Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"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
Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV	Resolved	Avi8tor (t)	21 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 days, 3 hours
Norse Deity pages	Closed	Dots321 (t)	14 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 5 hours
List of South Korean girl groups	Closed	98Tigerius (t)	13 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 days, 11 hours
Benevolent dictatorship	In Progress	Banedon (t)	13 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours	Banedon (t)	4 hours
Talk:Taylor Swift	Closed	Gsgdd (t)	12 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	12 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	12 days, 4 hours
Kylie Minogue	Closed	PHShanghai (t)	10 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 10 hours
African diaspora	Closed	Kyogul (t)	7 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 days, 3 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 00:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Steeler Nation#Criticism

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Marketdiamond on 02:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Steeler Nation#Hillbilly and Appalachia references. (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Bdb484 (talk · contribs)
• blackngold29 (talk · contribs)
• GrapedApe (talk · contribs)
• Marketdiamond (talk · contribs)
• 76.189.108.102 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Main point is the derogatory nature of "white trash" and "hillbillies", and with this offensive material the relevance (necessary to understanding an NFL fanbase?), notability of the source (a free weekly located more than 1,000 miles from the region), and its many factual inaccuracies given the Federally defined region and league defined team territories.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Multiple discussion on the talk page, with links to wiki definitions of the terms.

How do you think we can help?

Allow the article to revert to its encyclopedic nature (sans the Phoenix New Times quotes and conclusions) by removing false, irrelevant (to a sports fanbase) and not notably sourced offensive material.

Opening comments by Bdb484

Hi, everyone.

If you've already read through the entire talk page arguments, forgive the following quick recap. I added material about four years ago to balance out the page, which until then had been a pretty crazy mess of uncited, pro-Steeler drivel, which is about normal for a lot of these types of pages. I made a quick run-through to add new material for balance -- including the paragraph in question now -- and remove uncited material that sounded sketchy.

This of course bothered a small number of editors, who had gotten the impression that anything negative about the team did not belong on the page, and who felt that the wording of my edits was over the top or otherwise posed POV problems. Objections included that the material was offensive, false, negative, and improperly sourced.

Given those complaints, we reviewed the relevant policies and collaborated on a series of drafts until all those questions were addressed. After a couple of days, we found consensus, and the material has largely been stable since then, with the exception of the occasional vandal.

This brings us to today. Over the last week, Marketdiamond has resurrected the previously settled questions. I believe they have all been thoroughly addressed, but I'm getting hammered being met with filibustery long posts on the talk page demanding that the material be taken down, because he feels that it is false (despite its being verified with an in-line citation to a reliable source) and offensive (despite Wikipedia not being censored). — Bdb484 (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, blackngold29 hasn't edited in about a year, so it may not be productive to wait for him to chime in. — Bdb484 (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by blackngold29

As Bdb484 stated above I have not edited for a while, nor have I been involved in any of the previous discussion on these particular edits. I therefore will decline to comment. Thank you. --blackngold29 04:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by GrapedApe

In my opinion, WP:V allows the obnoxious criticisms of the team's fans, as they are cited to a reliable source. The problem was in the WP:NPOV way it had been written, which was as if the criticisms were "truth," not "criticisms made by X." So, I fixed it with these edits which clarified who made the insults, and the the context of those comments. In my opinion, that's the way to go, and everyone can just chillax.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Support: chillaxing. — Bdb484 (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by 76.189.108.102

OK, here's my trimmed-down version. ;)

I didn't find this dispute until after I made edits to the article, so I thought I should add my name here. I am not a fan or foe of the Steelers, but I had some immediate concerns when I read the contentious content.

Examiner.com cannot be used as a source per WP:PUS, which says its "content is by amateur writers and lacks editorial oversight." I removed the Examiner cites.

Although content can't be censored, it does need to be worthy of inclusion and meet other basic guidelines - reliably sourced, written accurately, in context, etc. A lot of this contentious conent failed on one or more of these.

WP:SYN and WP:NPOV were violated by (inaccurately) combining two lines from different sources, falsely implying that visiting fans frequently complain about Steelers fans. USA Today doesn't even mention the Steelers. SI.com cite doesn't support claims made in article; pure POV. The 1994 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article has no link, so no way to verify it supports the content.

Most of the very derogatory language comes from the Phoenix New Times (PNT) story. The entire PNT article is undisputably from a rival source - based in the city of the Steelers Super Bowl opponent - and published just prior to the game. It's obviously a one-sided hit piece intended to entertain and incite Phoenix fans. Legitimate criticism in an article is of course fine, but the PNT story is purely tabloid journalism.

Before I knew about this dispute, I rewrote the content a bit. I left in the PNT content but put it into context. Afterwards, I realized that it should just be removed because it fails reliability guidelines on multiple levels. By the way, an editor described all the PNT derogatory content as a "warning" to fans, which is total POV.

Overall, the editors who inserted or support this contentious content seem to want to give the impression that Steeler Nation is widely disliked across the country. But the sourced material simply doesn't support it. It's a deep reach that's anchored by very weak sourcing, especially the PNT article which majorly fails the reliability test.

I read that the editor who originally added the contentious content did so because they said the article had no criticisms of Steeler Nation, and so they figured they should find some to "balance" the article. The PNT article is what was found and used to feature the criticism. Anyone can easily finding trash-talking sources for any professional sports team. But the issue is about the reliability and credibility of the sources.

Every team has rivals. Therefore, every team's fans obviously have other fans who don't like them. If there's going to be content that's negative about Steeler Nation, that's fine if it's encylopedic, reliably sourced and accurately presented in the article. All POV, original content, interpretations, and out-of-context language need to be left out. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The opening comment has 4603 characters. Can you trim it to 2000 characters? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 11:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I reduced my original comments with the trimmed-down version above. :) --76.189.108.102 (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Steeler Nation#Criticism discussion

I'm not very familiar with american sports affairs, so may I ask, whether the information in the section is factually wrong? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a disagreement on this question among the involved editors. Of course, WP:V tells us that the question is not whether this is right or wrong, but whether it is backed up with a reliable source. — Bdb484 (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

No, WP:V tells us that the question about reliable sources only rises about the content that is appropriate. If this information is factually wrong, it doesn't belong to the article regardless of sources reporting it (unless there is enough misstatements to report the amount of misstatements, not the misstatements themselves). If it is accurate, it should stay. That is: unless the sources are spreading lies (which doesn't seem the case), there is no reason to remove the section (see WP:WELLKNOWN, which doesn't apply directly, but contains a rule for the closely related cases). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the interpretation of WP:V, though I could definitely be wrong myself.

But more importantly, I do agree that there's no reason (not yet, at least) to remove the section. My argument has been that if the reliably sourced material is inaccurate, then we should at least wait until there's a reliable source saying so to justify removing the content. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the policy was recently heavily damaged for the sake of clarity, so now it is not clear at all. The relation of verifiability and truth is still covered in explanatory essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth § "If it's written in a book, it must be true!". So if something is known to be untrue, verifiability doesn't help. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, appreciate the discussion on this. The bottom line for me is that the use of the derogatory, offensive and slurs w.t. and h.b. is not necessary to understanding a National Football League fanbase, is very bad encyclopedic policy to insert the Phoenix New Times racial stereotypes to something as broad as an NFL fanbase and because of those things is a clear and bright violation of WP:GFFENSE. Czarkoff, I am currently working on a very simplified map of the actual "factually wrong" items in the PNT article, to be as fair as I can the wiki article has been edited down since this request to delink the Appalachia = fanbase, w.t. & h.b. The factually wrong items of PNT is that it seems to draw weak conclusions based on a few irrelevant and separate "facts" mixing and matching stadium locations with "fanbases" (league defined territory and I'm assuming broadcast stations) along with the mixing and matching that Appalachia (which it is true Pittsburgh is in) completely equals the w.t. definition of among other things poor whites, names house slaves used to refer to whites (aside from the fact that Pennsylvania was a non-slave state since independence) and the h.b. phrase which is typically southern (Alabama) and even Ozarks (an area completely outside Appalachia). The w.t. and h.b. definitions are available on their wiki pages of which Pennsylvania, Mid-Atlantic Region, North (region) and Pittsburgh are never mentioned, the NFL territories and league defined "fanbases" I can also submit to this discussion. To the very limited extent the PNT article is factually accurate it seems to be similar to a Dihydrogen monoxide hoax, a few accurate but irrelevant statements cobbled together to incite and provoke (in the PNT's purpose a biased fanbase 2,000 miles away). The PNTs use of WP:GFFENSE and insertion of race and other biases only further substantiates that they are low on generally accepted facts. Thanks for the consideration. Marketdiamond (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but all of this seems quite unconvincing. First of all, neither whitetrash, nor hillbilly seem to qualify for WP:OFFENSIVE, which is specifically less relevant, given that the terms are sourced. Next, the question of precise geographical distribution is not explicitly connected to the description of the subject's members, so the accurateness of geographical definition of "fanbases" does not contribute to the verifiability of criticism.

Now, as I contributed to this discussion as much as my awareness of US matters allows, I step down from this discussion and ask someone more knowledgeable of the region to continue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, just for clarity WP:OFFENSIVE I always thought applied to all content including sourced quotes (especially those inserting racial/regional biases/slurs) into articles that have no relation to that race. Marketdiamond (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This whole discussion is non-sensical. The Phoenix New Times content was obviously just a comical piece from a local Phoenix freebie that was solely intended to taunt its team's Super Bowl opponent (the Steelers) and rev up their own fans. Therefore, it's not even close to being a realiable source. Just because something was published somewhere doesn't mean it's automatically worthy of being included in an article. The content should be removed and stay removed. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Though I retired from this case, I think I should reply:

@Marketdiamond: though it might seem obvious, that WP:OFFENSIVE should equally apply to quotes and other statements (quotes don't differ much from illustrations in this regard). Still, there is strong long-standing consensus that being offensive is not enough to be excluded, and in this particular case the article clearly attributes the alleged offensive language to the particular source without presenting these words as the generally accepted properties of the subject. That said, I'm not convinced that these words are exactly what was meant in WP:OFFENSIVE, specifically that they are enough offensive to qualify for exclusion.

@IP: Obviously? I see nothing obvious about that, and particularly I see a published article in a source with editorial review. In fact, I don't even see any reason to believe that the author belong to another fan organization or is otherwise non-neutral towards the subject. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the content is offensive is not the issue; it's only about whether it is worthy of inclusion. And of course it's offensive. The newspaper calls the Steelers the "grubbiest, loudest, and nastiest fan base in all of sports", "White Trash America's team" and "hillbillies". If you don't see the obvious intent of the piece and the fact that the writer is a huge fan of the local team writing for the local freebie newspaper that is also a huge fan of the team, then you clearly should not be involved in this discussion. You seem not to understand that simply because something is published, whether the source is reliable or not, does not automatically make it noteworthy. The only issue here is solely about whether the content is worthy of inclusion. The answer by any unbiased standard is clearly no. This whole matter started when an anti-Steelers fan saw no criticism of the subject, felt it was necessary, and admittedly set out to find content, no matter what its source, that would trash the Steelers. Well, he found it. Right in the heart of Phoenix. This entire thread is laughable.--76.189.97.91 (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's all restrain from advancing points until a new volunteer is assigned. Also 76.189.97.91 Wwelcome to Wikipedia! For the sake of clarity and focus please register with a username. Marketdiamond (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Marketdiamond, I am on your side in this discussion. Regarding your "clarity and focus" comment, I suggest you read WP:HUMAN and WP:URIP2. As it explains, "You are an IP too. See here if you don't think so." ;) --76.189.97.91 (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, not my intent, was due to wiki technical probs and me not 2x. A status not based on reality I struck. I have held ?s on non-76.189.97.91 points but await topic reopening. Marketdiamond (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your very nice response. :) --76.189.97.91 (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll take on the case. Can you show the specific text and the specific sources and them to the box below. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Here is the seeming Q.E.D. Appalachia=h.b.=w.t.=Steeler fans source material and the authors (I contend false as he says "anecdotal evidence") justification: [1]
• Thou a fallacy to have to prove a negative (that Pitt. is not the only team with or even the "team" for h.b and w.t.) Here is arguably anecdotal evidence of 11 other League defined team territories (fanbases) also existing in Appalachia: under "secondary markets" and [2] and [3], and radio [4], and book explanation of the concept [5] and the base maps explaining the "market" regions [6] and Appalachia [7][8].
• Another article [9] where the same author stands by his comments and a discussion on the its value as a citation here.
• Excerpts of h.b. and w.t. wiki articles on article talk as a "slur"/ "derogatory" both exposing the citation as being not reliable (so short of real factual conclusions that it resorts to racial slurs to make a point) and the absurdity of injecting racial identity/ethic slurs into sports fans article. Aside from the repeated "southern" and "slavery" origins/definitions of the terms.
• Marketdiamond (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you didn't add the specific text and specific source cited which is under dispute. There was a lot of text removed and restored.

Steelers fans have also been singled out by newspapers in rival cities for inappropriate behavior during games – a frequent complaint from visiting fans in the NFL.

