Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. Not to be confused with WP:DNR.

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Jessica Nabongo	New	Log6849129 (t)	5 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 3 hours
Neith	New	Potymkin (t)	5 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	55 minutes	Robert McClenon (t)	55 minutes
Ashfield Independents	Closed	NottsPolitics (t)	2 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 2 hours
Existential risk studies	Closed	JoaquimCebuano (t)	2 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 1 hours
Riley Gaines	New	Lisha2037 (t)	1 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 7 hours	DanielRigal (t)	1 days, 7 hours

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 06:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Planet of_the_Apes_(2001_film)#Lincoln_Memorial_issue_again

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Firespeaker on 22:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Planet of the Apes (2001 film)#Lincoln Memorial issue again (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Firespeaker (talk · contribs)
• SonOfThornhill (talk · contribs)
• Ommnomnomgulp (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

We are trying to determine the best way to summarise part of the closing scene of the movie Planet of the Apes (2001). The original wording is strongly preferred by one party, and some alternative wordings have been suggested by some other parties. The alternative wordings attempt to clarify what appears to have occurred in the scene, but supporters of the original wording suggest that it bears a bias for a particular interpretation of the scene. Likewise, the supporters of alternative wordings suggest that the original wording bears a bias for a particular interpretation of the scene. We would like to arrive at some consensus that allows for the widest possible range of interpretations.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Not noticing the original discussion from a year ago, an edit was made to the sentence which was reverted almost immediately by one of the people originally involved. The discussion was opened up again on the talk page, and it quickly became apparent that a third party would be needed to help find a compromise.

How do you think we can help?

Determine the core of the arguments, figure out what each perspective is trying to say, and help find a wording that will be as acceptable as possible to people of as many perspectives as possible.

Summary of dispute by SonOfThornhill

The original and current wording reflects what is actually shown in the film. As MOS PLOT it states - "Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work". The other wordings suggest that it is somehow an alternate earth or Washington DC. That is no where evident in the film or script. That is only personal opinion and interpretation. When asked on numerous occasions to support this interpretation with a primary source, none was presented. SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ommnomnomgulp

My original contention--which matches OP's, from what I can tell--is that the film's ending is ambiguous and the Wiki should reflect this. The original change I made allows for this ambiguity without changing the truth value of the current wording that is strongly supported by SOT. In the film, one simply cannot determine if the geography shown at the film's conclusion is actually Washington DC that has been changed to suit the apes's world or if it is an original creation of the apes. My original wording and the wording provided by OP correctly takes this ambiguity into account while still leaving open the potential for either reality.

In my view, the Lincoln Memorial always _appears to be_ the Lincoln Memorial, but the audience can't be sure if the memorial was changed or if it's an original creation original to the apes. Also, at the end of the movie, the edifice simply can't be the Lincoln Memorial, anymore, since the individual memorialized within is Thade, and not Lincoln. As such, it's wrong to call the structure the Lincoln Memorial, regardless of what it maybe had once been. The same issue applies to the statue. It is a statue of Thade, not Lincoln, although it may or may not have been a statue that included Lincoln's countenance at one time in the past. No one can know from the limited information provided in the film. As the viewer sees it, the memorial is to Thade, and Thade clearly is the figure that is memorialized. These objects together may have been the memorial we now know as the Lincoln Memorial, but the viewer cannot be sure, and the language provided originally by myself and then, independently by OP, take this into account. SOT has called this analysis an "opinion," whereas I believe it is based on sound philological principles.

SOT believes that the script should be the ultimate arbiter in this matter--or "primary source" as he calls it (neglecting the film as a primary source, apparently)--but the script also includes references to Wahlberg's character being physically held by apes at the end of the film, when, in the movie, he was not. As such, the script is unreliable and does not reflect the final product that appeared in theaters. In any case, the scripts usually serve as a guide and, as such, does not mean that it, in itself, is the story Burton actually provided to audiences on screen. In any case, the original wordings provided by myself and OP (I assume independently of me) takes care of this, as these sentences allow for SOT's interpretation as well as any ambiguities that arose between the script and the final version of the film.

