles, but came back and did that same work several dozen times... and then someone came out of nowhere and, without discussing it with anyone else, eliminated massive swaths of it." (Posted here by IcarusPhoenix) Icarus, do you feel that my revisions are wrong simply because you put effort into what I deleted? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) 20:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cue I think the consensus is clear that the "Notes" section should be removed with 3 editors in favor of it as opposed to 1 editor who does not want it removed. I've requested for page protection so this dispute can be resolved. Don't edit war, if the edit warring gets really bad, report it to the edit warring noticeboard and it may lead to temporary blocks. IcarusPhoenix, is there a reason why you would like to have the "Notes" section maintained? Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 21:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

First things first, I did not write the above comment on this page; it was my response to User:Brightgalrs|Brightgalrs]] on the user's talk page, and it was Brightgalrs who chose to move it here without the relevant context, not I; it was a direct reply to Brightgalrs, and not part of the dispute process. That being said, here is my position on the matter:

I think that Brightgalrs decision to apply for dispute resolution is premature, as the user has thus far failed to understand the nature of the dispute, nor bothered to discuss his/her edits with a single one of the more than half-a-dozen editors who have been working for years to craft this article and (among other things and with consensus) address the exact issue that Brightgalrs thought they were addressing. The dispute is not entirely over the nature of the edits, but in part over Brightgalrs' decision to make those edits without bothering to once discuss it with any other editors involved in the page, most notably Donner60, who was already condensing (not callously deleting) the notes section to bring it in line with its sister article List of American Civil War Generals (Union) (which Brightgalrs also made some undiscussed massive - though less-invasive - changes to) and in accordance with a long consensus-building discussion between several editors; if Brightgalrs had so much as bothered to look here (which would have involved no more effort than scrolling slightly up the talk page) or looked at the recent edit history, he/she(?) could have avoided this entire process, to say nothing of creating a situation that would lead to a copy-protection that will delay Donner60's work. While Brightgalrs may feel that my reversion of his/her edits were "nonchalant" and lacking regard for the work done, my position is that even making those edits without bothering to look at the article history or the work that others had already agreed to was an act that actually damaged the integrity and accuracy of the article. This is a discussion that has been held civilly by several editors from the articles very inception, and not one of us had the lack of common courtesy displayed by Brightgalrs to simply go and make massive wholesale changes to an article with no regard for work already in progress. I strongly recommend that people read Donner60's explanation on the talk page I linked above and look at the article history to see why we object to Brightgalrs' unilateral decision to change the very nature of the article.

Also, at the risk of sounding nitpicky here, Brightgalrs didn't quite follow procedure in informing of this dispute, and has yet to say anything to any of the other editors of either page; the only reason this dispute is being had between Brightgalrs and myself rather than Brightgalrs and myself, Donner60, BusterD, Searcher 1990, and several others is simply that I was the first one to notice the situation; I have had to take it on myself to draw their attention to this matter. Despite the rapidity of Brightgalrs' actions, Hlj has already been kind enough to respond to my request for an opinion (just as he or I or several others would have done for Brightgalrs had he/she bothered to ask), and his reply can be read on my talk page. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: Please note than , , , and constitutes as campaigning per WP:CANVAS, due to the unneutral accusational tone of the messages, i.e. "As another editor of the page, I'm turning to you and a few others to ask assistance in trying to reign in actions that frankly border on vandalism." Icarus is advised to read WP:VANDAL as removal of content, with Good Faith intents does not constitute as vandalism, by any standards. Would advise Brightgalrs that if he feels Icarus has sought to cast unfair claims against him to raise the matter with WP:ANI, as wide-spread accusations of vandalism are not tolerated, generally. Ma®©usBritish 22:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Marcus' assertion of canvassing; asking the opinions of other involved and interested editors (which Brightgalrs failed to do) - notes I had begun to write before the dispute resolution process began - does not constitute canvassing. These are interested parties in the dispute, and I very clearly asked their opinion; that I cut-and-pasted the same question to all of them for the sake of expediency in the face of an issue that is moving surprisingly quickly is hardly surprising; that the out-of-context portion of my statement that Marcus quoted above was border-line inflammatory, however, I do not really dispute; this was, as I said before this process had started, and after Brightgalrs' out-of-hand rejection of any opinion other than his/her own, I was unsurprisingly irritable. While in retrospect I am not terribly fond of the tone I adopted in those messages, being dismissed by someone who refused to participate in preexisting discussions before making wholesale changes was, I think you'll agree, understandably irksome.

IcarusPhoenix (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Inviting other editors to comment is permitted. Adding an unneutral tone to the invitation is campaigning, period. So feel free to disagree, you are incorrect however, per Wiki policy, which is linked and clear. You choice if editors also seems fairly selective, given how you state that there are "more than half a dozen". Might want to think about that. Ma®©usBritish 22:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's Comment/Template:Cue Icarus, thank you for your reply. MarcusBritish, I don't think those edits constitute canvassing as they are merely notes to possibly interested parties to participate in discussion. However, I do agree that ownership of articles is not acceptable and there should be openness to other editors wanting to improve the page. Icarus and Brightgalrs, I think there has been a lack of communication (or miscommunication) about the "Notes" section. I do agree that you should reach a consensus on what to do with the "Notes" section before merely just completing an edit. If necessary, you can request for comments on what sort of measure should be done (i.e., complete removal of the "Notes" section or refactoring of the "Notes" section). As I said earlier, if the edit warring continues after the full page protection expires, please report it to the edit warring noticeboard. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 22:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Whenaxis, thank you for your statement. Marcus, I went to three editors whose activity level on this group of articles showed the sort of dedication that Brightgalrs has demonstrated and whose hard work was most at-risk by edits made without consensus. Your assumption of bad faith from me is no different than my assumption of the same in Brightgalrs' edits, and is unbecoming to someone who theoretically should be a neutral party.

My suggestion is as follows: That Brightgalrs and myself do our best to leave this discussion aside entirely for a day or so, until other interested parties (notably Donner60, whose work constituted the overwhelming majority of what Brightgalrs eliminated) have had time to look at the matter. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

MarcusBritish: The canvassing guideline clearly states under the appropriate notification heading at the last point, "On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them." which is precisely what IcarusPhoenix did. It was inappropriate of you to assume bad faith on IcarusPhoenix's part, the first step when you suspect canvassing, is to politely talk with the user to stop posting notices.

IcarusPhoenix: That would be a good idea. Step away from the dispute for a little while and once you've calmed down, return to discussing. If there are any further issues, feel free to bring this dispute back to the dispute resolution noticeboard or refer it to the edit warring noticeboard in the event of disruptive edit warring. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 22:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Icarus' wording, accusing someone of vandalism, when evidently there has been no such behaviour, was inappropriate, and so not only do I assume bad faith on his part, but the polemic attacks of that/those editors which his dispute is against are proof of his bad faith. I stand by my notions, and care not if you wrongly see my concerns as bad faith. His wording was aggressive, and designed to provoke selected editors. The WP:CANVASS guideline you mention also states, "Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages." This is precisely what he did also. I consider Icarus' accusation tone as a motive to impress a POV, contrary to the guideline. That's all I have to say on this clear-as-mud matter, thank you. Ma®©usBritish 01:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This dispute is ridiculous. IcarusPhoenix should have quickly seen that consensus was against the unwieldy 300 kb notes section, and that its presence was detrimental to article access in terms of focus and with respect to those with poor internet connections. (Even without the 300 kb the article is a mass of server calls with all of those images.) IcarusPhoenix dug his heels in and tried a number of tactics to retain the mass of peripheral text. He should acknowledge that none of the tactics worked and that consensus has shifted firmly for removal.