References Giro, Tony (2009-01-15). "Why do we hate Steelers fans? Let me count the reasons". The Baltimore Examiner. Balitmore, Md. Retrieved 2009-01-31. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |curly= ignored (help)Forrester, Paul (2007-11-07). "NFL Fan Value Experience: Pittsburgh Steelers". SI.com. Retrieved 2009-02-10. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |curly= ignored (help) Cook, Ron (1994-12-18). "O'Donnell can't control critics or crazy bounces". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. p. D1. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |curly= ignored (help)

McCarthy, Michael (2008-08-06). "NFL unveils new code of conduct for its fans". USA Today. McLean, Virginia. Retrieved 2009-02-10. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |curly= ignored (help)

Is this the specific text under dispute in the lead? Is it the entire criticism section as well? i.e if you mention a source, also include the text, and state why it is either undue, original research, or unreliably referenced. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie, the 1st bullet point I wrote has the text "h.b." (hillbilly) and "w.t" ("whitetrash America's team") along with the PNT link (Cizmar, Martin citation #30)[10] it is multiple pages but the only relevant page is what link directs to. Sorry if I provided an overload, beyond the simple judgment if "w.t" and "h.b." are offensive/irrelevant to an encyclopedia article on sports fans the other 2 bullet points deal with refuting the fact/conclusions Cizmar reaches and then the source reliability. Appreciate your time and effort on this so I purposely arranged the bullet points to refute fact/conclusion then notability in a way that someone possibly unfamiliar with NFL fan areas, territories, TV networks that abide by them and the definition of Appalachia (and thus PNT's Cizmar h.b. and w.t.) could better understand. Also several posts prior an opposing editor stated something about the "section" to be clear my only deletion would be the h.b. and w.t. references or possibly all PNT Cizmar quotes, the Criticism section to me would stay put. Interested in hearing from others on this, and thanks again. Marketdiamond (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I just uploaded this to summarize all the links (and refutations to Cizmar) in the 2nd bullet point above. The map should be self explanatory though studying it for awhile will be necessary. You asked about "text" IRWolfie, the link to the PNT article page should suffice but be clear if you want me to quote Cizmar's paragraphs here. There is some wild Q.E.D. that Appalachia=w.t.=h.b.=Steeler Nation in it and then the Myron Cope yiddish phrases is somehow w.t. or h.b.? I can get real deep into everything I have against that page of the article line by line but I feel like readers will earn a degree in Pittsburgh studies if I do. Suffice to say (and it should be very obvious even to those unfamiliar with the region or football) that Cizmar uses tons of very weak and anecdotal connections to conclude the w.t. nation and h.b., similar to a Dihydrogen monoxide hoax, several unconnected irrelevant truths mashed up together to = a big false, or as Cizmar might say: to somehow say that Pittsburgh is "whitetrash nation" and that everyone will die from water today. Reliability is also questioned with bullet point 3 "Another article [11] where the same author stands by his comments and a discussion on the its value as a citation here", and as mentioned earlier by several editors its a free alternative weekly that supports itself on "sin ads". Let me know if any further clarity is requested and please click the map link with the knowledge that radio and TV are multi million $ setups so if there is no fan demand or tons of it, that map reflects it. Marketdiamond (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for Marketdiamond, but for brevity's sake, I'll try to present what I believe is his argument: that the Phoenix New Times is not a reliable source, and that any material sourced to it (specifically statements about Appalachia, "white trash" and "hillbillies") should be removed.

Arguments proffered thus far against categorizing the PNT as a reliable source fall into a few categories:

1: PNT is free: This argument would disqualify nytimes.com and virtually all of the Internet.

2: PNT is an alt-weekly: This argument means nothing, and would disqualify Pulitzer winners like the Willamette Week (where the author of this article is currently employed, incidentally).

3: PNT is geographically separated from the subject it is writing about: Again, this argument would disqualify so many sources from writing about so many things it would be absolutely unworkable. We might as well nominate the Moon for WP:CSD.

4: PNT runs ads for escort services: Marketdiamond says he wouldn't hold himself to high journalistic standards if he worked for the PNT, so can we really trust it?

5: The author doesn't root for the Steelers: Be serious. Cizmar is an award-winning journalist who's worked for multiple Pulitzer Prize-winning papers. I suspect he can be trusted to write accurately.

6: PNT is wrong and I have original research to prove it: Marketdiamond is seeking to remove unflattering characterizations about Pittsburgh because they aren't supported by a map he drew to disprove them. This is classic WP:OR and POV-pushing.

Obviously, none of these arguments actually have anything to do with actual Wikipedia standards for evaluating reliable sources. I suspect that Marketdiamond may already be aware of this, and that this is why his arguments are invariably couched in sprawling lectures about the minutia of Appalachian geography, NFL market boundaries and anything else that will keep us from simply applying WP:V. — Bdb484 (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that the content we're discussing can be found in the page's last stable version, here. Jump to "Criticism," then to the third sentence of the first paragraph. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's almost unbelievable how much time has been wasted here on issues that aren't even relevant. It's useless to debate whether the source is reliable or if the content is true. Regarding truth, some editors really need to understand that it's about verifiability, not truth; they need to educate themselves on WP:VNT. Other editors need to understand that even if content is reliably sourced, it doesn't necessarily mean that it should be included in an article. They need to educate themselves on WP:WEIGHT, which says, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Only one determination needs to be made here: Is the content worthy of inclusion? Period. So, are all the indisputably biased and derogatory descriptions used by a newspaper writer in the hometown of the Steelers' Super Bowl opponent worthy of inclusion? Answer that question and close this discussion. IMO, the content under debate here is clearly not worthy of inclusion, which renders all the other issues in this discussion moot. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

SUPPORT: I've restrained to only answer volunteers requests but I am--like you--am coming to realize this really is just that simple, great appreciation for the focused statement! Marketdiamond (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Note, the weight of this source should be assessed against the other sources about critical reception of SN, not just about anything related to SN. Otherwise nearly everything on this page is undue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Drafts

Obviously, the article needs to mention critical reception of the subject to address the balance issue. As long as this discussion became stale, I ask parties to propose drafts of the "criticism" section for the article. Probably this will help. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts D. Czarkoff, given this is the 13th day of discussion about two RACIST terms of 1 misguided reporter, I (we) never had an opportunity to further discuss your several points since you stated: I step down from this discussion and ask someone more knowledgeable of the region to continue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC) let us know if you wish to renew those discussions on how two terms aren't WP:GFFENSE. And blackngold29 said: "I therefore will decline to comment. Thank you." --blackngold29 04:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)", so why will we in your words "became stale" providing a slot for comment?

Is there actual confusion about the Cizmar citation, where we are having a Day 1 Hour 1 question on the 13th day? Perhaps working out any remaining differences on the exact level of w.t. and h.b.'s WP:GFFENSE in a sports article may be more beneficial at this matured stage. I respectfully state this as we are now quoting this discussions comments from weeks ago, or do none of those comments mean anything? Marketdiamond (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Draft by Bdb484

As there have been no developments since consensus was reached three years ago, I would recommend restoring the version that editors agreed to then. This would require including unflattering depictions of Steelers fans, but that's how reliable sources have depicted them. Leaving this out seems like an obvious violation of WP:UNDUE.

Like other large and vocal fan bases, Steeler Nation has at times been presented in an unflattering light, especially by fans of other teams. They have occasionally been described in unflattering terms by sports journalists in other cities.For example, prior to Super Bowl XLIII, the Phoenix New Times warned readers that Steelers fans were the "grubbiest, loudest, and nastiest fan base in all of sports – as well as one of the largest" and that as the only NFL fanbase in Appalachia, they were "white trash" and "hillbillies." Steelers fans have also been singled out by newspapers in rival cities for inappropriate behavior during games – a common problem in the NFL.

Anti–Steeler Nation sentiment has grown strong enough that in some cases, front offices for other teams have taken steps to keep Pittsburgh fans out of games in their cities. Instead of being permitted to buy tickets to a Chargers-Steelers game in San Diego, for instance, they were required to pay for tickets to two other games, as well. In other cases, teams refused to sell tickets to fans calling from Pittsburgh's 412 area code, and they encouraged fans who were selling their own tickets to do the same. Steelers President Art Rooney II complained to the NFL about the situation, but his grievance was not well received.

Draft by Marketdiamond

7th time (on the 13th day) I have repeatedly mentioned only the (all for consensus but these positions should be clear by now):

"Cizmar, Martin (2009-07-27). "Arizona Cardinals Fans, You'd Better Get Ferocious or Steeler Nation Will Eat You Alive". Phoenix New Times (Phoenix, Arizona). Retrieved 2009-02-04." aka "w.t. and h.b." for complete deletion.

Please see another view HERE on author and publication

WP:COMMONSENSE time after 13 days of providing several facts against 1 persons (Cizmar) RACISTWP:GFFENSE. --Marketdiamond (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Draft by 76.189.108.102

What is with all these Draft sections you posted, Marketdiamond that someone posted??? We were right on the verge of ending this whole matter. All we needed was one question answered and we would've been done. Why did you someone clutter up the whole discussion by doing this? --76.189.97.59 (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC) 22:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Not I, best I can figure out Dmitrij D. Czarkoff did, but he stepped down or didn't or . . . Marketdiamond (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. Completely agree.

Sorry, you're right. It was Dmitrij D. Czarkoff. Two weeks of mostly irrelevant discussion. And now this, which will of course only perpetuate all the chaos. And Dmitrij removed himself five days ago: "Now, as I contributed to this discussion as much as my awareness of US matters allows, I step down from this discussion and ask someone more knowledgeable of the region to continue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)" It's a huge disruption to a 13-day discussion, so I removed it. --76.189.97.59 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC) 22:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't get to do that. And edit-warring on a noticeboard? Are you… touched? —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  23:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If someone is disruptively editing they most certainly can be reverted. Kerfuffler, are you a sockpuppet? Your account was started just days ago and yet you seem to know an awful lot about editing. And per your talk page, I'm apparently not the only editor wondering about this; there are at least three others who are very suspicious of you. The third one said, "Came to this user talk page from an ANI discussion that he took part in - reviewing his earliest edits, I am also deeply suspicious and feel this one should be thoroughly investigated". Are you using mulitiple accounts to edit? --76.189.97.59 (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The only evidence of disruptive editing on this noticeboard is from you. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  23:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, you didn't answer the question. And you just showed up in this discussion without any prior participation. Are you a sockpuppet? --76.189.97.59 (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, we are patiently waiting for volunteer(s?) to assess some of these points after one stated our comments are going "stale", and all about slurs in a "source". Perhaps your expertise Kerfuffler can be used to further the resolution. Marketdiamond (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Market, I don't want his involvement because he won't even answer if he's using mulitiple accounts at the same time to edit. He just showed up here after two weeks, minutes after I removed the disruptive content. As several other editors have clearly told him, it's very suspicious. See his talk page --76.189.97.59 (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not plugged into NFL stuff enough to really make sense of what's going on here, but it smells like the main players here all have a vested personal interest in this. Also, it's particularly hard to sort out with all the yelling. The only thing I can say is that the quote does seem a bit over the top—I don't think WP should be harboring extremist tripe. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  23:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This is now the second time that Kerfuffler has refused to answer if he/she is using multiple accounts to edit. He/she also refused to answer all the other editors who stated their strong suspicions. Therefore, his/her participation here would have no credibility at this point. --76.189.97.59 (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:India