Please don't misrepresent my views. I've always said the film or the script, never said just the script. And the film itself is not at all ambiguous as to that Leo is on earth and in Washington DC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9ZJ0F8Ik9E SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Planet of_the_Apes_(2001_film)#Lincoln_Memorial_issue_again discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. Although the filing editor did not notify the other editors, the other editors have commented, so notifying them is not necessary. This case is ready to be opened for moderated discussion by a volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

  For the record, I notified them immediately on the article talk page, and followed up with one of them on his user talk page when it seemed he might have missed my note on the article talk page. —Firespeaker (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, Firespeaker did notify me on my Talk page. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator

I will be opening this case for moderated discussion. Please see User:Robert McClenon/Mediation rules, because those are the ground rules for moderated discussion. To repeat what is said there, be civil and concise, and comment on content, not contributors. Participants are expected to comment with 48 hours after I post. Now: Will each participant state in one or two sentences what they think the issue is? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

First statements by participating editors

The scene makes it clear that Leo crashes on Earth in Washington, D.C. He then deboards his craft on the steps of what should be the Lincoln Memorial; however, what otherwise looks like the Lincoln Memorial includes (instead?) a statue commemorating General Thade. How this came to be is left open—viewers can come to many conclusions about the timeline, universe, mental state of Leo, etc. to explain this—so the wording should only reflect the scene as it plays out. My current preference is for something like "He looks up to see that the Lincoln Memorial is actually a monument in honor of General Thade", but I suppose something (which I'm not understanding) about how it relates to the ontology of the scene is objectionable. Other proposals have seemed objectionable to me for similar sorts of reasons, which suggests that there's a disconnect between various people's understandings of the scene that we're failing to communicate to one another. —Firespeaker (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The wording "He looks up to see that the Lincoln Memorial is actually a monument in honor of General Thade" is fine by me. As was stated on the article's talk page several days ago. I thought this matter has been resolved then. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

Has this dispute been resolved? Is the wording about a monument to General Thade acceptable to all? If not, please state what the issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

There were other wordings that I find better in various ways, but I can certainly live with this one. It sounded like the other participants felt similarly. So yes, pending any comments from User:Ommnomnomgulp, I believe this issue is basically resolved. (I was surprised that it was opened for moderated discussion right as it seemed like we were coming to a consensus.) On the other hand, I'm a little uneasy about the fact that I still don't understand User:SonOfThornhill's issues with the somewhat more accurate (imho) reading "He looks up to see that what otherwise appears to be the Lincoln Memorial is instead a monument in honor of General Thade", even after a week of back-and-forth trying to figure it out. I guess the fact that he was adamantly opposed to it in the first place is reason enough not to go with it, but I feel really stupid after all his explanations that I just never understood. The wording he accepts I basically just stumbled across by accident while I was fumbling around with other ways to express things. Would it be appropriate to ask for his opinion on why the "actually" wording is better than the "appears to be" wording? —Firespeaker (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I've explained this several time but will try once again. The wording "otherwise appears to be the Lincoln Memorial" implies that it is an alternate Earth and/or Washington DC which is not at all evident in the film. It is only more accurate in your opinion and is merely a personal interpretation which violates MOS:PLOT. Hope that clears things up for you. SonOfThornhill (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm generally in agreement with Firespeaker on this issue and believe that "appears to be" is more accurate given that "the Lincoln Memorial" implies that it is, indeed, the Lincoln Memorial, when the person memorialized therein is Thade, not Lincoln. It may or may not have been the Lincoln Memorial at one time, but the film proves that, in that moment, it is not the Lincoln Memorial no matter what it may have been in the past. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't necessarily an alternate Earth/whatever, but the explanation provided makes a leap that I'm having trouble making. Namely, how does the wording "appears to be the Lincoln Memorial" imply that it is another universe? As I see it, it's just saying that this monument resembles the Lincoln Memorial in all possible ways up to that point—location relative to other landmarks, the steps, etc. It's just that it appears different from the Lincoln Memorial in that it shows General Thade instead. This makes no indication of what it "truly is" or how it got that way. Unless I'm really just missing something—in which case, could someone please fill me in? —Firespeaker (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC

"Appears to be" implies that it is not and never was, thus an alternate earth or Washington. Therefore, in violation of MOS:PLOT SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It does not. Even our Lincoln Memorial always appears to be the Lincoln Memorial. If I were driving along the road, and pointed to it, I could, without problem, say "that appears to be the Lincoln Memorial." Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Aha, I think we might be getting to the heart of the matter. I wholeheartedly second what User:Ommnomnomgulp said. Anything can appear to be the Lincoln Memorial, including (especially!) the actual Lincoln Memorial. —Firespeaker (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Here, let me show you what we're trying to say. —Firespeaker (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The point of the Venn diagramme above is to demonstrate how the range of interpretations available from the "appears to be" wording is much wider, and in no way narrower. In fact, it seems to be the "actually" wording that is imposing more of an interpretation on the scene. —Firespeaker (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Singapore#Sovereignty

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Chipmunkdavis on 17:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Singapore#Sovereignty (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs)
• Jytdog (talk · contribs)
• Lemongirl942 (talk · contribs)
• Wrigleygum (talk · contribs)
• Shiok (talk · contribs)
• Zhanzhao (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a disagreement over how to present Singapore's independence in the infobox. This includes whether to note that independence was from a country, and which events to include.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive talkpage discussion, this is the next DR step taken.

How do you think we can help?

Provide a fresh look at how the arguments interact, if the participants are talking past each other, and fresh opinions and ideas.

Summary of dispute by Jytdog

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Lemongirl942

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Wrigleygum

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Shiok

• Singapore has two significant 'Independence' events, unlike most countries – from the UK (after 140 years) and Malaysia (2 years). So it is only logical to have a single word 'Independent' (current Sovereign_type) as the heading to embrace both.
• As pointed out by another editor, there is also no 'from' parameter in Template:Infobox country. Shiok (talk) 08:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Zhanzhao

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Singapore#Sovereignty discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has not yet notified the other editors of this request and should do so. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Individual talkpages messages in addition to the existing note on the article talk page. CMD (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• The filing party's overview is brief and did not include reasons in defense of his edits to begin with. A summary of Singapore talk page discussions would also be helpful to the moderators and other editors who may have tired of the long discussions and 'wall of text'. I would include the following in the overview:

CMD proposed his bold edit here:

Independence from Malaysia

• British colonisation: 6 February 1819
• Self-government: 3 June 1959
• Independence from the United Kingdom: 31 August 1963
• Merger with Malaysia: 16 September 1963
• Expulsion from Malaysia: 9 August 1965

The only change from the previous version is the Sovereign_type parameter, which also serves as title of the section - from 'Formation' to 'Independence from Malaysia'. The dispute is that 4 editors (Shiok, Zhanzhao, Jytdog,Wrigleygum) prefers a single word, either 'Independent' or 'Independence'. 2 editors (CMD, Lemongirl942) has argued to stick with what he proposed. Shiok (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer response Hello, I am KDS4444 and I am willing to take a shot at helping resolve this conflict. First, it looks like only one of the involved parties has opted to make any summary of the dispute. This is fine, of course, so long as everyone was notified of the discussion (which, according to CMD, has been done). I have read over the discussion on the talk page, and want to make sure I understand this issue correctly. The dispute is with regard to what should be placed in the infobox of the article for the parameter sovereighty_type= and whether the nation's independence should refer to its independence from Britain or from Malaysia. Right now as I look at the article and trace its history back a week or so, I am not even seeing the sovereighty_type= parameter anywhere, so I need someone to help me out here with that. Once I get a sense of where the article currently stands and if my understanding of the issue can be verified by any of the involved parties, I will offer up some thoughts. Although I can see that there has been a certain amount of tension between the parties, I get the sense that everyone is willing to be very reasonable, which is encouraging to me. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I kept my initial posting short and succinct and hopefully neutral, apologies if that was not what I was meant to do. The dispute mentioned is actually what to put in the sovereignty_note= field, which works alongside the sovereighty_type= field (and everyone seems to agree that "Independence" fits the type field), but functionally you're correct. The field has been removed from the article since discussing began. You can see the parameters at Template:Infobox country, and in the version that existed before the change I made linked by Shiok above here. Related to this are disputes over the contents of the subsequent established_event= lines, which were not in the initial edit but emerged during discussion. CMD (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Keeping initial postings short is always preferred— no one likes seeing a wall of text. So now... Where do we stand? The parameter has been removed— what can I help you resolve, specifically? Obviously I can't tell you anything about the nature of Singapore history or politics... Where/ On what points do the parties have a specific dispute that there is any chance I can help resolve here? Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Justeditingtoday#Cristo Rey Network