The text in question is available in article history; it does not need to be kept in the 'live' article for any sort of slow, careful removal piece by piece. It should be removed post-haste. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet: The thing is, I agree that the notes section is unwieldy. In fact, I was the first one to say so, right here, which is why User:Donner60 was in the process of paring it down when this dispute cropped up. What I do not agree with is its complete absence; indeed, my opinion - stated many times before and generally lost in the quagmire of Marcus' personal attacks - is that the notes column should be brought in line with the much-more limited and relevant style set in List of American Civil War Generals (Union) (which is exactly what was being done, though still not to the extent that I for one felt it should), and that the "Date, Place of Birth", "Date, Place of Death", and especially-irrelevant "College" columns should all be eliminated. The dispute exists primarily because a user decided to do a mass edit without seeing if they were stepping on the toes of another user (namely Donner60) who was already solving the size problem in a manner that Brightgalrs' edit ruins the progress of. Edits of such scope are usually kept in the sandbox for this very reason, and one only needs to look at the articles recent history to see that, never mind multiple discussions that were had prior to this incident. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet – I agree with your thoughts, and disapprove of Icarus' attitude towards the objections stated, and his attempts to stand between consensus and his way of doing things, but it also seems to me that this DR is now evolving into an attempt to stall further action as well as WP:SOUP the objections. Donner60 has indicated they are on wikibreak into ~17 April. Evidently this DR cannot be allowed to drag on for that long while no progress is made to the WP:TRIVIA based Notes column. Recommend you open an WP:RFC and have other editors comment on the matter. I suspect, given than many editors dislike WP:TOOLONG articles, and that 472,000kb is utterly ridiculous and resource-greedy, that they will motion for instant removal of the Notes, or begin an instant cut-down of the crap detailed therein, before Donner60 gets back. Despite Icarus' beliefs, no one has the right to "reserve" an entire article for themselves to refactor, for more than a few hours, that would be WP:OWNish. Your choice, however, but it would lead to stronger consensus building, and hopefully knock Icarus off his high-horse, as the community doesn't fare well with overbearing editors leading issues. Ma®©usBritish 18:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

My recommendation (unsurprisingly) is somewhat different - though, unlike Marcus, that may be because I'm more interested in an equitable solution to paring down the article than I am in the personal virtues of others (a tendency Marcus is displaying not only here, but in a companion discussion here in which he has spent the entire discussion cursing more creatively and has made nationally-bigoted comments, and above in his equally vitriolic and unconstructive personal attacks against User:Andres rojas22). My recommendation is that we immediately eliminated the unnecessary birth/death/college columns (which, especially in the case of the latter, we can all agree are superfluous to the topic of the article) and continue to pare down the notes section just as User:Donner60 has done for sections A-F - though, as I stated earlier, I am now and always have been strongly in favor of being far more aggressive about these eliminations that Donner60 has been. Again, I suggest looking to the sister article for a demonstration of concise and strictly-structured notations. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Section break

IcarusPhoenix, unfortunately, the consensus is against your recommendation of refactoring the "Notes" section. Majority of the editors want it completely absent from the article. And MarcusBritish has brought some good points about how the note that you left on the editors' talk pages were not neutral, in the future, I ask you to avoid such circumstances as it may appear as canvassing even if you don't mean it to be. In addition, just pushing the blame on other people as to the failure of the resolution of the dispute is not the way to resolve the dispute. Perhaps, Donner60 and IcarusPhoenix can propose their refactored version of the notes later on the talk page, while we maintain the article without the notes because it is quite heavy on the article and too long for the time being. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 20:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That seems fair for now, though I would point out that the consensus here doesn't fully seem to match consensus elsewhere, nor do I feel that enough input has been made overall, particularly to my most recent suggestion, which no one has yet had time to reply to; I would request leaving this resolution thread open for a few more days, since at present it's mostly filled with Marcus' ever-more vulgar attacks and my ill-advised desire to defend myself from those attacks, rather than discussions of the dispute in question or the relative merits of specific proposals (indeed, yourself and User:Binksternet seem to be the only ones thus far able to remain faithful to the discussion's core topic). IcarusPhoenix (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: I have rapidly sandboxed the "A" section of the list to demonstrate my proposal here (note: it's not perfect, but just a rapid demonstration... there are a couple of factual tidbits I'm uncertain about). The first version is it's current appearance after Donner60 eliminated the full-bio notes still visible in letters after "F"; the second is my proposal for revision, maintaining the notes column with only relevant information and eliminating three intervening columns. Also, I'm not really satisfied with the ranks column; I am of the opinion that nomination dates are unnecessary and that only confirmation dates (in parentheses) are necessary to indicate seniority. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Can the reader not find the information in the "Notes" column from the article page on the person? Whenaxis (contribs) 21:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Much of it, yes - or, at least, they certainly should be able to, though many of those articles - particularly for Confederate generals - are not themselves quite up to standards yet. That actually was my exact argument against having so much extraneous information in the notes to begin with, and I think it is also the argument in favor of removing the birth/death/college columns. Things like units, non-notable elected offices, non-military colleges, and deaths unrelated to the war just aren't relevant to the article's topic and belong confined to the individual articles; however, I do think there is an argument to be made for specific and relevant information. I for one feel that readers should be able to find from this single location things like who died during the war, who had a military education, which CSA officers resigned from the US Army, which US officers earned the Thanks of Congress and Medal of Honor, and which officers held major civil or military offices (Governors, federal office, ambassadorships, etc.). The other information is, I agree, extraneous, which is why I put up a comparison version. I'm also still of the opinion that nomination dates are superfluous and confusing. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think if we deduct the "Notes" section further so it looks like other related articles (i.e., List of American Civil War Generals (Union)), it'll be easier on the reader. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 21:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the article you're referencing has a notes section, which is the one I'm emulating with my test edit; what it does not have the birth/death/college columns, and the elimination of those is what would make it look similar. If the goal is to make the articles look similar, those are the columns that we should contemplate elimination of, I believe.

Also, just as a further point, I've just done a character count test; only eliminating the notes column takes the "A" section from 12,368 bytes to 6,194; however, eliminating the columns not present in the sister article and eliminating information from the notes not in the sister article brings it down to 5,138 bytes; removing nomination dates would probably remove another 200-300 bytes more. In sections after "F", where no paring down or notes has yet been done at all, the effect would be even greater. My estimation is that rather than lowering the character count by about 307,000 bytes (which is what elimination of the note's column did), we could maintain the relevant information and bring the character count by 350,000 bytes or more. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That's what I meant by "deduct" :) - as in decrease the size of the notes. I agree that if we cut down the size of the "Notes" section, the other sections that don't appear in the other articles should be removed as well. What does everyone else think? Are we just trying to make everything shorter or being biased towards the "Notes" section (because that's a little unfair if that's so)? Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 22:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

My feeling is that, at the very least, User:Brightgalrs (who I'm hoping will drop by soon and look at this particular proposal) and I share the goal of decreasing article size... and drastically. As for bias, I think my bias is not so much towards keeping the column's existence as it is towards making the articles look the same... which, admittedly, means the same thing under the circumstances. IcarusPhoenix (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC).