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Mrt3366 on 09:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. It is as close to a dead-end as it can get. I've exhausted most other ways to seek wider input. Location of dispute Talk:India (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Mrt3366 (talk · contribs) Saravask (talk · contribs) RegentsPark (talk · contribs) Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) MilborneOne (talk · contribs) Ashley thomas80 (talk · contribs) Dwaipayan (talk · contribs) CorrectKnowledge (talk · contribs) Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk · contribs) Dispute overview India is presently a long-standing featured article. But that's for another day. The thing is, many other FAs about countries (Japan, Germany, Canada, Australia et al.) have a city population template in the demographics section and with good reason. India doesn't have one. So I made a template (actually I made two because of the high variety of subsequent complaints about its "ugly looks"). I went to discuss. Got feedback along the lines of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. "This was discussed in the past and the template was removed... I for one think that these city templates are nothing but an eyesore." - apparently the editors of other FAs that have the template, are unmindful. That's what it seems to me. "No need for more clutter" - notice that the "demographics" section of other similar FAs (Germany, Japan, Australia) usually contain subsections like "religion", "language", "education", "health"; India, being an FA, has none of that, yet supposedly it is causing too much clutter as far as the inclusion of the template is concerned. And so forth. After undergoing this highly perplexing and hazy discussion, I boldly inserted one of the templates in the demographics section, to see what happens afterwards, naturally it was reverted with the summary "consensus first, inclusion later". I continued the discussion, again replies were "Looks awful", "no to such ugliness", "India is preeminently (and in my view thankfully still) a rural country". Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talked to some of them personally, tried to explain how it will be helpful in giving a rough sketch an Idea of India's urban agglomeration in the top most populous cities and so on. I told that we may squabble about the looks of the template all we want but that alone or WP:IDON'TLIKEIT cannot serve as grounds for removal of the template altogether, especially when other FAs have these in demographics section. I had some support too. Thus, there is currently no consensus for or against it. I also previously posted a comment on WT:COUNTRY. How do you think we can help? By providing your neutral (by 'neutral' I mean taking into consideration the norm) perspective on the issue and guidance. I am frankly tired of listening to sophistries and downright asinine comments, now I don't wish to see them repeated here. Read this to get an even clearer view. Opening comments by Saravask Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by RegentsPark MilborneOne has expressed the issue accurately below. Noting to add except gentle advice to OP that consensus doesn't always go the way you want it to. --regentspark (comment) 14:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Fowler&fowler Per user:MilborneOne's statement below, this is not a dispute, merely the case of an editor unwilling to recognize the lack of consensus for his proposed addition. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Chipmunkdavis Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by MilborneOne Not sure this is a really a dispute, Mrt3666 suggested adding a big cities template and has failed to gain a consensus to add it. Despite the comment above about grounds for removal of the template altogether is not the case of being removed = this was a request for addition of a template that didnt exist before and as it has been challenged it needs a discussion and clear consensus to add it. The discussion then moves on to what the template should look like ignoring the fact it hasnt got a clear consensus to add. Mrt3666 has made his case and other editors have commented but they have failed to get a consensus to add it. So really status quo is the answer, the template doesnt get added and we move on, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Ashley thomas80 Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Dwaipayan Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by CorrectKnowledge Some of the editors like Ashley and regentspark have suggested improvements to Mrt3366's proposal or have come up with proposals of their own (addition of images rather than templates) on Talk:India. Other editors have dismissed the idea outright with comments that can be described as lazy at best. Addition of template to the article isn't a bad idea at all as other FA's prove. The problem here is that no consensus benefits the default position of no template in the article. So, some editors might be less inclined to work towards consensus than others. Hopefully, DRN will be more successful than other attempts that have been made to resolve this. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 09:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Ratnakar.kulkarni Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Talk:India discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Hello, I'm a volunteer at DRN. I understand the problem here to be whether or not to include a chart in the article. My question to all is, all ascetics aside, will the chart improve the article and Wikipedia? Jobberone (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Forget consensus for a moment. If there were a clear consensus against or for it, I would not have been here. So it's useless to ask other involved editors. You can easily know what they think by just visiting Talk:India. Stop asking please. I previously stated that you can help by providing your neutral (by 'neutral' I mean taking into consideration the norm) perspective on the issue and guidance. Besides, compare this with other FAs like (Japan, Germany, Australia). You still feel the need to ask whether or not this will add anything to the wikipedia/article? I am stunned! What does your common sense say? Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Are you addressing me here? Jobberone (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Yes. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 05:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC) @Jobberone: The chart will not improve the India page, because India is in overwhelming rural country, with 70% of its population living in villages. Without a template for the rural population, a single template for the urban population will be WP:UNDUE and create the false impression that India is like Australia, Japan, Canada, or the United States, which are primarily urban countries, and which do have these templates. It is not clear that it will improve Wikipedia as there are already a number of pages with the same content: List of million-plus agglomerations in India, List of most populous cities in India, List of most populous metropolitan areas in India, Classification of Indian cities, Cities in India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Many related articles include duplicated material. The inclusion of a small chart reflecting the population of the largest cities in India is not a problem whether redundant or not. A simple statement that the majority of the population is rural is sufficient. If someone wishes to include a pie chart etc or a table of the rural populations of the states/territories fine. The population of India in not a controversial subject to the overwhelming majority of readers. Jobberone (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC) A small non-template list is already there. I disagree that a large 20 city template will not be UNDUE, especially with pictures. The other developing country FAs: Indonesia, Peru, Chad, Cameroon, Peru, all with large rural populations, do not have these charts. If the India page had an urbanization subsection, a smaller template chart could perhaps go into it, but that is a decision that needs to be made on that page. There is lots of information that can go into the India page. As the second most trafficked country page on Wikipedia, it gets non-stop requests from people to do just that. Tomorrow someone will want to put in another template on some other topic. We have to draw a line somewhere. There is a good reason why the India page is the longest standing country featured article. (It will complete 8 years on September 16.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC) @Jobberone: Here is what the demographics section says: The number of Indians living in urban areas has grown by 31.2% between 1991 and 2001. Yet, in 2001, over 70% lived in rural areas. According to the 2001 census, there are 27 million-plus cities in India; among them Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad are the most populous metropolitan areas. The literacy rate in 2011 was 74.04%: 65.46% among females and 82.14% among males. ... I don't see what information this template will add. The "million-plus cities" link takes a reader straight to the page from which this template has been copied. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC) I agree its not totally necessary. OTOH, it is really not burdensome for it to be there. Those wishing more information can visit the subarticle. Jobberone (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC) @Jobberone: The burdensome part I think is the subjective part. Of those two choices, the majority of regular editors on the India page have preferred the prose (to the list). I don't just mean for this template, but for similar conundrums in the past. I personally do find a page-wide template somewhat intrusive, interrupting the flow of prose. If it were like an image, and offset to one side, it would be less so. One possibility would be to turn it into an image (and throw out the vanilla pictures), but I can see that people (including one half of me) will say that if an illustration is what is needed (for India's recent urbanization) then far better graphic displays are available (than a darned list). ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC) @ And, as it turns out, the map in place in that section is exactly such a map of urbanization, showing the most populous cities, but providing geographical information as well. I just discovered this! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Mrt3666 failed to gain a consensus on the talk page that the chart will add any value to the article, not sure repeating the arguments here with the same players will really help. If Mrt3666 will not accept the consensus then perhaps the next logical step would have been for him to start a WP:RFC to see if others outside of the talk page support the addition. MilborneOne (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Also, Mrt3366 has been canvassing (see here, here, here, here, here, and many others in his user contributions). The latest of these involve canvassing user:Ummit, and, soon thereafter, adding his name here at the top! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC) I am not here to address conduct. If that is an issue for some it should be addressed per protocol. I have looked at several other countries and I see a largest city population chart in many and I see no problem with them. While consensus is important, it does not override the value of improving an article and Wikipedia. I need to see an appropriate reason to exclude information which improves the article other than a consensus doesn't 'like' it. Jobberone (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Sorry but WP:CONSENSUS is a fundamental policy in making editorial decisions you cant ignore it. If your read the talk page discussion you fill find that 'not liking' it was not the only response from editors and most gave a reasoned response and even a comprise where the article text was amended to include Ahmedabad. Still dont think this is the right place to carry on the talk page discussion here just because Mrt3366 doesnt accept the talk page comments. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC) @Jobberone: I didn't know that conduct was not important to dispute resolution. I have replied to your question above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Side-discussion ensuing allegations by fowler against Mrt33666 about canvassing, not really pertinent/helpful to the ongoing discussion. @Fowler: Now you're trying to get me blocked by focusing on canvassing. WOOOOW! The issue apparently has shifted from template to canvassing. Bravo fowler. Bravo! If this is how you want to win, then it's a shame. FYI, He got involved and only then I asked him to comment here. Isn't it what we do by notifying them in the first place. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Mrt3366, you are WP:canvassing. You dropped a note on my talk page. Now, since I'm an admin and one that openly accepts reviews of editors (but actually, not article edits), and I actively avoid this topic, then it could be argued that I'm a neutral party. How you asked, however, wasn't neutral in the least. But since I am a neutral party, I would say your shopping around for opinions is improper, and many consider it a blockable offense. Posting neutral notices in Project areas, pointing to the discussion, without offering an opinion on the outcome or parties in that post, well that would be fine. I'm not involved in this discussion at talk:India, nor do I expect to participate in this DRN regarding the content, but as an admin, I will warn you that your behavior there and in canvassing is dangerously and quickly headed towards what we admin types call "disruption". As several have noted, you might take notice of the comments from Fowler and regentspark, who are known to have a great deal of experience and clue, and slow down a bit, and take the rhetoric down a few notches on that talk page. Forum shopping isn't going to get you anything but blocked, so I suggest you return to the talk page there, listen, present your ideas in a calm and rational way, and accept whatever the consensus becomes. And read WP:CIVIL, as taking a battlefield mentality will get you nowhere on Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC) If the participants care to continue to argue the dispute then I will close it. I wish the principals to address me only. I will direct the dispute. And we are not going to discuss conduct at the DRN. Jobberone (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC) In answer to the question, "will the chart improve the article and Wikipedia?" (which is of course the right and pertinent question) I believe that it will. My only real involvement in this dispute is that I stopped by on Talk:India to say so. There's more I could add, but I'll refrain for now, other than offering that the proposal does not seem to have received as fair a hearing there as it might have. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC) I can't entirely make sense of it, but this smells like a WP:OWN issue; also see [12]. Kerfuffler (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC) I believe adding the chart is the best course for Wikipedia and its readers. I don't see this as a controversial subject and it is innocuous. I can understand the frustrations dealing with some editors but that is not a good reason to reject contributions. Will the participants agree to this decision? Jobberone (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC) No - as it clearly is a controversial subject and not an innocuous change per the comments here and the talk page particularly regarding undue weight. MilborneOne (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC) No. As I've indicated above, there is already a graphical display of urbanization in that section (that I myself wasn't aware of). It's caption, clearly needs to be rewritten to show what is displays. It is a much better display of India's urbanization that a list. Adding a list would be doubly undue. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC) No. Agree with the above. Moreover, at the top of the WP:DRN page, the word "informal" is emphasised. Also, "[i]t is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy." Not sure if this squares with Jobberone's ex-cathedra pronouncements of "I believe", "this decision", and so on. Saravask 21:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC) I am new to Talk India page, and I too smell this article has WP:OWN issues. It is unpersuasive to suggest that India is mostly rural, and pictures of major cities may be misleading. It is unpersuasive because content should be driven by notability to the subject. Many countries such as Thailand, with rural % of population similar to India, have this template; cities/infrastructure are notable aspects of any country, and are worth including in respective country articles. If UNDUE is an issue, I urge the community to check if the article is silent or does not adequately address rural India, and take balancing measures if needed. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC) As an uninvolved DRN volunteer, I should point out that WP:N does not apply to the inclusion of templates, which are non-essential navigational tools. This is not an argument against or for the inclusion of the template, just an observation.--SGCM (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Clarification:He is talking about "notability to the subject." Not notability of the template. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Again this is not the vehicle to discuss matters of conduct. This does not really involve undue weight. This is not about burdening a lengthy article with one template. Not trying to rule on high. It's merely unreasonable to object so strenuously about the inclusion of a template esp when it seems to be a prevalent feature in so many similar articles. There is no controversy surrounding the population of a few cities. What are the motivation(s) to exclude such innocuous data? As some have suggested is this about owning the article? Is it about winning? Must one side have its way no matter? Is the template really that important? Does one party wish to propose a compromise? I see where another template has been reviewed. Jobberone (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Question: if this template was collapsible and appeared collapsed, would it still be problematic? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC) The template adds no value does not add value to the article. The only possible reason that I can see for adding it is that Mrt3366 wants it and that's really not a good reason. --regentspark (comment) 00:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC) @czarkoff, @Jobberone: I'm afraid not. It has nothing to do with ownership. It has everything to do with hard won standards maintained on the India page (the reason why it is Wikipedia's longest standing country featured article). There is already a much more complex graphical map of urban population centers in place in that same section (made by one of Wikipedia's oldest and better-known graphics artists, User:Planemad). Can someone tell me what is there in this graphically rudimentary list template that is not already there in the map as well as in the text of the section which explicitly states: The number of Indians living in urban areas has grown by 31.2% between 1991 and 2001. Yet, in 2001, over 70% lived in rural areas. According to the 2001 census, there are 27 million-plus cities in India; among them Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad are the most populous metropolitan areas. The literacy rate in 2011 was 74.04%: 65.46% among females and 82.14% among males. ... and provides a link to the "million-plus cities" page from which this template has been blatantly copied?? Ever heard of triple redundancy in an article, especially a featured article? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC) @czarkoff: What I can suggest is that we ask user:Planemad or some other graphical designer to incorporate the population numbers from the list template into the map. How this can be done, I can't say yet, but I'm guessing it shouldn't be too hard. Also, the city names in the map are a little too small and their fontsize could be increased. User:Saravask, I think is the best person to ask. I believe he had requested Planemad to design the map. But going back to a rudimentary cities list with obviously photoshopped vanilla images is nothing but regression. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Also, while the list itself is unnecessary, as fowler points out the template contains many images. Images in the India article have been very carefully selected by a collaborative process (that is the antithesis of ownership) over a long period of time. Templates, on the other hand, transfer control outside the article and changes to them are less visible (they don't show up in article history). Featured articles come with a stamp of quality and we should be wary of adding hard to monitor and maintain templates. --regentspark (comment) 01:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC) The template may not be useful to those who know a country very well, but to outsiders it is useful. I do not know if wiki has link pass through data to verify general usage of equivalent templates that are there in many developed, developing country specific articles, but I, for one, have used many of wiki's country pages many times and referred to similar templates before my travels to numerous countries, including my recent trip through Norway, Sweden and Russia - each of which have an equivalent template that Mrt3366 is proposing. That map, Fowler&fowler is pretty. I like your idea, although uncertain if that map after update will be as intuitive as similar templates are on other country specific articles. I do not know, and offer my regrets in advance, if it is out of place for me to suggest this compromise to Fowler&fowler and Mrt3366: finalize+protect the template and after that include it; if the map can be updated per Fowler&fowler's suggestions to capture equivalent information; then it can replace the template. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I've left a post on User:Planemad's talk page; please read it. Also user:Saravask himself is a bit of a graphics whiz, having designed the other major map on the India page, India#Subdivisions, which is indeed clickable. I've also pinged Saravask. I think between them, a nice interactive map could be produced. As for AVC's compromise, I'm really not sure. It is still too intrusive. Perhaps sans-images and in a collapsed form it could be included, and serve as an eyesore for motivating the graphic designers to redouble their efforts. I would support such an inclusion only as a stop gap provided the graphical designers are on board. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Here is the disputed table: Largest urban agglomerations in India by population (2011 census) Rank City name State/territory Population Rank City name State/territory Population 1 Mumbai Maharashtra 18,394,912 28 Ludhiana Punjab 1,618,879 2 Delhi Delhi 16,349,831 29 Nashik Maharashtra 1,562,769 3 Kolkata West Bengal 14,112,536 30 Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh 1,491,202 4 Chennai Tamil Nadu 8,696,010 31 Madurai Tamil Nadu 1,465,625 5 Bangalore Karnataka 8,520,435 32 Varanasi Uttar Pradesh 1,435,113 6 Hyderabad Telangana 7,749,334 33 Meerut Uttar Pradesh 1,424,908 7 Ahmedabad Gujarat 6,361,084 34 Faridabad Haryana 1,414,050 8 Pune Maharashtra 5,057,709 35 Rajkot Gujarat 1,390,933 9 Surat Gujarat 4,591,246 36 Jamshedpur Jharkhand 1,339,438 10 Jaipur Rajasthan 3,073,350 37 Srinagar Jammu and Kashmir 1,273,312 11 Kanpur Uttar Pradesh 2,920,496 38 Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh 1,268,848 12 Lucknow Uttar Pradesh 2,902,920 39 Asansol West Bengal 1,243,414 13 Nagpur Maharashtra 2,497,870 40 Vasai-Virar Maharashtra 1,222,390 14 Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh 2,375,820 41 Prayagraj Uttar Pradesh 1,216,719 15 Indore Madhya Pradesh 2,170,295 42 Dhanbad Jharkhand 1,196,214 16 Coimbatore Tamil Nadu 2,151,466 43 Aurangabad Maharashtra 1,193,167 17 Kochi Kerala 2,119,724 44 Amritsar Punjab 1,183,705 18 Patna Bihar 2,049,156 45 Jodhpur Rajasthan 1,138,300 19 Kozhikode Kerala 2,030,519 46 Ranchi Jharkhand 1,126,741 20 Bhopal Madhya Pradesh 1,886,100 47 Raipur Chhattisgarh 1,123,558 21 Thrissur Kerala 1,861,269 48 Kollam Kerala 1,110,668 22 Vadodara Gujarat 1,822,221 49 Gwalior Madhya Pradesh 1,102,884 23 Agra Uttar Pradesh 1,760,285 50 Bhilai Chhattisgarh 1,064,222 24 Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh 1,730,320 51 Chandigarh Chandigarh 1,026,459 25 Malappuram Kerala 1,699,060 52 Tiruchirappalli Tamil Nadu 1,022,518 26 Thiruvananthapuram Kerala 1,687,406 53 Kota Rajasthan 1,001,694 27 Kannur Kerala 1,642,892 54 Mysore Karnataka 990,900 There are four images and a few lines which can be scrolled by easily. I'm sorry but I'm having trouble accepting the Sacred Cow argument. It certainly adds information. Looking at the table I also have trouble seeing it as a distraction much less an eyesore. There is no comparison between the template and this: complex graphical map of urban population centers. I've reviewed this: File:Political map of India EN.svg and again there is no comparison with the template. Clicking on a state or territory brings up no population data. Right now the only feasible compromise made so far is a collapsible template or another template. I find the collapsible idea a brilliant compromise if feasible. I still find it difficult to understand how such a small template with nothing but facts and four images can create this much entrenchment. Are the parties willing to investigate both these compromises? Jobberone (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Well, Jobberone, we'll just have to agree to disagree. The only compromise I, personally, will agree to is a the collapsed template below (without images) as a stop gap until the heat map (per Planemad and Saravask) is ready. (Obviously, the Political map was only given as an example to illustrate that Saravask knows how to make clickable maps (no easy programming job, by the way); it doesn't bring up population numbers, but someone who can design it can also do a map with population numbers. Here is the collapsed template: List of 20 largest urban agglomertions in India by population Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Sorry if I misunderstood that. I looked at the collapsible template and see no reason why that should not be acceptable to the other party. Agreeing to disagree is totally acceptable. Jobberone (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I'm on board with the two provisos (1. no images 2. stop gap until the graphic artists deliver). However, there are some dozen other editors who opposed the template idea (in contrast to the 5 (including drive bys) who favored it). Good luck getting their assents. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC) PS I heard from Saravask. See User talk:Saravask. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Just as infoboxes were deemed unnecessary in many top-notch featured biographies (e.g., Mary Shelley) because editors there felt they were visually disruptive and redundant, the templates above (collapsible or not) can be seen as equally unnecessary and disruptive (the retina-bombing electric purple, for one). It makes the page look like one of those children's reference books, with their goofy pez-dispenser colours. With one click, all the city stats any reader could want (and more) are there in a list, which is handily linked to and readily noticed (by anyone who cares to). Scoping like this helps keep articles here neat, trim, and of manageable length—and hence more useful to readers. I suppose Planemad or someone else can superimpose clickable internal links to the top ten or twenty cities over either the big geographic or the thumbed demographic map, maybe with popup mouseover pop stats appearing on hover—see Australia#States_and_territories. At least that would give the stats (excessive or redundant or not) while being gentle on our eyes. Saravask 03:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I can certainly appreciate the opinions of others in this case ascetics. However, that particular article is full of visual imagery and templates. Is adding a template to one full of them sound unreasonable and can one really make the argument this one just makes it all too much? Certainly all of Wikipedia's articlea are not so jealously guarded nor constructed just so. I've heard one plea that this article is not owned. I argue vigorously that there is a cabal of editors seeking to own the article. It is concerning to hear that some will not approve of but 1 or 2 ways to alter the article. Having a group of editors who hold the article hostage is more concerning. The purpose of the article is to enlighten readers. Being artistically pleasing to one group should be balanced with the needs of the many. Many learn in a more visual way than just reading a good book. Many have learning disabilities, autism, dyslexias and like disorders, etc. I throw that out there to balance the need to be ascetically pleasing to a certain audience. Having said that I personally have no problem with the approach Saravask is espousing and I see that as another compromise others should entertain. If the parties can compromise then that is a good start. Jobberone (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I do have problems "with the approach Saravask is espousing". He didn't validate his views whatsoever. Again I don't like it is not an argument at all, especially in a dispute resolution process. He must be considerate of how the article looks to others. And others find it biased in favour of poverty-stricken, rural side of India and not reflecting the modern India at all. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 05:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC) @Jobberone This is appearing, to me and others, as a shameless violation of WP:OWN. The template is not causing clutter. It's the same criticism and mockery fowler and some others apply to anybody who is against their views. Everything about their behaviour here makes it seem as if he and a few others WP:OWN this article. Templates containing population data in demographics section (with four images, why not?), however much "ugly" they may look like to someone, are indispensable, especially if we consider other FAs of its kind (similar/comparable countries). Majority should not be able to swamp the (policy-wise) correct views. Wikipedia is not a vote. Like Steve summit said to fowler “you will suffer no edits to it by anyone else without forcing them to endure a gauntlet of "consensus building" here first, in which there will never be consensus because you will find fault forever with anything that you don't like.” (emphases are my own) This is what is going on. Kerfuffler and others are right, this is an ownership issue. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 05:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC) “I still find it difficult to understand how such a small template with nothing but facts and four images can create this much entrenchment.” - See, my frustration? Yes. that's the problem which steve was alluding to earlier on the Talk:India. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I would also like to point to the fact that “infoboxes were deemed unnecessary in many top-notch featured biographies (e.g., Mary Shelley) because editors there felt they were visually disruptive and redundant” - here editors are not unanimous or happy with the article's looks either way. That's the difference. I think what I wrote above, largest cities templates, however much of an "eyesore" they may appear to someone, are inextricable if we consider other FAs of its kind. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 05:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC) WP:OWN is a conduct issue and not something that DRN deals with. Stick to the discussion on the template. There are conduct dispute noticeboards that handle editor conduct.--SGCM (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I get it. I said in "How do you think we can help you" section that you can help by providing your neutral (by 'neutral' I mean taking into consideration the norm) perspective on the issue and guidance. Please kindly do so on the topic. What's your perspective should we include the template or not? Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC) There are a few essays on the subject: Wikipedia:Avoid template creep and Wikipedia:Navigation templates. The guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes is for infoboxes, not navboxes, but the same principles could apply. The guideline Wikipedia:Template namespace might also help. I don't have a particular opinion on this case, but I am willing to offer assistance when needed.--SGCM (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Dear, I asked you for your unambiguous, undiplomatic answer. Although I appreciate you're trying to be — what you consider — neutral, I want you to submit your unrefined opinion sans the veneer of diplomacy. Just tell us that will be more helpful. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I'm being honest. The issue of navigational templates is such a trivial issue, that no guidelines or policies will explicitly mention it. The closest you'll get is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#Using infoboxes in articles. As it states, "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article."--SGCM (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC) As a member of the "unreasonable" "cabal of editors" that is "jealously guard[ing]" the FA against "(policy-wise) correct views", I have a question: where is the policy page that mandates a cities template. And note that I said "mandates", not "suggests". Please leave off the monkey-see-monkey-do injunction to "follow the crowd": many or most country articles may have city tables, but most (that use non-Latin script(s)) also have that/those script(s) in the lede and the infobox. India doesn't, per country-specific consensus at formed at WP:IN some months back. And that's par for the course on WP. Thus, regarding ultimately optional do-dads like this, there is no ultimate mandate whatsoever; we rely on page-specific consensuses for that. And, as has been pointed out many times but is distinctly failing to register with Mrt3366, if no consensus evolves, we stick with the status quo ante: no do-dad template. Jobberone wants a non-mandatory and non-consensus template. His job here was to dispassionately cite binding policy (or lack thereof) and guide formation of a consensus based on it (or else leave it unresolved). Instead, he's teamed up with the OP to let us know about the jealous "cabal of editors" with ownership issues. We are all volunteers here, acting on our own, entitled to our opinions, "jealous" or not. Jobberone should consider just taking a break from mediating this discussion. That would make room for a more disinterested volunteer who will leave off the gratuitous personal attacks. Repeatedly spinning WP:OWN, WP:CABAL, etc. into unhelpful innuendo distracts us from the template and its merits. Saravask 06:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I fully fathom the redundancy of such grotesque platitudes and rude language in your first paragraph above. IMO, they are somewhat of a distraction. Your behaviour (like mine you can say) has been combative. "we rely on page-specific consensuses for that." - yes, but consensus ≠ votes. If you don't have anything, other than trivial, questionable and subjective preferences, to back your claims, while opposing the inclusion of verifiable information, then don't vote. That's what you don't understand. "Jobberone wants a non-mandatory and non-consensus template" - nope, not really. That's your perception. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC) The content dispute is rather trivial (it's just a template, after all), but the sheer amount of vitriol (and the constant mentions of WP:OWN, WP:CANVASS, and WP:CABAL) shows that there is an ongoing and wider underlying dispute between the involved editors. Skimming through the editing histories of the main parties of the case reveals that they have clashed multiple times before, on a wide range of pages dealing with South Asia. My recommendation is to defer this to ANI or another appropriate noticeboard. The main participants of this case arrived with a considerable amount of baggage that predates the Talk:India dispute, and that's not something that DRN can resolve.--SGCM (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC) If there is one, I am not aware of that. Yes, I misunderstood that point. Yes, you're right. That's the problem you see. And that's why wp:own has been uttered multiple times. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC) This comment (and this one) posted a few days ago makes it obvious that it's not just about the template. There's something else going on here, a larger dispute beyond the scope of a single DRN case.--SGCM (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC) "There's something else going on here." -  Disagree. No. Nothing else is going here on this page. Should you not focus on this page to solve the dispute, rather than what some editor posted about an unrelated topic on other pages? That has been dealt with previously. P.S. I invite you to not assume things before hand. Focus on this thread and this topic for now. That's why I came to this page and not anything else. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC) That is the purpose of DRN, but if the parties of this case keep repeatedly bringing up conduct disputes (WP:OWN, WP:CANVASS, and WP:CABAL), after being repeatedly told not to, then it becomes a problem.--SGCM (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I asked you about your opinion and you simply shunned it, instead, you proposed taking this to ANI because you presumed based on other unrelated things, that something disingenuous (is that the right word?) is going on, I don't think you're doing your job as efficiently as you might have. "if the parties of this case keep repeatedly bringing up conduct disputes" - No you are excessively focusing on the mentions of "conduct disputes" repeatedly. It's only natural that people will say something about conducts of each other. Nevertheless, only few times (my observation) it has been mentioned and nothing that can serve as a major hindrance. So please I implore you to stop gratuitously focusing on the allusions to conduct, as opposed to the raised issue here. Let's not muddy the water more. P.S. Yes, I was ignoring all rules for the sake of betterment of Wikipedia and it was framed as canvassing (I concede, it was perilously similar to canvassing, but there was no malevolent intent involved as far as the inclusion of template is concerned, I had exhausted most other ways to seek wider input). Hence, let's not digress too far by focusing on conduct of anyone. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I've already offered my opinion. There is no explicit criteria, in any policy or guideline, for the inclusion or exclusion of templates. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, which is the closest you'll find, states that "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." If there is no consensus, then there is no inclusion. It's either all the parties compromrise, and it is included, or no consensus is reached, and it isn't. I'm not going to take a side, I've been careful about being nice to all the parties, but accusations that I've been too "diplomatic" does nothing except to encourage a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.