Jump to content

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-05 Tyrell Johnson (American football): Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 52: Line 52:


I'll be closing this tomorrow, as one party does not wish to be involved or pursue the problem any further.
I'll be closing this tomorrow, as one party does not wish to be involved or pursue the problem any further.
:then it will have to be referred to arbitration for a ruling or administrative action. There are obviously enough people who would like to see this settled. [[Special:Contributions/67.137.0.28|67.137.0.28]] ([[User talk:67.137.0.28|talk]]) 18:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
:Then it will have to be referred to arbitration for a ruling or administrative action. There are obviously enough people who would like to see this settled. [[Special:Contributions/67.137.0.28|67.137.0.28]] ([[User talk:67.137.0.28|talk]]) 18:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


=== Administrative notes ===
=== Administrative notes ===

Revision as of 18:52, 10 May 2008

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
ArticleTyrell Johnson, Glenn Dorsey, Chris Long, Brian Brohm, Matt Ryan, and several other articles
Statusopen
Request dateUnknown
Requesting partyUnknown
Parties involvedChrisjnelson, Yankees10, 72.0.36.36, CopaceticThought, RC-0722, Cgarz89, 67.137.0.28, Tromboneguy0186, Blackngold29, Star QB, Jayron32
Mediator(s)Xavexgoem (talk)
Commentclosing soon. Advising anyone to reopen if the initial dispute comes up again.

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab active cases|Tyrell Johnson, Glenn Dorsey, Chris Long, Brian Brohm, Matt Ryan, and several other articles]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Tyrell Johnson, Glenn Dorsey, Chris Long, Brian Brohm, Matt Ryan, and several other articles]]

Request details

Who are the involved parties?

Chrisjnelson, Yankees10, 72.0.36.36, CopaceticThought, RC-0722, Cgarz89, 67.137.0.28, Tromboneguy0186, Blackngold29, Star QB, Jayron32

What's going on?

You can see prior discussion on it here:

There are a couple of users (User:Yankees10 and User:Chrisjnelson) who have decided in the interest of uniformity to change every NFL player's article from saying "was drafted by..." to "was originally drafted by..." Their intent was to convey that this is where the player's career began. Often when a player moves to another team their article says they "originally came from such and such team and now are at another team". To make all the articles consistent they decided to make every single article say "originally" in them, even the ones who haven't moved to another team.

Since adding "originally" to every page they've they've been reverted many times. Using the word originally implies they have been drafted more than once, when in fact they have not. Or it may imply they've moved on to another team, where in fact many of them have not. Several users feel putting "originally" into an article where it doesn't make sense is wrong and sounds goofy, others have pointed out that it's bad grammar.

There has been discussions on both of their user pages about it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yankees10#Originally_drafted and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chrisjnelson#Originally. This argument has potential to spiral out of control (they've put so much work into changing all the articles that at this point they wouldn't admit they were wrong even if they knew they are) so it would be nice to get mediator involvement.


What would you like to change about that?

I would like to get a third party mediator opinion on whether or not we should:

  • add "originally drafted" to every professional player's page (even the ones who haven't moved to another team) in the interest of consistency at the expense of proper grammar and fluidity
  • add "originally drafted" to only those players who have moved to another team at the expense of consistency
  • add "originally drafted" sparingly and only where it makes sense and revert those articles where they do not make sense
  • do not add "originally" on any of the articles

Mediator notes

I'll take this on as best I can. Sign below if you want a mediator:

There are a few caveats, both to this case specifically and mediation generally:

  • I won't be arguing which side is "better".
  • Only discuss the merits of the edits and the arguments, not the editors who make them. If you go down that route, I'll pull you back out of it :-)

I'll be closing this tomorrow, as one party does not wish to be involved or pursue the problem any further.

Then it will have to be referred to arbitration for a ruling or administrative action. There are obviously enough people who would like to see this settled. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

Discussion

Archived a bunch on talk Xavexgoem (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]