@Whenaxis: By what means is bias against the Notes unfair? Let's take the very first A entry in the table and his notes as an example. They read:

• Brother of Brig. Gen. William Wirt Adams.
• Mississippi state senator, 1852–1856.
• 1st Louisiana Inf.: Lt. col., March 13, 1861, col., October 30, 1861.
• Lost right eye at Shiloh.
• Wounded: Perryville, Stones River (Murfreesboro).
• Wounded and captured at Chickamauga, exchanged 1864.

These have apparently been reduced already, by Donner60. Given that this as American Civil War related, his role as senator is unrelated, it pre-dates the ACW by 5 years, and I don't see why the brother relation matters here. The last four points are the only notes direct related to the ACW.

Now, please go to WP:TRIVIA#Example, see this example of what not to do per MOS, and tell me how this table (or Union) is any different? How can these articles ever attain WP:FL standard, for example, when they completely blatantly contradict the requirement which states: "5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages", WP:TRIV being a supplementary. I'm failing to comprehend why articles of such lengthy content should be permitted to go against the universal MOS, and WP:TOOLONG when others are reduced to comply? I know there are some that are necessarily TOOLONG, but that is usually as result of the subject being vast, but in this case it is evident that the Notes, a repetition of content in each General's article, is superfluous, thus creating the TOOLONG result. The solution to both the trivia and length issues is clear. Ma®©usBritish 00:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. We should make it more like this article: List of American Civil War Generals (Union). If we're going to cut down the "Notes" section because it's too long because it does have some trivial information, we should get rid of the other columns that don't exist at List of American Civil War Generals (Union) because WP:TOOLONG covers the entire article not just the "Notes" section. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 00:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Explanations, detailed comments on various points raised, proposals for revisions, possible splitting

Donner60, thank you for your comments. I've just collapsed your response for ease of access of this noticeboard, I hope that's okay. IcarusPhoenix was mentioning that you were drafting a refactored version of the article in question - do you happen to have a userpage draft created to incorporate the ideas that you mentioned? If not, we can consult the assistance of the associated WikiProject(s), like Donner60 has suggested above, and close this thread because having two discussions open at different forums would be counterproductive. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 20:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Passive smoking, Smoking ban in England

• Passive smoking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Smoking ban in England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

It all began with a request for Passive smoking to be moved to Second-hand smoke (see: Talk:Passive_smoking#Move.3F). I was one of those who opposed. I then discovered that since December 2011 User:Hypocaustic had been systematically changing "passive smoking" to "second-hand smoke", and "smoking ban" to "smoke-free regulations" on many articles (see e.g.: , ) — he subsequently used the more frequent occurrence of "his" term as a justification in the move request, an issue I raised at the time. The move request was declined.

Things went downhill on 26 February, when the user moved Smoking ban and many related pages unilaterally, and move-warred with two editors when they attempted to revert him (see: user's move log). Eventually he gave up and disappeared for a month after an experienced editor criticized his edits to Smoking ban, which is a semi-protected article (see: ).

Reappeared last week, and has tried to copy/paste articles from one page to another, causing attribution problems (see: content and edit histories of Passive smoking vs Second-hand smoke, and Smoking ban in England vs Smoke-free law (England)). I reverted his most recent changes but he reverted me back, calling my edits "vandalism" (see: edit summaries at , ). I then approached the admin who had closed the original move request for advice, and he directed me here.

Entirely separately, the user has changed several articles from US to UK English, and then reverted editors who try to change it back. I have warned him about this, and he seems to know the rules (see: this diff (where he warns another user about changing from one style to another), but still makes the changes regardless. See e.g.:

• Animals and tobacco smoke = makes several changes to UK English (then edit-warred over this)
• Passive smoking = makes several changes to UK English
• Smoking ban = Changed "Organizations" to "Organisations" in See also section, then reverts user who tries to restore US spelling, citing WP policy(!)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Hypocaustic (talk · contribs)
• Cross porpoises (talk · contribs)
• Wikophile (talk · contribs)
• Escape Orbit (talk · contribs)
• Favonian (talk · contribs)

(last three editors are only marginally involved, compared to Hypocaustic and myself)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Passive smoking, Smoking ban in England}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Talk:Smoking_ban#New_title.3F, User talk:Hypocaustic (now blanked), User talk:Favonian

• How do you think we can help?

Explain to User:Hypocaustic what consensus is, why copy/paste moves are wrong, why WP:RETAIN exists; restore content of pages at Passive smoking and Smoking ban in England per the GFDL requirements.

Cross porpoises (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Passive smoking, Smoking ban in England discussion

Thanks for bringing this to the attention of a wider group of Wikipedians. There seem to be two or three different issues or concerns here, all of which seem to have presented a risk of unhelpful disputes (or even 'edit wars') and some of which may perhaps offer some wider learning for phrasing of WP guidance. I'll do my best to list these and explain the situation, as far as I understand it.

1. Smoke-free laws / smoking ban. Some time back, I initially made what I have to concur was an error in how I interpreted the guidance to 'be bold', by carrying out some swift move-and-redirect edits on grounds which appeared, at least from a technical standpoint, to be uncontroversial. We got into what looked perilously near to an edit war, and I did indeed pull back from involvement for a while to let tempers cool. What the sometimes heated debate around this suggested was that some contributors are motivated to 'defend' explicit references to bans because this makes it easier to argue against such measures (essentially bans are presented as illiberal a politically 'bad thing'); I don't know if that's part of this specific complainant's concern so this is an observation rather than accusation, but it does seem to have clouded the conversation a little further. What I have endeavoured to do more recently is gradually improve the clarity with which Misplaced Pages defines, and distinguishes, both terms - rather than getting into an either/or dichotomy, or sudden 'big bang' edits. I'm sure I haven't done that absolutely perfectly and would very much welcome input from fellow contributors to strengthen the content, but I do indeed think that knee-jerk reverts of careful and considered edits are rather close to vandalism, much as I regret having to level such a charge.

2. Second-hand smoke / passive smoking. I should probably emphasise at this point that tobacco is not the only subject in the world I'm interested in! However, the picture here is rather simpler. I initially proposed a straightforward move of the old 'passive smoking' article to 'second-hand smoke'; the discussion around this revealed a robust intellectual case for doing that, but there were not a sufficient number of respondents to achieve much of a quorum and no consensus to move was reached. I nevertheless observed the group conclusion, refrained from imposing a simple move/redirect and returned to this particular topic subsequently when it became clear that the two terms, although obviously related, were importantly distinct and different in their meanings. So, as things now stand, we now have a page both for the older term, passive smoking and the currently recognised term, second-hand smoke, with some explanatory text on both pages (and mutual links) to make the relationship clear. I honestly think that, for now, this is the most elegant solution and probably the one most useful for readers. However, I sense that part of the objection raised here may be that some text explaining the scientific and regulatory detail appears on just one of those pages, thus causing the complainant to be concerned that a move had been made 'under the radar'; that certainly wasn't the intention, but thoughts on how to positively respond would be welcome. It seems a less than ideal use of the bandwidth to simply reproduce text on both pages, but there is perhaps scope to produce more tailored content so as to ensure that both terms/pages have a fuller 'body' if this is desired.