--SGCM (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC) No. I was simply asking for a straight answer from you and that's not same as encouraging a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Come on dear! Do you or do you not think including a largest cities template will harm the article? I (and others) think it is going to enhance the quality. Am I displaying a battleground mentality by simply admitting that? Nope. Sarvask has claimed, "we rely on page-specific consensuses for that." - yes I know, but at the same time, consensus building ≠ votes. All we are humbly saying is If you don't have anything, other than trivial, questionable and subjective preferences, to back your claims, while opposing the inclusion of verifiable, pertinent information, then don't vote. You tell me is this inherently a display of battle ground mentality? Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Being "diplomatic" is policy. I've already told you what the guideline states, and that's all that really matters. That is not a case of IDONTLIKEIT. Content disputes are determined, not by the subjective perception of harm, but by policies and guidelines, which are not "trivial, questionable, and subjective." Wikipedia is not a vote, so please stop badgering me to "vote" in your favour. Have you ever heard the English idiom about catching flies with honey, not vinegar? The more you badger the volunteers for support, the less likely they'll support you.--SGCM (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC) "If you don't have anything, other than trivial, questionable and subjective preferences, to back your claims, while opposing the inclusion of verifiable, pertinent information, then don't vote." DRN has never been a vote, and I do not intend on voting. Voting is not a substitute for consensus, not the other way around.--SGCM (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)I think (I may be wrong) you're in whole other tangent brother. I, in fact, said the same thing. Why are you throwing that back at me?? It was a response to sarvask's comment. I meant, comments like it is "ugly", "looks awful", etc or simply asserting that the template (with verifiable info) doesn't add anything to the article, when other editors disagree, and especially when other FAs contain such template, are nothing close to a credible rationales against the inclusion of template. Reiterating I don't like it isn't going to do it for anybody. If these are the things we are going to base our opinions on then these must be accompanied by a wiki-policy or guideline. Why is this so hard to get? Civility and diplomacy, as I see it, are two different things. I am not asking you to be uncivil, am I? Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Would I be misplaced in suggesting that the editors opposed to the template are more opposed to images of modern urban India than the template itself? Previous comments in the DRN illustrate my point. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 09:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC) That's not a reason for not including the template, is it? That is for template talk discussion. Not here. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Identifying the core issue will save us a lot of time and effort. Fowler&fowler (refer to comment above) has already accepted the addition of an equally large template with no images. Besides, some of his comments on Talk:India suggest that he has problems with excessive representation of urban India. The way I see it, images are at the heart of the debate. Let's discuss why editors are objecting to them first. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 09:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC) The point that you're alluding to has already been addressed by AVC above. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I've never made any of the arguments that you've listed, so why are you directing them at me? ;) Let's not mix up different editors here, if you're replying to someone else, please state so. I've made two consistent points throughout this discussion: 1) DRN only deals with content disputes, and 2) There is no explicit criteria, in any policy or guideline, for the inclusion or exclusion of templates. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, which is the closest guideline, states that inclusion "is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." If there is no consensus, then there is no inclusion. It's either all the parties reach a compromise, and it is included, or no consensus is reached, and it isn't. The compromise seems to be heading towards a small chart without images.--SGCM (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC) "I've never made any of the arguments that you've listed" - hahaha...I am not talking about you. Am I not talking right? You're a volunteer why would I start a quarrel with you man? Why are you muddying the water? Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Would this work?: A captioned image of a basic chart on the side (without images of cities inside it!) in the article that conveys the same information as the template without the unnecessary visual embellishments or large size of a template.--SGCM (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I find the chart, as it has currently been suggested by Folwer&fowler, aesthetically displeasing. However, I am willing to accept a compromise where lesser images are used in the template possibly 2 instead of 4 (like Australia#Demographics). I am also not going to delay a consensus here for a hypothetical map that might appear in the near future. If such a map is ever made, it should be inserted in to the article after appropriate discussion at the talk page at that point. Deferring compromise, consensus right now makes little sense. Please also note, if my head count is to be believed, only five editors were actually opposed to the idea of a template. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 10:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC) By image, I meant the use of a captioned image instead of a large template, (perhaps interactive, as proposed by Saravask). Let's see how other parties feel about the proposal.--SGCM (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC) The problem I see with that approach (it wasn't mine; I was just tweaking Fowler's idea), is that there are already a population density map and a consensus-backed image rotation in "Demographics". Per Fowler's request, we'd have to wait at least a month to modify a thumbnailed image, whose small size would likely preclude giving population details of more than a few cities at once. And readers and screen readers wouldn't be able to see or copy all the information at once or even at all. It would be cleaner just to have a small and neat table. Instead of an image, to maintain visual consistency with the rest of the article, there could be a plain wikitable with ten or twenty cities (or whatever is decided here) inserted inline between paragraphs one and two. It could look like the one of the tables under India#Subdivisions or India#Government. Pure information, without baubles. RP has already started a section for proposing "modern India" images, so no need to shoehorn any into a table, IMO. Saravask 10:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC) The latter proposal seems workable. I have no objections to it.--SGCM (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Can we conduct our discussions on Talk:India on a first in, first out basis? The discussion on the template came earlier and should be resolved before other discussions. The resolution here will have an impact on the images discussion and not vice versa. Again, there is no point deferring consensus, compromise here for a future consensus on Talk:India which might/might not happen. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 10:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I strongly object to the proposal of Saravask, as long as he doesn't justify his opposition to a template similar to those used in other FAs, I don't care what he would like or not. "baubles", "shoehorn" — don't accurately describe what we're doing here. Like Jobberone already stated above “Many learn in a more visual way than just reading a good book. Many have learning disabilities, autism, dyslexias and like disorders, etc.” Hence this obduracy is against the norm and unreasonable, saravask. "visual consistency" - that's meaningless. What do you mean consistency? Which policy says what you're saying? Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Let me reiterate, the guidelines (for infoboxes, which are closest in function) explicitly mentions that it's entirely up to the editors, for each individual article, to decide if they want to include a template. There are no policies that require templates, and there are no policies that prohibit templates. The only criteria for a template's inclusion, is that most of the editors can agree to it. Do you have a guideline that suggests a template (and not a chart or image) must be used for articles on countries?--SGCM (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I just noticed Fowler testing File:India Population Compromise Map September 2012.jpg, authored by Planemad. That's along the lines of what Fowler suggested (sans internal links), and would be another reasonable compromise for me, provided the all text (labels and numbers) was mouse selectable and copyable, since screen readers and others can't grab it from the images. That could also be achieved through, as SGCM suggested, a list-like caption of city–population pairs, perhaps sortable if possible. Otherwise through superimposed hyperlink interactivity rather than an image of a table that readers can't click, select, sort, or interact with. Saravask 11:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Are you suggesting a population density map with a separate table on the populations of urban agglomerates as a compromise? While inclusion of population density map merits a discussion of its own, a table without images is not acceptable, as has been pointed out above. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 11:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Do you have a policy or a guideline that asserts that a table must have images of cities?--SGCM (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC) What kind of awkward question is that? Have I been arguing from policy until this point?? Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 11:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Well, that is the purpose of DRN. "We focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy."--SGCM (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Well if you think something I have said contradicts any wikipedia guidelines, I encourage you to point it out. Asking me for a policy after every comment is a bit strange, sorry. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 11:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC) CorrectKnowledge and Mrt, at Talk:India#Discussion_on_process there is a proposal/selection process underway for "Economy" images. Two of three images offered by Mrt there are cityscapes. I'm not sure it makes sense to duplicate that genre inside a template or table as well. Devote the template/table/map to data without distractions, and leave any cityscapes in thumbnail so that their detail is not wasted in miniature. Saravask 11:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC) If you want to complete the discussion on images first because you think it will help us reach a compromise on the template issue faster and because some images may end up getting duplicated, I have no objection to it. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 11:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC) CorrectKnowledge (and Mrt3366), you perhaps mistook what I said. I never stated that we should do image selection before template discussion. Or vice versa. I'm not the one deciding that—I think RP has taken the lead in getting new/modern/etc images selected for "Economy". I am now saying that we should leave cityscape images out of whatever compromise is reached (and people can propose/support them for inclusion among the page's regular images/rotations) because (1) serious formatting problems, with the extra width taken by the mini-images extending the template far off the right-hand page margin, no matter what browser I use (in Mac), and (2) The details of those cityscapes are largely lost in-template, and distract from the data. It's like stuffed-in visual noise, except it messes up the page formatting also, as said above. Saravask 12:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC) @CorrectKnowledge. I've already pointed it out. The guideline states that in order to add a template, there must be consensus for its inclusion. Template are not considered necessary for articles. The burden of proof is on you to prove, using policies, that a template must be included, and that it must include images.--SGCM (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Arguments using wikipedia guidelines have been given in the comments above, you can refer to them. I am more interested in improving the article and will argue from commonsense here, unless you have a problem with it. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 11:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Then please link to the policies that explicitly state that a template must be required for an article, and with pictures of Indian cities that you've argued for. That's how DRN works, you either compromise or cite policies and guidelines to support your arguments. If unable to do either, there's no way that the DRN can succeed.--SGCM (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I too can go along with Saravask's compromise proposal. I also have a fourth compromise proposal of my own. I have incorporated info from the "populous cities page" into the map itself in a new map: File:India Population Compromise Map September 2012.jpg. It has more information than the template: it shows the population growth between 2001 and 2011. The advantage of a map (a figure instead of a template) is that it doesn't dam up the prose from left to right. This is what it looks like on the India page. (Someone, such as Saravask, will need to make more user-friendly and Wiki-appropriate, of course.) So, now there are 4 compromise proposals: Collapsed template without images. Clickable heat map with cities population numbers (to be developed by Planemad) A small neat table in the text itself. The new map/list compound. I'm game for any among these. How about the others? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC) The pale blue template with just two images. Please do not add proposals which are under development. I've expressed my reservations abut them above. The new compromise map includes a table within the image. Apart from the fact that the numbers are hard to read, as Saravask has already pointed out, screen readers can't grab text from images. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 11:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)@Fowler, Or we can just Include the template and go about our business. Why should we consider a compromise in the first place that's my question. There is not one irrefutable reason which mandates that India cannot have the template (which, not to mention, will solve multiple issues at once). Why are we asked to compromise??? You have not yet deposited the link to that much touted protocol. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)"it doesn't dam up the prose from left to right." - and we should consider it because? You don't like it otherwise? Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Why are we asked to compromise? Because that's an established guideline on Wikipedia. In the absence of consensus for the inclusion of new navigational tools, there needs to be compromise.--SGCM (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC) "that's an established guideline on Wikipedia." - link please. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC) A collapsed template without an Image is tantamount to having no template. What's this some sort of a mockery? Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I've linked and quoted from the guideline (for infoboxes, but can be broadly applied to this template) multiple times now. "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." If there is no consensus, then there is no inclusion. It's either all the parties compromrise, and it is included, or no consensus is reached, and it isn't.--SGCM (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC) @Saravask. As long as the involved editors can agree to a single proposal, then any of the proposals would work (even the original template). The only criteria for using a template, table, etc is that there is consensus for its inclusion.--SGCM (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC) @Jobberone. As I had suspected, Mrt3366 is not amenable to any compromise. It is either his way or the highway. I feel it is time to close this DRN. I don't see it going anywhere, when one party to it is completely inflexible. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC) "Mrt3366 is not amenable to any compromise" - neither are you, I might argue. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC) @Jobberone: I am now leaving this DRN. I made a huge effort. I contacted Planemad and Saravask, I spent more time on this DRN than likely any other participant. This has been one of the worst experiences I've had in my 6 years on Wikipedia. I know that we are all supposed to assume good faith, but by hypo-manically forum shopping, accepting no consensus, and brooking no compromise, Mrt3366 has created abiding resentment for his antics on the India page. It takes a long time and effort to build a page. But a cantankerous editor with little or no writing skills or graphics programming skills, can destroy the page in short order. Good luck in this DRN to all. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC) @Mrt3366 But there is a difference. You're the one who arguing for inclusion, so the burden of proof is on you to prove that, in the absence of consensus, Wikipedia's guidelines and policies require that an article on India needs a template that includes pictures of Indian cities, which has been your argument.--SGCM (talk) But if the incusion is an improvement, it could equally well be argued that the burden of proof is on those who would claim that including it would cause some problem. This argument cuts both ways; it's really not clear to me who the burden of proof is actually on. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Not necessarily for templates. As WP:IBX (which is the closest applicable guideline) mentions, "the use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article." Templates are not considered "essential" in the same way that sources and neutrality are. The burden of proof, therefor, is on the editor who proposes the inclusion to either find policies that support his argument, or compromise with other editors.--SGCM (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Okay, fair enough. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC) @SGCM no, you cannot blur the line between an Infobox (containing repeated claims) and an urban agglomeration template (containing new information) Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC) What proof? What are you asking me to prove? That table is well-cited. The data is verfiable. Other FAs have such tables/templates. It will provide information on urban agglomerations in India. It will help users with learning disabilities, autism, dyslexias and like disorders, etc. as well as those who learn in a more visual way than just by reading. It will be particularly useful to foreigners who do not know the country (i.e. city locations) very well. It might be used as a platform to display 2-3 images (willing to compromise on the number of images, 2 would suffice) of Modern India (of which currently there is none). What more do you want? Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I think the way forward from this point on would be to discuss Sarsvask's comments on the images: "(1) serious formatting problems, with the extra width taken by the mini-images extending the template far off the right-hand page margin, no matter what browser I use (in Mac), and (2) The details of those cityscapes are largely lost in-template, and distract from the data." Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 12:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC) @Mrt3366 All of these could be addressed with one of the compromises offered by the other editors. None of these require a template (instead of a table or image or chart) or the use of images of Indian cities, as previously stipulated by you. The inclusion of templates are judged individually by article. Arguments that it's WP:USEFUL, or that it contains WP:VALINFO, or that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, are considered arguments to avoid. You must prove that the template is necessary, via Wikipedia's policies and core principles, or compromise with other editors. This is how cases on DRN are resolved, either through compromise or references to policy, usually both.--SGCM (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC) @CK, Only the 1st one merits concern although I don't have that problem. Does this occur when he tries to view other templates of similar kind? If no, I could help him. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC) @SGCM, "All of these could be addressed with one of the compromises offered by the other editors. None of these require a template (instead of a table or image or chart)" - what's wrong with the template? You are forgetting to focus on that question. A template is far more easier and efficient way to solve these issues. Don't kid yourself. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC) "A template is far more easier and efficient way to solve these issues. Don't kid yourself." Do you have any proof of this? Do you have any proof that a template is better than a table or chart or image or the other compromises offered?--SGCM (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Yes, since it's composed of everything combined. Come on. Don't make it ridiculous by stretching too far. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Three reasons I can offer to continue consensus building process. I feel you folks are closer to an agreement than you think! Both sides agree on need for balance and inclusion of useful information. Both sides also agree that a template or some modified image might get you there. This is just one content dispute. The core reasons behind this specific dispute will continue, and lead to more edit wars/DRNs/anger on India#Talk page. Instead consider making people feel welcome, and the article better. Frankly, from someone who has limited interest in editing country pages (I have made few changes to Sweden, and zero to India page), here is what I see: India page is coatracked to a rural-bias, with stale data (your economy section uses stale World Bank reports, and when I find time I will update it; or better still, I hope someone else will save me the trouble). Yes, India is 68% rural per last reported data I am aware of, but some 380 million Indians live in urban environment - that is more than the United States. Shutting out any and all images of any city or urban life or something that visually presents urban India, is like saying 380 million people do not matter. That is bias. If you really want balance and completeness of coverage, the page should try to acknowledge and visually include the experience/life of 380 million people in India. The template proposed by Mrt3366 is one way to do this. Fowler&fowler side has some ideas (rotating urban life images?, combined with revised map+pop data chart?). There are a zillion others. Yes, template or something is necessary for balance. In summary, if we focus on the shared goal of how to improve balance and completeness in this article, rather than the individual means of template versus rural/urban side must win - a compromise may be possible. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Your comment does offer an interesting perspective on dispute. Perhaps if the broader content dispute is solved, this smaller, technical one will as well. But does that mean solving it here? Or deferring it to mediation or back to the talk page?--SGCM (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Unfortunately, each of the content disputes will have to be solved individually. The compromise here however, might have a bearing on the image discussion going on at Talk:India. This is where we have to do the heavy lifing, I guess. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 12:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC) @SGCM, "Perhaps if the broader content dispute is solved, this smaller, technical one will as well. But does that mean solving it here?" - You don't have to worry about whatever the broader dispute there may be. I accept what CK, AVC are saying. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I have left a note on Saravask's talk asking him to clarify. Let's see. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC) It looks like this case will have to be closed as no consensus, with the participants unable to reach a compromise, and deferred back to Talk:India. As AVC has elaborated upon, there is a much broader discussion at issue here, and the template is only one aspect of it. If further dispute resolution is needed, I suggest WP:MEDCOM. And not just to deal with the template, but the pictures and the entire India article as well.--SGCM (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Looking at the discussion above, I believe this DR is a failure. Mrt3366, the OP, appears to believe that the only resolution is that his edits be incorporated in the article. Despite being against the inclusion of a list in any form, and despite clear consensus on the article talk page against that inclusion, several editors have tried to come up with a compromise that may partly satisfy that (one!) editor's wishes. The above discussion shows that Mrt3366 does not wish to see any compromise. No sense in wasting everyone's time. --regentspark (comment) 12:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC) "Mrt3366, the OP, appears to believe that the only resolution is that his edits be incorporated in the article." - Clarification, I don't believe that. OTOH you, the one who reverted me, appear to believe that the only resolution is that my edits be not incorporated in the article. I am willing to compromise if there is a good reason for that. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Fowler said this — "Well, Jobberone, we'll just have to agree to disagree. The only compromise I, personally, will agree to is a the collapsed template below (without images) as a stop gap until the heat map (per Planemad and Saravask) is ready. (Obviously, the Political map was only given as an example to illustrate that Saravask knows how to make clickable maps (no easy programming job, by the way); it doesn't bring up population numbers, but someone who can design it can also do a map with population numbers." I don't see an over abundance of amenability to compromise there either. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC) @AVC Stop peddling untruths about the rural bias in the images. A full 75% of the images are urban images. They are images of urban people. Yet, why is it that they appear to you and the other apologists for the Shining India to be rural? It is because they are images of the not so wealthy. The Shining India crowd would like distant vanilla cityscapes, cleansed of people, grime, and filth, creating the illusion that Indian cities are like their Western counterparts. They get nervous when they see an image like File:Delhi Metro and CNG Buses in Azadpur Neighborhood.jpg, which I just uploaded, and which is much much closer to the true reality of urban India, its successes and its challenges. The India page has only two images in the economy section. Last year, we couldn't add a rotation template because it took two months to finalize the templates in Demographics and Culture. There is no effort to wall out urban images. There is an effort to keep out the crap. Compare my image above with the abysmally unencyclopedic schlock Mrt3366 has added to his template. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC) "The Shining India crowd" - Yeah. Like I don't know where you're from. This is not a forum to post your lofty and whimsical beliefs. I have been to Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi, Kolkata ...You certainly cherry-pick the most congested, polluted, unplanned part of an Indian city while depicting them. That's an inherent bias. "which is much much closer to the true reality of urban India" - your opinions are not the reality mind it. You're free to imagine and dream but don't peddle them as truth for all. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC) We are getting closer to heart of dispute, and closer to reaching the consensus! India page has some 22 images. I like the quality of these images, and congratulate those who helped select and include it. Of these 22, 1 is of rural life, 19 cultural/politics/history/etc, 1 airforce jet and 1 stock exchange building. You can call a picture of prime minister sitting with a president or some political building or a sports team as representative of urban life - but not to me. Nor, are others for the same reason, to me (I acknowledge, it may be to you). Including a farmer ploughing a farm, but not including city skyline, is showing only one aspect of India. Urban life and bird's eye view type photo(s) of city are a different dimension of information - just like an image of Manhattan/London/Buenos Aires/Rio/Cairo/Kuala Lumpur skyline. Street shots, traffic chaos, slums, etc. are indeed another dimension of information about urban life. Having been to over 100 countries, and every continent, I can assure you Fowler&fowler that vast majority of countries have the same stuff/chaos/poverty/hope/brilliance/love as India. Cairo, Kuala Lumpur, Rio, etc - similar issue (perhaps goats or Buffaloes rather than Cow). I suggest that as compromise, both Mrt3366 and your side, agree to include both dimensions of urban life - city skyline and city chaos. No need highlight or hide anything - either in a template or as rotating images. Dispute resolved! No? Perhaps, you two can take this back to the talk page? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I agree with AVC. Azadhpur is a farmers' market. It represents one extreme of how Delhi looks, malls, Luteyns delhi etc. represent the other. The Delhi metro on average looks a bit like this: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Likewise, you can always find extreme examples of what other Indian cities look like. The point is, why should only Indian cities be subjected to non–striking negatively biased images. Does the whole of Australia look like the Melbourne docklands or Sydney opera house skyline? Again, I second what AVC said, as a compromise perhaps both aspects can be represented in the article. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 13:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC) @AVC Yes, I'm aware of what the world looks like, having widely traveled all over it since childhood. No, please don't exaggerate: Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok, Rio, and even Cairo are nothing like any Indian city. The poverty in India is an order of magnitude greater. Bangkok and KL were more developed 35 years ago than New Delhi is now. As for rural/urban, there are no rural landscapes in the India page either, only, as you said, pictures of people (because that is what we worked on last year). Yet, I ask again, why is it that no one is bemoaning the lack of rural landscapes? Or even the lack of pictures of the vast majority of urban clusters, which are small to middling towns? Why only the mega cities, and in them, only the unpeopled sanitized nonsense CorrectKnowledge considers representative of the Delhi metro. (My image by the way, is hardly about the metro. It is about the major infra-structure investment in Delhi during the last 10 years that has funded the metro, the new buses, and the expressways, even though this one is a little congested.) Pictures of a country need to be representative and informative. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Please keep your comment objectively succinct, and to the point. This is not a forum. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Fowler&fowler - our experiences in different countries, have clearly been very different. I have spent weeks and months in places such as Rio/Cairo/etc visiting and philanthropically helping in the slums - IMO, the slums/traffic/etc is worse in some respects and better in other respects than India. Poverty is same - qualitatively and quantitatively. Millions and millions of our brothers and sisters live in extreme poverty on every continent. Africa has lot more poverty and issues - but let us leave it at that. As Mrt3366 reminds us, this is not a forum. Let us focus on the dispute, and more importantly on ways you two can reach consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and shouldn't be one. Consensus isn't a matter of majority vote. Just because, a group of editors vote and the vast majority agree on the talk page that 2+2 = 5, does not mean it should get published on a wiki page. Even one person should be able to remove such content, and it would be inappropriate to call his or her behavior as disruptive. In the case of this template or rotating images and urban skyline+street life information, our goal ought to be to ask is this information a significant aspect of the subject India? and is it verifiable? For India, its skylines and urban street photos are very important truthful dimension/aspect of India because it affects 100s of millions who live in these cities; photos are verifiable. I understand some of your concerns. I hope Mrt3366 reflects on them, respects them, as it will help build a consensus. By consensus, I don't mean consensus by vote, I mean wiki-style constitutional consensus. Your group's concern is about completeness and whether it will be 'eyesore' quality issue? The completeness issue may be addressed by including the best quality city street photos for each city presented with skyline. The 'eyesore' issue is more an issue of creative style and layout that you can together solve. If two or more things are an important and major aspect of India's reality, then let us not highlight or hide one, or both. Let us welcome it all, and figure a creative way to present balance and complete information. Images are very useful, because as one of the DRN volunteer noted, a lot of we human beings are visual. So there is a way to get this dispute resolved. What are the remaining concerns? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Extended discussion on the errors of the present template @Mrt3366 (per talk-page request): In Australia#Demographics, the twenty-city template there lacks formatting problems for me. It also doesn't do a four-image urban overkill (settling for two instead). Thus I don't need to widen my browser to ~ 1800 pixels to get the template to fit the page. If Mrt3366 copied, then simplified the Australian template by removing the purple colouring and perhaps table-izing it so that it resembles the one at India#Government (thus making it sortable by name/pop), then that would make it more palatable for me. If, like at {{Largest cities of Australia}}, you stick to two cityscapes to avoid bad formatting, then fine. But I also don't think it's a good idea to both stick cityscapes inside the template/table and have other cityscapes in "Economy" or elsewhere outside the template. But if people consensually decide on non-cityscape urban/modern images, then fine, whatever. Unlike Australia, (as Fowler notes above) most of India's urban areas aren't as spiffed-up as UB City, which is the "biggest commercial property project" in Bangalore. But, having stayed there with family, I can assure you that the vast majority of the city's urban core doesn't look nearly that spiffy. Equating UB City with Bangalore seems glib and disingenuous, hence the accusations of WP:UNDUE. But if you want to put (IMO, at most two) high-quality images of Mumbai or Delhi or Bangalore as a whole (the entire skyline—slums and office towers together in the same wide-scale shot or panorama) in a template/table/wherever, then great, maybe let's just do that if other folks here agree. That way, neither the best ("India Shining") or worst ("Slumdog") parts are being "cherry-pick[ed]". At least Mrt3366's two Mumbai shots, thought of middling or poor quality (as ) due to artefacts, etc., have good composition and representativeness (of the urban rich and poor alike). Higher-quality cityscapes can eventually be fetched from Flickr, Commons, etc. Saravask 13:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC) The Delhi image is not that bad either. Older, dying skyscrapers of CP have been selected rather than fancy Gurgaon ones. The image also represents the fact that Delhi is greener/flatter than other Indian cities. Let's restrict it to two images then, one each of Delhi and Mumbai. That can be a workable compromise. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 14:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I am more than happy to make / remake a template with just two images (Delhi and Mumbai) exactly like the Australian one. That's the compromise I am willing to make. And, for sure, it will be far, far better and easier than File:India Population Compromise Map September 2012.jpg. Which looks something like this on the page. If that's not "ugly" and my template is, then I am out of here. Pardon my digression but it actually hurts my eyes. I cannot even make the figures out properly, then there is the problem of coding. All this for what? To keep an easily comprehensible, accessible and adjustable template (with selected images), out? Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I am happy to cooperate as per Saravask's comments. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry, there is no agreement on an uncollapsed permanent template with images. Not even remotely. Time to close this DRN and head back to the India page and, for you Mrt3366, to worry about listening to consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC) "there is no agreement on an uncollapsed permanent template with images." - ask others before telling me what to do. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)X Are the other editors still interested in continuing this DRN case? If not, then it will be closed as no consensus and the discussion will be deferred back to Talk:India. If further third party involvement is required, WP:MEDCOM is recommended.--SGCM (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Per SGCM's post on my talk page, I could agree to a collapsed template with two images to be chosen by consensus on the talk India page. That is as far as I will go. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Fowler, Mrt336 has (intentionally or not) mischaracterised my views. I didn't auto-support the Delhi image (I'm on the fence, more so in light of Fowler's replies to AVC regarding image balance). I didn't say I'd agree to an exact copy of the Australian template. No. I said I might support a colorless, tabular, sortable compacted version. That or else one of Fowler's ideas then. For me, any relatively unobtrusive solution (image/template/table) that doesn't interrupt textual flow as much. Most importantly, even if we agreed on that, you'll need to discuss with Fowler, RP, AVC, and others. RP (who tends to be right about these things) already said this DRN is a failure. And Fowler wants this closed. Saravask 15:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC) "Mrt336 has (intentionally or not) mischaracterised my views." - When did I say you auto-supported the Delhi image?????? Or any image for that matter? I am surprised!!! We can choose/pick images later. This is just a demonstration: Does it look workable? Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Do not close it. We are beginning to see a clear view from here. Unless you get approval from AVC, CK and others don't close the discussion. That would be premature. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC) After having seen the hyper-wide template Mrt3366 has made, I take back my previous offer. Even in collapsed form it dams up the prose from extreme left to extreme right. I'm done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC) What policy says that if an image "even in collapsed form it dams up the prose from extreme left to extreme right it shouldn't be included"? Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC) For reasons I just noted above Mrt3366, I would support a template or rotating image that includes city chaos and city skyline. Hiding or highlighting one or the other leads to bias. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I don't mind. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Like F&F, I am unsatisfied with the above. Rotating or not, a uncompacted full-width template disrupts textual flow, especially with the unnecessary purple. My biggest concern, however, is that many hours have been spent haggling over which way some bits on a Wikimedia server will be flipped—images, template, non-template rotation, whatever. As RegentsPark has said, this has become another bottomless time sink. Saravask 15:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Yes, Saravask - the collapsed version looks better to me as well. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Width is not a major issue and can be rectified easily. If collapsed version is the only one acceptable to Fowler and Saravasak then I am on board. This is not the only issue being discussed at Talk:India and I agree with regentspark, we should not spend any more time on this. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 15:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC) (ec)I'm ok with putting the collapsed template (though I think it unnecessary) if this ends the deadlock and as long as the template is kept fully protected. Images can be picked later. Mrt3366, the image picking process on this article is a model example of collaborative work (nominations, discussion, voting) and it is best to keep it that way. There are many editors who edit the India page, everyone has their own favorite images, and it is a good idea to get as wide an input as possible before adding images to the article. --regentspark (comment) 15:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I've been observing because there seemed to be some flow towards resolution. I still think you are closer than some think. Here are some suggestions: Cease filibustering for closure. It is merely a way back to the past and stalemate which serves one parties agenda. Cease lawyering up. It is another passive-aggressive way to stalemate. You cannot reach a compromise if either side says it's my way or the highway. You'll never resolve this if you feel you must have your way or you'll take your ball and bat and go home. You are close to a compromise. If you can do that here then the article will grow and evolve well on other issues as well. Jobberone (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC) RegentsPark - I concur that image selection process is best done by a community process, driven by agreed guidelines. Fowler&fowler has a good point there - the image should be representative. Images together should also give more complete, balanced picture. I hope both sides will work towards getting this to closure, as this consensus process may create the footprints to guide preventing spin-off disputes and forumy emotions on the talk page. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Fowler&fowler - one other concern of yours I haven't commented yet. I should. You expressed concern on selecting images just from top cities, and wrote: "...Or even the lack of pictures of the vast majority of urban clusters, which are small to middling towns? Why only the mega cities.." Well, you have a point. This needs bit of balance. After all, you can ask yourself why you included just Gandhi+Nehru picture? Why did you pick them, instead of vast majority of independence leaders and activists from pre-1947 era, or political leaders over 1947 - 2011 from the dozen parties from small to middling towns, and so on? Why only the mega leaders? Other political leaders were as much real India, real part of India's history as Gandhi+Nehru. My guess is that you all picked that image because it feels like the most interesting sample of that encyclopedic dimension. The article is better with that image, IMHO. Same is true about that parliament building or stock exchange or aircraft - each state in India has political buildings and there are government offices in small to middling towns. You all picked one of the most interesting sample. Again. From readers perspective, high level articles tend to be better received and understood when the article includes the most significant information, the famous names, the largest cities, the most interesting sample of each encyclopedic dimension. While doing so, balance/representativeness/completeness is still necessary. I hope this 'why mega city' issue does not prevent your side to avoid this dispute resolution, because RegentsPark's suggested image selection process feels likely to help reach consensus. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC) @Jobberone, AVC, etc.: I'm fine with, as RP described, a fully protected collapsible template, with images selected on Talk:India, whether from the same pool as the "Economy" images, concurrently in a separate "Template" selection, or after the new "Economy" images are agreed to. In my view, though: Allow only two panoramic skyline shots in the template. Don't use particular buildings, slums, etc. We can save those for display outside the template. Delhi/Mumbai is so-so, but also, per Fowler, perhaps they can rotate with skylines of other (non-mega) cities, selected at Talk:India. Replace the purple with light grey, the same shade as {{Infobox Country}} (one of Mrt3366's proposals was dark grey). Having a more compact sortable wikitable inside an uncoloured collapsible navbar would be better, but again, this has all the gravity of flipping bits on some WM server. Saravask 21:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC) This discussion seems to be nearing an actual consensus: a collapsible template, with two images, reduced width, recolored, with images (rotating or not) chosen based on community consensus. Is that compromise agreeable to all parties? Let's not argue over which images to use first.--SGCM (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC) If one looks at India#Demographics, cities are mentioned at the end of the first paragraph. Thus the template logically belongs between the first and second paragraphs. There is now a density map floating right of the first paragraph, and an image rotation floating left of the second. Hence, at present, there's no clean way to insert a 100%-width template unless it were inserted at the end of the section, away from its contextual prose. Either that or remove an image rotation (backed by previous consensus) or the map. Someone needs to figure out how to get a two-image navbox template (with Mrt3366's layout) to float left or right of an image at reduced width. If that's not feasible, then another option is at Help:Collapsing#Sortable_tables, with a four-column pre-collapsed sortable list. But then that needs to be packaged with two images somehow, possibly in the header row so that the table stays thin and sortable. Either way (navbox or wikitable), a reduced-width template would be free to float left of the map. The rest of SGCM's proposed compromise (images, etc.) I am amenable to. Saravask 22:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I'm on board, SGCM. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Whatever consensus you guys (CK, AVC, FnF, RP, Saravask, etc) , I am okay with it. That's my final comment. My purpose was to bring about some changes. I think it's going alright. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 05:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC) I agree (reluctantly until a better solution presents itself) to the compromise: "a collapsible template, with two images, reduced width, recolored, with images (rotating or not) chosen based on community consensus." Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Feels like both sides are onboard and agreed to this consensus and agreed process: a collapsible template, with two images, reduced width, recolored, with images (rotating or not); the images will be selected by community process on the talk page; layout of template creatively addressed to address Saravask/etc comments. FWIW, thanks there DRN volunteers for the patience, input and for not rushing into closing this dispute resolution process. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC) So far as I remember, collapsible text boxes are not allowed in featured articles. The same may be true for collapsible templates. --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Oh just for the record I still think any template doesnt add any value to the article, see my comments further down, not that anybody is listening. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC) We're listening! Trust me, your opinions are valid and welcome. It's just hard to keep track of everyone's opinions when the discussion has gone on as long as it has in this case. ;)--SGCM (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Milborneone, nobody is indifferent to your views, but I am not particularly impressed by your comment that "any template doesnt add any value to the article". Many templates do. And the job of most templates is to provide navigation, but what I am proposing will also provide info that other FAs have and readers care about. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Observation Despite the length of discussion, nobody explained how does this dramatic change of weight in "Demography" section improves either article or section. In the lack of rationale behind introduction of this change I'm going to close this discussion on September 11 as resolved, noting that this template isn't appropriate in the article. Objections? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC) No objections from me. I agree that there is no rationale for the introduction of the template and we're all probably agreeing to this merely to end the discussion and possibly because of early comments from one of the DRN volunteers. However, c'est la vie. --regentspark (comment) 16:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC) The reasons for inclusion of template are numbered in Mrt3366's post above (visual aid, other FAs have it etc.). You can close the discussion as resolved, but noting that inclusion of template "isn't appropriate" seems to be diametrically opposite to the compromise arrived above. It also mocks at the effort of two other editors who have been collecting images for the template at Talk:India, after this discussion. If the closing comments here have no bearing on anything and are simply idle musings of the volunteer, then go ahead. Otherwise, I object to the wording of the close. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 17:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC) You missed the discussion on how it improves the article. The template is useful and adds missing information on the urban demographic aspect of India with some 380 million people. Numerous country articles - for developed countries and for developing/rural/poor countries - have that template, but not all. While 'other country articles have it' is not justifiable reason for the article on India to have it, if you would allow assumption of good faith, the hundreds of wiki contributors on many of the most popular country articles on wikipedia chose to include that template because it is useful, improves the article and meets wiki content guidelines (and not because they were motivated by the bad faith showing off intentions or to mislead). As a user, I found that template useful in wiki country articles; and usefulness must be defined by wiki reader perspective. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC) The rationale given above is about as facile as it gets. Navigation aid is a meaningless argument (might as well list every link on Wikipedia). Other FA articles have it is also meaningless since there are probably many FA country articles that don't have it. Which one should we choose as exemplars, the ones that do or the ones that don't. And should we ignore the good faith (I'm not going to stoop to the level of blue-linking that) of the hundreds of editors on country articles that don't include a template? Finally, usefulness should be defined by the perspective of all wiki readers, not just one named AvC. Sorry, these arguments are ridiculous. But, how about closing it with an explicit statement that a compromise has been reached that doesn't address the issue of whether the template adds value to the article or not?--regentspark (comment) 17:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure why you find the arguments "facile". As someone who favors the inclusion of the template, I have to say that most of the arguments against it seem equally facile. I guess the reason this is so hard to decide is that at bottom it really is a subjective opinion question: does the (admittedly redundant) information that the template provides justify its cost in terms of the amount of space (and, if it bothers you) visual distraction) it introduces? —Steve Summit (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC) The case should be closed, but as resolved. The main parties of the dispute have already agreed to a compromise.--SGCM (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) SGCM, consensus for the sake of keeping things calm is not exactly a best thing for featured article. In this case this template, as well as any other, is a great step back for a brilliantly composed and perfectly balanced section. I asked about collapsible template initially to drag arguments, and the very first response was precise: it is redundant. Just look at it: it occupies more then ⅓ of the section, while the largest cities are subtopic of city demography of India, which itself is subtopic of demographic split between cities and country, which itself is one of the aspects. Overall, this data, together with pictures, largely shifts the focus of the section to the minor aspect, making the article fail GA criteria, not only FA. We just can't leave the parties with such compromise. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC) I don't know how this volunteer thing works, but it looks like you have a strong opinion on non–inclusion of the template. So, you are welcome to participate in the discussion and get your opinions registered, in which case it would be wisest to not close the discussion. I have no objections against participating in an even longer discussion that lasts till the end of time. Best wishes. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 18:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC) @czarkoff. That was addressed by Saravask, who proposed a collapsible, floating (meaning, non-100% width) template that was far less intrusive than the one created by the DRN case filer. And I've already stated that arguments that the template is "useful" or "valid" are arguments to avoid, as one of the editors arguing against the inclusion of the template, and I too found the original template intrusive. If a compromise has been reached that is generally amenable to the parties in the dispute (unanimity is nearly impossible), then I see no further reason to inflame it.--SGCM (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) Like RegentsPark, I have gone along only to end the discussion, to get Mrt3366—one of the most obsessively tendentious editors I have encountered on my six years on Wikipedia—off my back. I am reminding Mrt3366 and his cohorts again that this is a temporary resolution, to be superseded when the clickable map by Planemad is in place, a resolution conditional on all the provisos being met and consensus gained for each. SGSM, has obviously worked very hard, and he should be both complimented and honored for stalwart and judicious stewardshhip. Mrt3366, however, has during this process flagrantly violated Wikipedia policy by blatantly canvassing, a blockable offense, and is lucky I haven't taken him to ANI. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC) @SGCM: this is a false compromise, as this template, collapsed or not, floating or not, with pictures or not, shifts focus from balanced description towards the minor subtopic. @CorrectKnowledge: this thing works pretty straightforward – volunteers try to resolve dispute, and when of the sides is plain wrong, this side is told so. My will to avoid giving a party an advantage of saying that the damage to this FA was licensed on DRN doesn't make me involved here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Wonderful, I didn't know volunteers get to decide which side is "plain wrong". Why didn't you just add a comment at the beginning of the discussion that one side was "plain wrong" and be done with it? Why waste all of our time here? Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 18:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC) @czarkoff: As someone against the template, you're preaching to the choir here. ;) @CorrectKnowledge: I think you may have a misunderstanding of DRN. Volunteers are just regular editors, and their input is always welcomed. Czarkoff isn't "deciding which side is plain wrong", he's just offering his opinion, and he's invited to do so.--SGCM (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Discussion on another editor's conduct. Please focus on the content. All editors are invited to contribute to DRN. So let him offer his opinion in a discussion. Offering his opinion right now is worthless. Also something tells me, steering the discussion to suit your opinion and keeping the discussion going as long as you want it might not be appropriate for a volunteer. Anyway, do what you want. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 18:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) @CorrectKnowledge: I had reasonable hope that there would be at least some viable rationale put out. Unfortunately, I have been occupied IRL since, so that I couldn't afford enough time to keep eye on this discussion. That said, I'm not sure why you think that I am obliged to do babysitting here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC) @CorrectKnowledge. His opinion is not "worthless", and has as equal weight as any other opinion in this informal discussion. I'll have to defend czarkoff here, there is no requirement for participation, or for when to participate. If you disagree with his argument, then please address his arguments, not the notion of his participation. As an informal noticeboard, anyone can participate, whenever they want and whoever they are.--SGCM (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC) @SGCM. You don't seem to understand that editors aren't here for your opinion. There many more editors who can give far better opinion if and when required. And delaying close etc. to get your way doesn't seem alright. @czarkoff. If you do not understand the difference between guiding a process and babysitting you shouldn't be a volunteer here. I guess an uninvolved editor like Jobberone is more of an exception than the rule. What a waste of time this has been. Regards. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 19:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC) @CorrectKnowledge. The purpose of DRN is to offer outside opinions. "It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy." Please don't comment on the conduct of other editors, while ignoring the content. It's not helping your case at all. And trying to pit the DRN volunteers against each other is an extremely bad idea.