– New discussion.

Filed by Jzsj on 16:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• User talk:Justeditingtoday#Cristo Rey Network (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jzsj (talk · contribs)
• Justeditingtoday (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The page Cristo Rey Network was edited by someone who works in the Network but I have cleaned up all that seems to me like advert and made the independent references more precise and pointed. But I have not been able to satisfy the person who keeps replacing the same three tags, I believe unfairly. The person has only a talk page, no user page, as indicated below.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Repeated improvements to article and request for help toward improvements on his/her talk page, on my talk page, and on the article talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Someone explain to Justeditingtoday what "common sense" application of citation criteria means in the area of secondary schools where media coverage is not exhaustive and the institutions' websites can generally be trusted where claims are credible. Severe tagging of this very popular model of education for the poor is not going to "make Wikipedia thrive," but rather create more sceptics and critics for Wikipedia.

Summary of dispute by User talk:Justeditingtoday

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

User talk:Justeditingtoday#Cristo Rey Network discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - There has not been adequate discussion on the article talk page. There does appear to be an issue about the tags because of non-neutral language; that should be discussed on the article talk page, Talk:Cristo Rey Network, rather than being edit-warred. Adequate discussion on the talk page is a precondition for discussion here. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• I've moved our more-than-ample discussion to the article page from the page in which the discussion took place. Must I just wait until some third party takes an interest in the discussion? I'm asking about specifics on the non-neutral language: it doesn't seem like an advert to me but rather a modest appraisal of a very successful model, and I am not connected to any of these schools. And are all three tags appropriate since the article has been gone over by a neutral, non-employee who has written over 300 Wiki articles and has a pretty good idea of what advert means.@Robert McClenon: Jzsj (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Jzsj - It isn't entirely clear to me what your question is. You ask: "Must I just wait until some third party takes an interest in the discussion?" What are you asking? You are here at DRN, which is a forum to request a third party to conduct moderated discussion. You are not required to wait for a third party, but you are expected, regardless of whether you are asking for mediation, to take part in discussion on the article talk page. You say that you are asking for specifics about the non-neutral language, but you don't appear to be asking a question, but making a statement, and another editor disagrees with you. (You think that the language is satisfactory. Another editor thinks that it violates neutral point of view.) Discuss on the article talk page. There definitely has been COI editing, and the COI tag should only be removed if there is consensus that the article has been neutralized. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. Since you directed me to the talk page I am pleading for help there, though the editor who replaced the tags has no user page and so I don't know how to request his reply. Again, I don't find the person's statements about few independent sources or advert language to be accurate, since I removed most adjectives except from independent sources. One of his replies came within a minute of my removing the tags after four hours of my responding to the tags (q.v.), so I have reason to question whether he is reading the changes. Jzsj (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment I have had a look at the article: it still has too much puffery in it ("...five full days a month...", "...more than two decades ago...", etc.) where it needs to only report specifics ("...five days per month...", "...22 years ago..."). This occurs throughout the article, and explains why it was tagged as non-neutral. It needs to be revised so that it reads like an encyclopedia article, not like an advert for the thing it describes. KDS4444 (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Telephone number

– New discussion.