3. Varieties of English. Like many contributors and editors, I think, I try to sustain and improve the consistency and accuracy of spelling, phraseology and punctuation as I go along. Because I was trained in a specific variety of English, I'm sure it's highly likely that I have, on occasion, erred in changing a spelling which was arguably not actually incorrect, but simply in a different tradition. If that's happened, it has been unintentional and I'm grateful for support in addressing it. On the one clear occasion I can recall where the complainant here did challenge me along these lines, I followed the 'ENGVAR' guidance and identified alternative phraseology which was less subject to transatlantic disagreements in the first place, although that seems not to have satisfied him or her unfortunately. Does this guidance perhaps need to be clearer? Where there is felt to be an issue about retaining the variety of English used by the very first contributor, could or should there be a more visible way of indicating which this is? Thoughts welcome.

I've done what I can to enhance the resources which the encyclopaedia offers on the first two points, and would like to propose a moratorium to allow time for other Wikipedians to assist and/or comment. I'm not sure if there's already a convention on this, but it would certainly seem sensible for Cross Porpoises and I to be 'hands off' as regards those specific pages for a week or two if both agree. Thanks, in advance, for your help.Hypocaustic (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment

My involvement in this dispute involved Hypocaustic's edits to Smoking ban. Hypocaustic has an issue with some of the terminology used, and technically speaking he may have a point. However, my position is that, per WP:COMMONNAME, Misplaced Pages should prefer the more commonly known term, the one most likely to be understood by readers. The subtle shade of difference between "smoking ban" and "smoke free law" is not a reason to change everything and the article itself makes what it means clear.

I think all involved in discussions regarding what Hypocaustic wished were ready to hear what he had to say. Discussion was cordial, despite Hypocaustic repeating his changes in apparent attempts to force the issue. At the end I thought that Hypocaustic had amicably agreed to accept consensus in February and leave the article as was.

Discussions have not been helped by his non-neutral stance on the issue and his belief that there is some kind of Misplaced Pages conspiracy by tobacco supporters to favour "ban", because it helps them to portray the measures as oppressive. I can't see any evidence of this and his repeated reference to it sails very close to violating WP:AGF. "Ban" is used because that is what sources most commonly use, it's as simple as that.

I believe Hypocaustic's latest edits to be disingenuous. He knows what he wishes to do is against prior consensus, so coming back for another go a couple of months later in the guise of being bold is at best misguided, at worse mischievous. If he thinks he has a new compromise that could satisfy everyone, then he could raise it on a talk page first. As it is, I don't think he is offering anything new, just another approach to the same changes.

I also think his work on Passive smoking and Second hand smoke is a textbook example of POV forking and an attempt to bypass consensus in the previous move discussion. Misplaced Pages does not need two articles on these closely related topics simply because one editor doesn't like the name. Any hair-splitting necessary between "Passive smoking" and "second hand smoke" can be handled within the one article.

I don't think his changes in spelling are any big deal, and am happy to accept he did not set out to do these deliberately. --Escape Orbit 21:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Section break

Clerk's Comment/Template:Cue Other than edit warring and some discussion on the article talk page and user talk page, there's been no attempt to resolve the dispute. As a prerequisite to the dispute resolution noticeboard, there has to be talk page discussion. I think it was inappropriate to assume bad faith of Hypocaustic by constituting his/her edits as "vandalism". I think the parties can work from the merge RfC and see what kind of consensus there is and work from there. If there's anything else I can help with, just let me know. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 21:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk comment This looks like a behavioural problem, on the part of user:HypocausticCurb Chain (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks to Escape Orbit for responding pragmatically. I do understand your reservations, but I'm happy to reassure you that I do take as neutral stance as is humanly possible on such an inherently contentious subject - a fairly knowledgeable commentator perhaps, but not an advocate (Misplaced Pages isn't really the place for that). As for whether I've been mischievous or even exhibit a 'behavioural problem', that looks regrettably like mud-slinging but let's assume that the contributors above didn't mean those comments to come across quite that way. I'm certainly not suggesting a 'conspiracy', of course; it was apparent from some aspects of a prior discussion that there were indeed contributors with a point of view to push, and if so this surely didn't help the situation, but I've already said that I have no specific reason to believe that this is at the heart of Cross Porpoise's individual concerns. Acting against consensus is a charge that I would be concerned to receive if there was a good case for it, but I'm reasonably confident I've taken reasonable steps not to - including respecting group decisions not to execute a straight switch-and-redirect and endeavouring to generate a discussion about proposals for recent changes beforehand on the appropriate talk pages. As for hair-splitting, well we may have to agree to differ there - if there didn't appear a genuine reason for covering more than one term in the encyclopaedia, I wouldn't have done it, but the solution to finding what works best here seems to lie in getting into some specific discussion about terminology rather than falling into an adversarial scenario. So, to echo the wise words of Whenaxis above - how about we mutually cease assuming bad faith and see how we can collaborate to improve the quality of the content?Hypocaustic (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  Is everyone okay with trying to collaborate and work from the merge RfC? If so, we can close this thread and if necessary, this dispute can be returned to this noticeboard should the dispute not be resolved. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 20:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

How is it a merge request, and not a page move? Before Hypocaustic copy/pasted the content, Passive smoking looked like this. Second-hand smoke looks like this. Same images, same section headings, same references and citations. Is it really that easy for an editor with an agenda to run around consensus after being declined at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves? I see lots opposing or criticizing Hypocaustic both here and on talk pages, and no-one supporting him. Cross porpoises (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

On Second-hand smoke, He has edit warred to remove the merge request template with two different users (see: and ), even calling it "vandalism." Hypocaustic acts all nicey-nicey and verbose on talk pages and this noticeboard, but its a different story if youre trying to edit with him. Have you looked at the page history of Smoking ban from Feb 26th-28th? . Thats been his typical behaviour while he accuses other people of "POV-pushing" and "bad faith." Cross porpoises (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• 'Still happy to collaborate, Whenaxis, and open to ideas about how best to do that; I am not entirely clear what 'working from the merge RfC' entails, but if you have experience of resolving disagreements positively in this way it would be good to hear more. It does also sound as if it would be sensible to get some additional support with this if there is a way to do so, as the above comments suggest that at least one fellow contributor has become sufficiently exasperated that working with me constructively may be difficult at the moment (I don't criticise him or her for that, as it's evident that he or she is committed to improving Misplaced Pages even if we currently disagree about the means). I am mindful of Escape Orbit's concerns around 'POV-forking', and although I am confident that is not what's going on here I do agree that real care is required to avoid fuelling such suspicions; to my mind, engaging with the detail of the issue to build a meaningful consensus on the substance of the issue, rather than simplistic yes/no polling, is the most promising way forward. It also looks, to me, as if Cross Porpoises has an important point about ensuring that the page covering older term, 'passive smoking' does not become an unacceptably short article as the page covering the current term, 'second-hand smoke' develops; unless we simply duplicate some content there (which is presumably not regarded as best practice), we'll need to create or edit some new material to ensure that these different but connected terms are properly explained - I am happy to be involved in doing so but have held off from making any further edits to these pages while there is a discussion on this noticeboard.Hypocaustic (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I realise that Hypocaustic has faulted before, but now that this user is willing to collaborate, you should be open to discussing with Hypocaustic rather than blaming them for their actions. I think the best way to start off with resolving this dispute is to refrain from editing the two articles in question until the dispute is fully resolved, as well as, ceasing all assumptions of bad faith. From there, we can use this RfC form February and decipher the issues at hand and find a compromise through citing Misplaced Pages policies and using references to back up your opinion. If the parties could provide statements on their opinion below, that would be great. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 20:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

BMW R1100GS (Reopened)

• BMW R1100GS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Regarding the relevance of a sepreate sub-section of text about a particular book that has been inserted into a general article page about a particular motorcycle. The talk page discussion has reached an impasse regarding the relevance/non-relevance of this book material to the motorbike and also, therefore, the relevance/non-relevance of sources for such.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Rivercard (talk · contribs)
• Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs)
• Biker Biker (talk · contribs) (Added by DRN clerk after examining dispute.)

The original deletion of the book material was reinserted by a user who has 35 out of the article's 50 edits, so there may be an issue of 'ownership' here regarding 'outsider' edits.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes (notices given by DRN clerk)

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=BMW R1100GS}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Discussion on the talk page of the article.

• How do you think we can help?

Can we get some form of consensus on what consitutes relevance and trivia? For example, the added text regarding the book may be relevant to an article about the book, but non-relevant to the article about the bike.

Rivercard (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

BMW R1100GS discussion

I am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. I've looked at the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Trivia sections and the Misplaced Pages:Handling trivia essay and I find no policy or guideline which requires the inclusion or exclusion of the material removed in this edit. The essay is only an essay and is not binding in any way; the MoS guideline is, at its heart, about trivia sections not about the inclusion or exclusion of individual items which are contended to be trivia and, indeed, the third bullet point of Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Trivia sections#What this guideline is not expressly says:

"This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies."

No other policy or guideline has been brought forward to justify the inclusion or exclusion of this information, nor can I think of any which would do so. In light of that fact, then the information must be included or excluded by consensus. The information was originally introduced into the article in this edit in 2009 and has remained there until the current controversy arose with the information being, first, broken into a separate section in this edit, then removed in this edit. It has been restored by two editors since that time. The consensus policy says:

"Some discussions result in no consensus. "No consensus" means that there is no consensus either way: it means that there is no consensus to take an action, but it also and equally means that there is no consensus not to take the action. What the community does next depends on the context. ... In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus results in no change in the article."

There is clearly no consensus at this point in time to support the removal of this long-existing material, so it should remain in the article until a clear consensus has been formed to remove it. If the editor wishing for the content to be removed desires to attract additional editors to the question, then a request for comments would be the best way to do so. My personal feeling is that while the material is unquestionably marginal that it could be of importance to some readers and, indeed, supports the notability of the subject of the article, so my support would be for continued inclusion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 17:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's note: I have reopened this discussion (originally closed on March 23) pursuant to the request made at User_talk:TransporterMan#BMW_R1100GS_noticeboard. The requesting party, Rivercard, must notify the other parties to the discussion that the discussion has been reopened before posting here. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Supplement: The discussion is being opened to at least consider the effect of WP:WPACT on the discussion. It should be noted that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Motorcycles#Guidelines expressly makes WP:WPACT also applicable to motorcycles, not just automobiles. It is to be noted that WP:WPACT is not a policy or guideline, but is instead part of "an information page that describes communal consensus on some aspect of Misplaced Pages norms and practices. While it is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement or clarify other Misplaced Pages practices and policies." — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

First, to TransporterMan, thank you very much for reopening this discussion to give me the opportunity to reply with newly found code information.

More importantly, it is to provide an answer to two assertions on the noticeboard:

(1) 'I've looked at the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Trivia sections and the Misplaced Pages:Handling trivia essay and I find no policy or guideline which requires the inclusion or exclusion of the material removed in this edit.'

(2) 'No other policy or guideline has been brought forward to justify the inclusion or exclusion of this information, nor can I think of any which would do so.'

Point (2) was absolutely correct at the time on the 'other policy/guideline' issue, and I have to shoulder some blame here for not searching out the most apposite Wiki code. Apologies for that. But that is why I think it is especially important that we can now raise the following communal consensus:

"Trivia and popular culture sections

• WP:WPACT

Misplaced Pages generally does not support the addition of trivia and pop-culture sections within articles. There is a tendency for such sections to degenerate into long lists of movie and TV show appearances, song lyrics, and the like. Similarly, lists of celebrity owners of cars (etc.) tend to grow to inappropriate length. The guideline that has been widely accepted for automotive subjects is that mention of pop-culture references should be strictly limited to cases where the fact of that reference influenced the sales, design or other tangible aspect of the vehicle. It is not sufficient to note that the vehicle had a major influence on its owner or some movie or TV show — such facts belong in the article about the owner, movie or TV show."

In principle, I’ve already been arguing exactly the highlighted points above - (especially re: the importance of the motorbike to Neil Peart not being the same as the importance of Neil Peart to the motorbike's entry) - and I’ve been putting them on the entry’s (talk) page (I won’t copy/paste them all here). But this is the first time I’ve been able to present an exact Misplaced Pages consensus code that explicitly expresses the same.

Obviously this miscellany/relevence problem with vehicles has arisen before hence why the hard work of consensus-seeking in WP:WPACT has already been done on the subject by many other Wikipedians. (And, to be fair to Dennis Bratland (talk), perhaps he was also unaware of the existing consensus of WP:WPACT.)

I do think it is an extremely important point in principle that there is no elitism on Misplaced Pages and that communal consensus clarifications are seen to be enacted equally, regardless of the insistence otherwise of editors that may have some historical ‘investment’ in an entry. That’s all I ask. Thanks.

Regards. Rivercard (talk)

• Comment Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions is neither a policy nor a guideline (see WP:PG). WP:WPACT is useful as a minimum standard for appearances in movies and such with no well-sourced cultural impact to go with it (example). As a minimum standard, if the appearance affects the car's design, sales, etc. then you can positively say the appearance belongs in the article about the car, even if the cultural significance has no reliable sources to back it up. But that doesn't mean you then have license to delete all material that doesn't meet WP:WPACT. The more general Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines have precedence, and those don't justify deleting well-sourced material that is considered culturally and socially important by many reliable sources. Examples: A, B, C...

  It is an error to think that the primary purpose of a Misplaced Pages article about a car or motorcycle is to recite the design details and engineering specifications. The policy WP:NOTMANUAL makes that point. The same policy underscores that once again with WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. AKA WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTPLOT. With regard to fiction plots, it says "Misplaced Pages treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." A good article about a book is not merely a detailed recitation of the contents of the book -- a mere plot summary. On the contrary, that is kept to a minimum, and instead the critical reaction and cultural impact is the primary purpose of the encyclopedia article. It says the same thing about song lyrics -- Misplaced Pages is not a database of lyrics; we write articles about the effect the song had on culture, and what the critics said.