Filed by 118.140.205.66 on 01:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Telephone number (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kbrose (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

the user involved keep remove "*" and "#" from possible permutation of telephone number

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

i have add the picture link, but the user involved neglected

How do you think we can help?

to add "*" and "#" to possible permutation of telephone number

Summary of dispute by Kbrose

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Telephone number discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer Note There appears to have been no discussion on the talk page whatsoever. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note The filing party has also not listed themselves as one of the involved parties in the dispute (you can't have a dispute involving just one person) and also does not appear to have a user account (i.e., is editing from an IP address). While it looks like the concern is perhaps a perfectly legitimate one, this request also looks premature and somewhat malformed. The filing party, 118.140.205.66, needs to formally attempt to engage the other editor in a discussion on the article's talk page before bringing a case here to dispute resolution. It would also be helpful (though not necessary) if the filing party opened up a user account rather than operate via an IP address. Lastly, asking "us" to add * and # to the article page is not going to happen. We are not here to impose rulings or change article content, we are here to resolve disputes through discussion and mediation. The filing party needs to understand this. KDS4444 (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:WrestleMania 33#Big Show VS. Shaq

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by JDC808 on 08:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:WrestleMania 33#Big Show VS. Shaq (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• JDC808 (talk · contribs)
• WarMachineWildThing (talk · contribs)
• Dane (talk · contribs)
• TheDeviantPro (talk · contribs)
• Sc30002001 (talk · contribs)
• LM2000 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On the article WrestleMania 33, an upcoming professional wrestling pay-per-view, we are having a dispute on whether or not a particular match has been confirmed for the event. Some editors believe that the sources that they have provided confirm the match. Others disagree based on those same sources, claiming that those sources actually do not confirm it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Lengthy talk page discussion is all.

How do you think we can help?

Read over the discussion and the sources, and provide your own opinion on the matter that could hopefully resolve this issue.

Summary of dispute by WarMachineWildThing

4 users have agreed the match should be placed on the article and the sources are vaild. Only 2 users don't want it there. As far as I'm concerned JDC808 has become OWNISH of the article refusing to leave the match and refrences even after admitting himself he knew the match was taking place and has been the only one editting the article while this discussion is taking place after convincing an admin to lower the lock down that was placed so he could edit the article. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 09:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Reply: Not really sure how this disagreement has led to such distaste towards me. We used to be on good terms. It's not OWN. It's upholding the article based on policies and what the sources actually say. I requested the article to be unlocked so that we can edit other information on the page that doesn't pertain to this particular issue. I did say that about the match, but I also said that it shouldn't be added until sources actually confirm it, otherwise it's essentially WP:OR. --JDC808 ♫ 09:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes we were on good terms but this is the second article in 2 days you have started an argument on. The coverage by the news outlets wouldn't be allowed by WWE if it weren't happening and you know it. It was started live on the espys and has been covered for almost a year by news outlets, they are keeping interest in it by saying "possible" because of it being so long before it takes place. It's not a rumor and you know it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 09:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe we had any interactions on the other article. News outlets can cover what they want without permission from WWE, unless WWE purposely had them report on it (which is something we can't verify). Also, rumor doesn't necessarily mean false information. --JDC808 ♫ 10:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Dane

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by TheDeviantPro

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Sc30002001

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by LM2000

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:WrestleMania 33#Big Show VS. Shaq discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer response I am KDS4444 and I am here to try to help resolve this dispute. I have had a look at the talk page and the arguments there. My take on the dispute is this: although Wikipedia has a guideline about not including speculative information within its articles (see WP:CRYSTAL) the fact is that if a particular possible future event has been covered in independent reliable sources, then that is usually good enough to warrant that event's inclusion. Announcements of the "official" nature of that event are not relevant, and WWE's having only teased about it is also irrelevant— if the match has been discussed publicly, then it warrants inclusion (along with the caveat that it has only been discussed and not confirmed— you can always make that clear within the article). While I agree with the sentiment that Wikipedia should strive to have content that has been made certain and is confirmed, the reality is that this is not the basis for inclusion— mere discussion is enough. Provided adequate published sourcing exists. If any of the involved editors has any questions on this, please see WP:CRYSTAL and get back to me here. Good luck! I will consider this thread resolved if no one responds within the next couple of days. KDS4444 (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi KDS4444, would it not be considered WP:CRYSTAL to include unconfirmed information? The point of the Storyline section in the article is to cover storylines and events that result in a match at the pay-per-view. The match is unconfirmed, so until confirmed, it is speculation on a possible match. In all past instances that I'm aware of, the information was only included when it got confirmed, because it's basically a rumor until its confirmation. --JDC808 ♫ 09:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

KDS4444 too many news sites have reported the match, WWE would never allow the build up its getting from Fox sports, sky sports, ETC. especially after it all started on live TV at the espys if it wasn't happening. WWE would have put a stop to it by now. It's called build up and get people interested, it's not a rumor so WP:Crystal ball wouldn't apply. JDC808 has already admitted on the article talk page he knows the match is happening as well so he's already contradicted himself plus added a hidden section to the article about the match. So if its a rumor as he says here why add all of that? Now that 4 users agree it should be on the Article (only 1 other user besides JD wants it off) he has brought it here as consensus isn't going his way. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 09:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The sources have reported on the possibility of the match. All other announcements that were made first by Fox Sports, etc., were later also reported by WWE on their website and on TV. With this issue, that has not occurred. I did not contradict myself. I clearly stated that although I agree that it's going to happen, it shouldn't be added until it's actually confirmed. Also, I actually did not add the hidden paragraph. It was there beforehand, and I've only added onto it. It's hidden for ease sakes for whenever the match does get confirmed. --JDC808 ♫ 09:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer response Everyone has had a look at WP:CRYSTAL by now, yes? That page does state, "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." That sentence occurs in the subsection on product announcements. The only question, then, is this: is the event almost certain to occur, and are there reliable sources saying so? That is what will take this beyond speculation. As a counterpoint: ask yourself, "Is this match UN-likely to occur?" Given the apparent hype, how likely do editors honestly think that the event, the match, will not actually ever take place? Is the rumor mill likely to be based on a lie or other deliberate deception? Is the WWE prone to participation in deliberate deception ("Upcoming battle between Hilary Clinton and Ivanna Trump in swimsuits likely to take place in the fall! Wait for more news!") If rumors of events in this area almost always end up becoming events, then the new rumor of such an event is enough to include it in the article, provided there are sources discussing it and even though it is only a rumor. I know that sounds disappointing, because it means Wikipedia becomes part of the rumor mill, and I myself prefer to see my encyclopedia content be verified and scheduled. But this is not the actual basis for our content. Is the event likely? Is it discussed in reliable sources? Then it warrants inclusion, even if unconfirmed and unscheduled. Because people come here wanting to know more about such things as well. Is the match unlikely to occur? I am not a WWE fan and have no idea. That call is up to y'all. If it is truly unlikely, then the rumors don't deserve to be repeated here no matter who says them. Is it unlikely?? KDS4444 (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

No its not unlikely as there has been to much hype on verified news sites and live tv. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 10:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

(I know you feel this way <smile>. I am hoping to hear from the other side of the dispute. KDS4444 (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC))

Understood, Btw if it were unlikely WWE wouldn't have posted this on WWE.com Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 10:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The event is an annual event. Only a natural disaster would keep it from happening, and then, it would probably just be postponed. The speculation is not whether or not the event will happen, it's whether or not a match at the event will happen. I agree that there's a 95% chance of the match happening (the other 5% of me is saying, what if something happens?). It just seems odd to say we should include speculation when it hasn't been confirmed yet. --JDC808 ♫ 10:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, that's a teaser. They've done it with other matches that never happened (i.e., that Twitter post about Sting vs Undertaker. Still salty on that whole situation.) --JDC808 ♫ 10:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)