  So a Misplaced Pages article about the BMW R1100GS motorcycle should not be mere a list of statistics and technical facts. Giving sales figures and production numbers and what kind of fuel injection it had is nice, but that's not terribly encyclopedic. The policy in fact tells us to not overdo such statistics and repair manual data. Instead, the main point of an encyclopedia article about the BMW R1100GS should be the critical reception and the cultural impact. Neil Peart's book is perhaps the greatest cultural effect of this motorcycle. The policy Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not has precedence and tell us to do almost the opposite of WP:WPACT in this case. Provided authoritative sources exist to support it, and for Peart's Ghost Rider, as with the examples of the Brough SS100, XR-750, and CB77 linked above, sources are copiously available.

  If anything, WikiProject Automobiles ought to either delete or rewrite WP:WPACT so as to cease the appearance of contradicting policy. It might be a good idea to transclude this discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Automobiles or Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Motorcycling to see if anyone there wishes to defend WP:WPACT. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment

Dear Dennis, the first argument you presented on the article talk page was: ‘I found several sources that show that Peart did not ride just any motorcycle. It actually mattered that the bike in his book was a R1100GS. See '.

Now, that appears well sourced. But, when we look more closely:

source simply says - ‘BMW off-road machine owned by Neal Peart of the Canadian rock band Rush’
source is a six-page/1,400 word excerpt showing ONE mention of the bike and it is only: ‘his wife Jackie bought him a BMW R100GS for Christmas 1993’.
source is a magazine exerpt that does not even mention the bike by name.
source is a Google page with 10 search results - 3 are about motorbikes but none mention the R1100GS; the other 7 results are websites for pedal bikes not motorbikes.

So, this is very weak sourcing (in fact, most should be deleted), and none of it proves the opening claim, yet it is presented as if conclusive. It actually more proves why the Peart/book section should not be included on the R1100GS bike's entry page.

YOUR POINTS:
(1)'WP:WPACT is useful as a minimum standard for appearances in movies and such.'

No, it is not just ‘for appearances in movies’ - please note: PACT states ‘It is not sufficient to note that the vehicle had a major influence on its owner, or some movie or TV’ - so the movie appearance point is secondary to the primary point of relationship to owner. You are skipping the primary point (which applies here) and leapfrogging over it to a secondary point (which doesn't apply).

(2) 'Don't justify deleting well-sourced material that is considered culturally and socially important by many reliable sources.Examples: A, B, C...'

As has been demonstrated in first paragraph - (re: ,,,) - it is NOT well sourced and the so-called ‘cultural significance‘ is highly questionable. ‘Cultural significance’ is a phrase that should be used sparingly and only where it applies (i.e. the drummer in a non-culturally significant rock band using a motorbike is nowhere near a definition of cultural significance - So, your example, source A, is of the genuinely significant figure of TE Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) dying on a certain motorbike. But this only proves the case for deletion of the Peart book and disproves the case for inclusion - because: TE Lawrence, culturally significant? - Yes. Neil Peart? - No).

(3) Your example, source C, is the most damning - it first seems to prove that the book ‘Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance’ should be on the entry page for the Honda CB77... but really it shouldn't. And you agree, because, if we look in the revision history, we can see that you yourself deleted mention of the book on the bike page because ‘(Make and model motorcycle isn't mentioned in the novel.)’ - Revision as of 02:35, 6 April 2011 (edit) - but now you seek to use it as proof of the opposite? This doesn't make sense.

It makes even less sense when the next day, without explanation, you reinserted the ’Zen’ piece with a subject heading and some references. But references are not adequate support for material that should not be there in the first place - then it just becomes referenced trivia rather than unreferenced trivia. So the reason you first deleted it still stands. Which is exactly the point. And this is the same point that applies to the Peart book section on the R100GS entry.

Again, your ‘evidence’ here unintentionally proves the case for deletion of Peart’s book and not for its continued inclusion. And also further proves the relevance of WP:WPACT

(4) 'It is an error to think that the primary purpose of a Misplaced Pages article about a car or motorcycle is to recite the design details and engineering specifications. The policy WP:NOTMANUAL makes that point.'

I'm afraid that is cherry-picking policy points; the policy article you quote also says ‘In any encyclopaedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful’ and ‘there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done’. And removing non-culturally significant information does not reduce the R1100GS page to a handbook. You seem to be using criteria for what shouldn’t be there as justification for what should. One does not follow from the other; included information has to stand independently.

(5) 'It says the same thing about song lyrics -- Misplaced Pages is not a database of lyrics; we write articles about the effect the song had on culture, and what the critics said.'

Again, this speaks to cultural significance - which your previous sources have failed to establish - and the policy quote regarding books and songs does not indiscriminately apply to all books and songs - it would only be relevant to the ones where a good case could be shown. That is the whole point.

(6) 'Giving sales figures and production numbers and what kind of fuel injection it had is nice, but that's not terribly encyclopaedic. The policy in fact tells us to not overdo such statistics and repair manual data.

Well, ‘not overdoing’ statistics is a point in and of itself : it is not a point that justifies other non-significant inclusions. The two are not linked.

(7) 'Neil Peart's book is perhaps the greatest cultural effect of this motorcycle.'

Once again, cultural effect not proven; (and such effect the book might have would come from Peart's description of how travel can help with grief, not how a particular motorbike can do that).

(8) 'Provided authoritative sources exist to support it, and for Peart's Ghost Rider, as with the examples of the Brough SS100, XR-750, and CB77 linked above, sources are copiously available.'

Here you raise for a second time the examples of your 1,2,3,4 and A,B,C 'sources' that have really been proven very weak (or non-existent) and even contradictive to your own case. Those examples still more heavily make the case for non-inclusion of the Peart book material.

(9) 'If anything, WikiProject Automobiles ought to either delete or rewrite WP:WPACT so as to cease the appearance of contradicting policy.'

This is so hubristic it almost offends: to argue for the deletion (seriously?) of a useful and hard-earned Misplaced Pages consensus just because it does not support your own personal view says something, I think, about even the proposer's own lack of confidence in the evidence provided (and especially when you have cited WP;PACT yourself.)

I would humbly suggest that the proposal to keep the Peart book section is a classic form of ‘overvaluation’ and 'over defense' of the material. Fan fervour can be good - without great enthusiasm there would be no Misplaced Pages - but it can also effect objectivity. (And not sure why motorcylists seem particularly aggressive about 'their' edits - is it something to do with the tightness of the riding suits?)

Hope this hasn't been too long (but, well, what else have we got to do...)

Regards

Rivercard (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I've placed a no personal attacks warning on your talk page. This is getting far out of hand and needs to stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have not yet been involved in this discussion but I have just looked at the article and section in question, the WP guidelines on relevance and WP:WPACT. From the perspective of a fresh set of eyes on this article, the Ghost Rider section, as now written, does not appear to have a strong relevance to the article. But I think the connection could become more apparent by revising the language of that section. What throws the reader off is that the focus of the section as written is Neil Pearl, not the motorcycle. I would think that someone who has read the book could find a perspective there that emphasizes the characteristics of the motorcycle/the experience of the motorcycle as crucial to the author's healing process. A brief but prominent mention of these might bring the section back onto the topic of this article. If it's not there in the book, then the section does not seem relevant.Coaster92 (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: comment 04:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

From my sourced and researched rebuttal of the argument against deletion there is perhaps one word ('hubristic'), and there is, at the end, a small joke about the tightness of riding suits(!), which was an obvious attempt to lighten any ranquor that may have developed during this discussion (levity is allowed; we are humans, not bots!). So I think that hardly constitutes the description above of 'getting far out of hand'.

(Note: Unless the user Dennis Bratland is referring to the use of the word 'aggressive' in the lighthearted aside about riding suits; in which case I'd like to refer Dennis back to his own quote on the BMW R1100GS page: "I aggressively deleted mention of the movie as trivia," - Dennis Bratland'. (Also important to note, even over guidelines such as good faith, Misplaced Pages policy clearly states that this 'does not prohibit discussion and criticism.' And criticism is not the same as uncivility.)

However, the most important thing here is this:

If we concentrate on the evidence provided regarding the original sources that supposedly support inclusion of the Peart material - (please see , , , and A, B, C mentioned in 'Comment') - we can see that have all those 'sources' have been proved upon examination not to stand up and to not prove the case for inclusion. This is the only evidence that matters.

Crucially, when new editors are introduced to this discussion (the Peart material has already been described as 'unquestionably marginal') and thereby also introduce what Coaster92 above accurately calls 'the perspective of a fresh set of eyes on this article', it can be objectively seen that the separate section on Peart would be much more suited to an article on Peart himself and not in this BMW R1100GS article.

Another important point identified by Coaster92 is one previously raised in the longer 'Comment' post - 'and such effect the book might have would come from Peart's description of how travel can help with grief, not how a particular motorbike can do that'

I contend there is no strong case for relevance to the article and we have yet to see any evidence presented that meaningfully rebuts that. There also appears to be increasing consensus for deletion until relevant sources prove otherwise ("Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument" - WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS)

Rivercard (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

(Addendum:

Also see - Talk for further evidence of the Peart material’s inability to pass Misplaced Pages Google Test WP:SET . A Google search (Re: the WP:SET for Misplaced Pages criteria for relevance) reveals that in Google search results for the term 'BMW R1100GS' there is no mention of a drummer called Peart in connection with the bike. Similarly, even in the first 14 pages of Google Images under the term 'BMW R1100GS', there is no image of the drummer and the bike.)

Rivercard (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann

• UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Editors contend that multiple neutral sources don't support a stand alone article; I contend that it passes both WP: GNG and primary criteria for notability.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Udar55 (talk · contribs)
• Dennis Brown (talk · contribs)
• TreyGeek (talk · contribs)
• Mtking (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Tried discussion on relevant MMA board; any information offered is avoided.

• How do you think we can help?

Verify whether or not this UFC page (and individual other pages) pass WP: GNG and notability criteria.

Udar55 (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann discussion

• This has already been addressed via Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/UFC 149 and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/UFC 140 (2nd nomination). There is an ongoing discussion at ANI as well . The issue is that many of these articles (including this one) have sourcing from websites that are not independent of the subject matter, as required by WP:GNG. Many are also forums or otherwise fall short of demonstrating stand alone notability, which is why so many of the articles have been deleted previously at AFD. There is now a consensus that articles without independent sourcing should be merged into an omnibus article, per the conclusions of the two closing admins at the previously mentioned AFDs and other linked venues. Both admins have already indicated that the current solution is consistent with their closing statements and support the move. As such, several articles like this are being turned into redirects into the main article, where the content is being preserved. The only other alternative is AFD, yet the consensus at AFD is to do what is being done. Additionally, User:Udar55 has reverted the same edit by both myself and other editors a total of 4 times in 17 hours, clearly a violation of WP:3RR. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a single link on this page is to a forum. They are respected MMA news sites completely independent of the subject matter. There is not a consensus that articles should be moved to an omnibus, merely a suggestion that was acted upon in haste. The discussion is still ongoing at the link I provided above. Udar55 (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I will keep this simple, article fails WP:MMAEVENT as no lasting significance is claimed let alone demonstrated, Udar55 is edit warring, and the use of a edit sum designed to tempt others to start AfD's admins have asked to be avoided in preference to redirecting. This should be closed as it is being dealt with elsewhere.Mtking 20:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• This particular issue has already been resolved at ANI, per the DR creator's own comments, "No need, I'm not bothering with it anymore. Udar55 (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)". The topic as a whole is still being worked out in the other venues mentioned above and cooler and more productive discussion are taking place. Close requested. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's note: I have notified Udar55 that this listing will be closed unless he indicates here that he wishes to continue it by April 2, 2012, 13:30 UTC. It is on hold until that time; please do not post here unless one of the the other editors wishes to keep the discussion open. (If so, please plainly so state, do not merely continue the discussion.) Any DRN mediator/clerk should feel free to close this listing after April 2, 2012, 13:30 UTC if there is no request to keep it open prior to that time. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 13:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Supplement: Hold withdrawn, listing remains open. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 18:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I still wish for this DR to be resolved. My comment "No need, I'm not bothering with it anymore" referred solely to the revert edits I was doing on the page. Udar55 (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Honest mistake, your comment made it sound like you wanted to drop the issue at hand. My previous comments still stand, that it is being handled elsewhere. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As I noted above, I'm a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. Though the outcome may be preordained or futile, I believe that the right way to proceed here is to nominate this article for deletion at AfD. That forum, not this, is the proper place to bring broader community attention to the question of whether or not an article is notable. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 14:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 4, 2012 at 14:40 (UTC) because this is not the proper forum for this question.

Wang Ling Rebellion, Guanqiu Jian and Wen Qin Rebellion, Zhuge Dan Rebellion

This is already under discussion at Talk:Zhuge Dan Rebellion#Requested move, and if you look at the top of this noticeboard you will see that "It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion in other venues on Misplaced Pages." If you would like to advertise the requested move discussion more widely, I suggest leaving a note at relevant WikiProjects, in accordance with Misplaced Pages's guidelines on canvassing. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 14:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Artiom Rudnev or Arjoms Rudnevs

No dispute and no discussion from requesting editor. Feel free to open a new thread should there be a dispute. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 20:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Almeda University

• Almeda University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

I have been pursuing the reconsideration of additions to be inserted into a Misplaced Pages entry on Almeda University. As you will see from the below original email, I attempted to make an addition to the entry and it was immediately denied. I then wrote the editor (Orlady) denying the entry addition and submitted the below email two times I also submitted the email to another editor that had once commented on the discussion page concerning this entry for assistance as to how I should proceed. I did not get a return response from that editor either.

I have failed to receive any correspondence to my emails. I would now like to pursue this effort through resolution channels. I appreciate your consideration and attention to this matter and I eagerly await your response. Should I need to pursue the reconsideration of my entry addition in another matter I would appreciate that information as well.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Orlady (talk · contribs)
• ATaylor667 (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Almeda University}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Yes, I have written the editor that denied my additional information to the Misplaced Pages entry twice and have not received a response

• How do you think we can help?

Either reconsideration and acceptance of the additional information or information as to why it cannot be accepted and how best to proceed from that point to get information added.

A Taylor (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Almeda University discussion

Template:CueHello there. Is it possible you could break up your original description of the problem into distinct paragraphs? As it currently stands it's very difficult to discern what the problem is.Hasteur (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the suggestion. A Taylor (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, from what I can tell, your edits were reverted on the grounds that they were overtly promotional and were referenced to the front page of the Almeda University website. We already have a link to their front in the external links section. In addition, your editing suggests a disproportionate interest in Almeda University. Consider branching out into other articles to understand better how Misplaced Pages works. Hasteur (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely with my colleague, Hasteur, but would like to add that comparing one article to another will not get you anywhere in discussions here. In Misplaced Pages, each article stands or dies on its own merit: for a detailed explanation see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 14:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have limited internet access at the moment, so I am not in a position to respond beyond saying that Hasteur and TransporterMan have made points that I agree with, and I wonder if ATaylor667 chose this time to start this discussion because I had not edited since 27 March. --Orlady (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an article where a handful of single-purpose accounts have a long history of trying to make Almeda look better. Orlady, as most of you know, is perhaps our leading expert on unaccredited schools and their articles. ATaylor, our solution to "look at the stuff that's bad in Article X; why can't I do the same?" is to try to improve Article X, not to allow other articles to deteriorate to match. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to Orlady's position that I have opened this discussion since she had not edited since March 27 is I think an unnecessary comment and of a negative tone. I don't understand the reference to her comment actually, but I opened it because I had submitted the published email twice and asked for guidance and did not receive a response. My opening this discussion was not an attack but simply a desire to receive clarification and guidance. No ill will was intended nor an alterior motive.

In addition, I don't believe my case was presented in a tone of "because of X allow Y" but rather I was requesting an explanation as to why the information, which is not promotional but factual, cannot be added when in other cases it has been allowed. I do understand that each entry is under the control of the editor responsible for that entry. I simply would like a reconsideration of the simple addition I tried to add (as stated in the email). Could I be guided as to how to better word it that it would be accepted since it is a factual addition, is not promotional, and it is not an attempt "to make it look better"?

I appreciate your direction all who have responded. A Taylor (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• If it is important enough, the prose you wanted to add should have been published by an independent reliable source so that we can verify the accuracy of the claims. Because there have been previous efforts to minimize criticism and add prose that is complimentary about the article, any addition will be met with skepticism, as such consider proposing on the talk page wording before you add it to the article with a positive confirmation that the text is appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

@ATaylor667: The point that you are missing is that the argument that "in other cases it has been allowed" is, under Misplaced Pages standards, absolutely irrelevant for the reasons stated in WP:OTHERSTUFF, which I would encourage you to read, along with the linked essay WP:OSE, before making that argument again. Your edits have been reconsidered by three experienced editors, Orlady, Hasteur, and myself and all of us find them to be unacceptably promotional. I cannot speak for the other editors, but I am not offering guidance to how they could be rewritten to become acceptable because I do not believe it to be possible: the problem is not a mere matter of form (though there is some of that as well: puffery like "award-winning," "best-selling," and "experts" is especially damning), it is that the content itself is unacceptable. (And I also agree with Hasteur in his last comment, above.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 4, 2012 at 14:46 (UTC) because discussion has stopped, issue appears to have been resolved.

Frank Zappa discography, Template:Frank Zappa

See closing note at end of discussion, below. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 14:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Fascism and authoritarian democracy

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

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Dispute over fascism's position on democracy as a whole. Dispute over whether World fascism: a historical encyclopedia by Cyprian Blamires is a mainstream source. Blamires' encyclopedia states that fascism rejected that it was against democracy as a whole but that it was against liberal democracy, a paraphrase of this: . I am not making a position of whether fascism is democratic or anti-democratic but am addressing what fascists' claimed its position was.--R-41 (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• R-41 (talk · contribs)
• The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Fascism and authoritarian democracy}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I have tried discussing this with The Four Deuces at the talk page, I have addressed the users concerns about other sources, and I have provided a mainstream source that the user requested, the Blamires source that is available at multiple Anglophone world universities' libraries - including the Harvard University's library . The user refuses to accept the source and denies that what it says is significant and goes on to complain that no mainstream source has been provided - denying that Blamires is a mainstream source.

Talk page section link: Talk:Fascism#Someone is complaining about the length of the intro, if we reduce it, it will have problems

• How do you think we can help?

What would help is the following:
(1) Determining whether Blamires' encyclopedia is a mainstream reliable source.
(2) Determining whether the issue of fascism's claim to be democratic warrants attention for the intro - as fascism is often claimed to be completely anti-democratic.
(3) Reviewing other articles on other ideologies that have similarly been claimed to be anti-democratic by others but are claimed to be democratic by themselves - such as Bolshevism, Marxism-Leninism, or others.--R-41 (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

R-41 (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Fascism and authoritarian democracy discussion

The source is a tertiary source because it is an encyclopaedia and can not be used.Curb Chain (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

1. The source is reliable. It's clearly a serious academic book and we can work under a presumption that the information in it is accurate and properly researched. The advisory board appears to include some of the leading experts on the topic, some of whom are frequently used as sources in our article. It makes little practical difference whether we view the book as a secondary or tertiary source.
2. The lead is generally poor and does not follow WP:LEAD, so it doesn't offer a good context for considering the question asked. I think it would be irresponsible to present the fascist view on anything in the lead without properly balancing it with contrasting views. So, mainly for reasons of brevity, I think this should not be included in the lead.
3. I don't think comparison to other articles is likely to be useful. Whatever is says about democracy in, say, Bolshevism, will be based on the sources on that topic and what editors of that article have chosen to include, neither of which are good guides as to what should be in the article on fascism. FormerIP (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

So then is it a tertiary source? IIt could certainly be called an encyclopaedia and be a secondary source. But if the encyclopedia is a encyclopedia, it can not be used because it is a tertiary source.Curb Chain (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

CC, we don't have any rule against using tertiary sources, which is why I say it doesn't make much difference. Looking at the overall quality of the source, it would be absurd to suggest that it is not reliable for our purposes. FormerIP (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I see the policy has changed. I wouldn't see a problem if it was used to cite a definition or used to provide a quote provided it is given context.Curb Chain (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Template:Cue Hello R-41 and TFD. I see things are as lively as I remember at this article! First off, when I looked at the talk page it didn't seem that TFD was disputing the reliability of the source; rather, it seemed that he thought that including the claim in the lede was giving it undue weight. TFD, have I read this correctly? — Mr. Stradivarius 13:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • To be precise, TFD stated: The encyclopedia makes only a brief mention of the same passage to which Arblaster refers. Articles are in any case supposed to be based on secondary sources, not what fascists said about themselves. That is, a rejection of the source based, it seems, on a claim that what fascists said about themselves is not usable in an article on fascism where the information comes from a standard work on the overall topic. Note also that specialized "encyclopedias" are not in the class of tertiary sources to be avoided. In fact, they frequently represent the only way to determine whether a position is "mainstream" or not. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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