--SGCM (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC) @CorrectKnowledge: you blame me for not putting this comment before. This is babysitting. Furthermore, I'm always advocating for mediating disputes instead of simply stating the opinions; that said, nobody would be mediating the dispute whether to include unreferenced false statement or not, or whether to give the flat Earth theory equal weight with modern view or not. Some disputes can't be mediated, as the matter is straightforward, agree other editors or not. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC) RegentsPark - as I wrote before, if wiki has link pass through data to verify general usage of equivalent templates - it is worth checking into for an objective measure, and to avoid 'not just one named AvC'. Dmitrij - I am sorry, I am not following you. I looked at India#Demographics, what is 1/3? Why not include more relevant urban and rural encyclopedic information? Why are some 380 MM people in urban or 830 MM people in rural information a minor aspect? If anything, parts of this section are stale with 2001 data and rely on old reports; prominently discussing two causes of a small % of deaths (per an old WHO report cited by Time magazine), in a 1.2 billion people country is not a balanced coverage of demographics. The section needs some work, IMO. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC) I originally opposed the template on the article talk page as I thought that a mention in prose of the top five population centres would be all that is required. Having just read through all the discussion and argument I dont think my opinion has changed that the template should stay in Demographics of India and not be added to the article. Other linked to articles like List of most populous cities in India are linked in context of the prose. All the template says is look here is the top 20 cities, completely out of context of the prose and disturbs the flow. We have a lot of information to say about India in what is just an overview and an out of context list does not add anything that the article already has. I read the stuff about urban/rural split and the need to show both sides of the development of India but this table doesnt do that. Although a few examples of cities with an indication an explanation of growth over the last fifty years would do far more to inform the reader. So just for the record I dont think the template adds any value to what is a featured article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC) @ApostleVonColorado: I say that top 20 cities occupying ⅓ of the section is too much. That doesn't mean that information shouldn't be appropriately updated, it just means that dropping in statistics trivia (and yes, in the summary style the top 20 cities with location and photos are trivia) is not appropriate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Perhaps czarkoff is right and we shouldn't be agreeing to something just for the sake of getting some peace around here. Reading through the discussion it does appear that this is mostly a result of the way the initial DRN volunteer framed the question I need to see an appropriate reason to exclude information which improves the article other than a consensus doesn't 'like' it. Returning to the better question "does the chart add value?" is perhaps the better encyclopedia building path to take. --regentspark (comment) 20:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Dmitrij - I understand you better now. You are hinting at a reason I share - unlike a few here, I prefer a collapsed template. A collapsed version will not be 1/3, more like 1/10. Stats can seem like trivia without context, but stats is not the reason or dimension of encyclopedic information the article needs through this template or something equivalent. What makes it interesting and an improvement is the biggest cities list (the text includes the big metro list though; but sometimes tables and images are better way to present information than text). Another improvement to the article would be from the included pictures, rotating or not, of urban skyline/infrastructure and the urban street chaos. I sense Mrt3366 side wants to include the template because, beyond the trivia stats, it offers an opportunity to include visual presentation of urban structures/infrastructure/life in a country that is changing like every other country. Without a better format of information and the included pictures, this country article is missing an important part of encyclopedic info on India. With it, the article will be improved. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC) AvC, if Mrt3366 is including the template primarily to change the image composition on the page, then that is a disingenuous reason to do so. Far better to address the issue directly because this tangential approach only causes grief. --regentspark (comment) 21:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Agreed, as previously stated, I don't think it's possible to resolve the rather trivial issue of template inclusion, without resolving the broader dispute going on on Talk:India that underlies it.--SGCM (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Well, my instinct is to not assume bad faith, but channel his or her energies to creatively enhance that template, and thereby the article. What if we eliminate trivia data, be willing to redo the template, and asked what kind of demographic/etc information would make an interesting and useful template, one that would improve this article? What about including the pictures with urban and rural summary data such as number of cities with over 1MM people, number of villages, etc etc or a comp between 1991 versus 2011 key census data, etc.? I will be delighted if we can channel the enthusiasm of wiki contributors to do what we all want - improve the article. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC) @AVC Not sure someone here knows if MediaWiki allows for a compact collapsible "quick tab"-style widget, with one tab for top cities and their pictures, one for a graph of rural/urban stats, another for total population chart, etc. That would be more along the lines of what Fowler/Planemad were starting to do (but with a clickable map instead). Not suggesting that we need to do this—I no longer have a strong opinion either way. But it'll be interesting to see what (if anything) the article ends up with. Saravask 21:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Saravask - That quick tab is an interesting and creative idea; as you note, it is possibly cumbersome and complicated. I was thinking simple: along the lines of replacing the data Dmitrij and some wiki contributors consider trivia or repetitive. Replace the 20 rows of city population data in that Mrt3366 draft template with information the article does not include now, and that is unique and interesting high level summary of India's demographics. The diversity and complexity of India's demographics is unique and unusual in the world. Perhaps, just like images, what demographic information to include inside the template, information that may be interesting and value-adding, could be decided by consensus on the talk page. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC) I must say that this sounds intriguing. Some sort of demographic map, I suppose. But along what characteristic or characteristics? Other than a percent vegetarian heat map or a percent hindu heat map - or perhaps an urban/rural distribution map (assuming that there are large enough regional variations)? --regentspark (comment) 00:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC) @AVC, RP, Saravask: I have said this many times before on Talk:India, even did so at the onset of this crisis to Mrt3366, and let me say it again. Unlike the first three sections of India (History, Geography, Biodiversity), the others have not been systematically rewritten any time in the recent past. They were so in 2004, but have since been randomly edited by random editors. Their additions, in further addition, deletion, and amendment, have stuck. This ad hoc and open content addition is Wikipedia's founding principle. Much valuable content has been created by its practice, especially in its early days, by talented IPs. However, as talented IPs are increasingly replaced by socks of banned editors, such freewheeling addition can only go so far, especially to featured articles, which per policy require more exacting standards, even graceful prose. If remedial reviews are not carried out, the articles drift. Last year, the collective nomination of images to the demography and culture sections was such an exercise, and one largely successful. Something similar needs to be done for the substandard content. Inevitably, the protocol for such a group exercise will be different. It will need to be considered thoroughly and stated unambiguously, but it can be done. We should attempt this after the current image selection bit is over. This, I believe, would be the best resolution. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Allow me to maintain my silence on user conduct here. Allow me silence also on why sometimes conduct is more a reaction to abuse suffered, not each party's inherent character. On content, yes, the article India has serious content problems - something that is likely to cause concern who study/research or know India. The page has lots of stale data (economy, society, demographics, etc), emphasis on minor aspects or minor causes of certain stale facts, absence of a fair summary of India's recent progress and continuing problems from wiki-acceptable reliable sources. Fowler&fowler is right - sections of this article need to be considered thoroughly. Mrt3366 is also right because, in essence, he or she has been saying the same thing. This article should not remain a glossed up collection of stale, static and misleading information. Additionally simple fact/report updates should be easy to make - not a drawn out, WP:OWN flavored, accusations filled, edit wars, community vote, content dispute, and DRNs. Who has time for that? Most of us don't. RegentsPark - You made me smile with that % vegetarian comment!! India, after all, has changed rapidly, and per USDA, is now the world's largest beef/meat exporter (more than USA, Australia, Brazil, etc). For details inside the template, I feel it would be best to let the community of editors decide what to include so that the article is improved. I can offer a suggestion: Revise the template where left row is 1991 data and right row 2011 information. Top 4 to 5 lines include 1991 and 2011 comparative stats on top cities. Next rows: number of villages, number of towns, number of urban agglomerates, average population density, birth rate, death rate, people above poverty line, people below poverty line, etc. Comparative demographics is best presented in tables, and such a summary can help show the complexity, dynamism and changes in India. All this can be summary from the main linked article: Demographics of India per wiki guidelines. The template should be collapsed, per discussion above. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC) @AVC. It is not beef, it is water buffalo meat. (It's a technicality because USDA lists it under beef.) Cows, especially Indian zebu cows, playmates of Krishna and beloved of Hindu mythology, but also high maintenance and lactationally reticent, have been replaced over the last 60 years—except, of course, for a farmer's own needs—by India's water buffaloes. Unfortunately, the males, which in the past were used for farming or transportation, are no longer in much demand as India modernizes. They used to be allowed to wither and left to the vultures, but that was before India lost all its vultures. But that is another story. @RP. I once did upload a 1909 Hindu heat map from my IGIs. See File:Hindu percent 1909.jpg. You'd have to lop off the sides and make it lighter. Percentages haven't changed that much. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Agreed, Fowler&fowler, it is buffalo meat. RegentsPark was discussing vegetarian map, and it made me recall that India's meat export and consumption trends in last 10 years have been impressive. Becoming #1 in total meat export worldwide, and on top India consumes more meat than it exports (see this). The current content already emphasizes and leaves the reader with the soft impression that India is vegetarian (see India#Society section), the current article does not mention once how producing/consuming meat is a major part of India's food balance and economy. That 1909 map is interesting; even if someone can prove it is true in 2011, it is scalar and static. Comparative demographics are vector/directional and dynamic - thus far more information packed. Comparative demographics show how India is changing, how its problems and achievements contrast over a generation (~20 years). Including it as a collapsed template or images/graphs/etc is one way to improve the article. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC) @SGCM. I think it's time to close this as resolved. Not much is happening here now. The discussion has moved to Talk:India, where editors are busy selecting pictures. Please accept my admiration for your level headed approach. Best wishes, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC) SGCM - Fowler&fowler feels it is resolved. I suggest we let Mrt3366, who filed this DRN request, confirm if this is resolved. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC) What the heck is going on??? Vegetarian/beef/meat???? What about the template? "Despite the length of discussion, nobody explained how does this dramatic change of weight in "Demography" section improves either article or section." - Didn't I do it enough number of times for your taste? Read what I wrote above. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC) "Additionally simple fact/report updates should be easy to make - not a drawn out, WP:OWN flavored, accusations filled, edit wars, community vote, content dispute, and DRNs. Who has time for that? Most of us don't." — I couldn't agree more. This should be easier. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC) BTW, The "no template" option is unacceptable. A template will improve the article just as much as most other templates do on other similar GAs and FAs and images have done currently in the article. To summarise That table is well-cited. The data is verifiable. Other FAs have such tables/templates. It will provide information on urban agglomerations in India. It will help users with learning disabilities, autism, dyslexias and like disorders, etc. Help some of those who learn in a more visual way than just by reading. It will be particularly useful to foreigners who do not know the country (i.e. city locations) very well. It will be used as a platform to display 2 images (rotating) of Modern India, of which there is none currently. Now, after going through all the digressive, prolix comments made by concerned editors after my last comment in previous section. I think it's best for us, for the time being, to be content with "a template, with two images, reduced width, recolored, with images (rotating) chosen based on community consensus" and we will decide through RFC whether or not it will be in collapsed form, because there seems to be a technical issue with it, as Dwaipayan stated collapsed text is discouraged in FAs. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Hmm. I missed Dwai's comment above. If the template is not collapsible, then perhaps this needs to be discussed further since the compromise includes a collapse (pun intended!). In the interest of seeing where we are on this, I'm initiating a straw poll below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs) 13:39, 12 September 2012‎ @RP, SGCM. In light of Dwaipayan's comment above, I made a post on WT:FAC. As you will notice in the response there, in-text collapsed templates are discouraged in FAs. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC) In that case we clearly don't have a resolution as yet and need to discuss whether the template adds value to the article or not. --regentspark (comment) 15:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Clarification: He didn't say templates in general are discouraged, he said, "in-text collapsible templates are discouraged in FAs". Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC) @Mrt3366 Verification does not mean that the information must be conveyed through a template, as opposed to a chart, interactive image, or text, which can also be reliably sourced. Unless a convention is established by the community through consensus (like through the Manual of Style), other articles have no bearing on whether a template should be used in the India article Navboxes are transcluded list of hyperlinks. Outside of the paltry amount of two images, the template won't help visual learners or those with learning disabilities. The information is still conveyed as text, so reading is obviously still involved. And a chart or interactive image does the same job, without being as intrusive. An interactive image may in fact be a better visual aid than a template. Other forms of communicating the same information (chart, interactive image, text) are as useful and as informative as a template. An interactive image might be even more informative. The issue of images can be addressed, but it does not require the inclusion of a template. There can be rotating images without a template. There might be a reason for a template, and I'm willing to consider it, but the rationales that have been provided are not compelling.--SGCM (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC) But my point is, why not a template? "other articles have no bearing on whether a template should be used in the India article" - I  Disagree. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC) "Why not" is not a good reason to include something (though there are many reasons why not - varying from sourcing issues to the 'football field' size of the template itself). You need to come out with substantive reasons for why the template adds value to the article. --regentspark (comment) 15:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC) “ "Why not" is not a good reason to include something ” - the nature of wikipedia means that it is by default in favour of inclusion of verifiable and pertinent content, especially when many other similar pages contain similar info. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC) There is a good reason why WP:OSE is not a reasonable argument to make. Since you're pretty much admitting that the only reason you can think of is "why not", I'm not going to support any inclusion of a template. I suggest you take this to the next level of DR if you think the India article should have some sort of superset of features of all other country articles. --regentspark (comment) 13:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Straw poll Let's see where we are on this template issue. Please indicate your preferences - without comment - below. The purpose of the straw poll is mainly to see where people lie on the template issue and is not meant as a substitute for the normal process of consensus. --regentspark (comment) 13:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC) The "urban agglomeration" template does not add value to the article --regentspark (comment) 13:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC) --Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC) --Anbu121 (talk me) 16:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC) -- MilborneOne (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC) The "urban agglomeration" template adds value to the article --Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a vote. (and also if you want a straw poll, I would say, not enough number of people are getting notified and if this goes haywire, we will have to repeat this in a proper RFC at WT:FA.) That's a good point. I'll drop a note on Talk:India. --regentspark (comment) 16:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Steve Summit (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC) sarvajna (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC) assuming that the discussion is not yet closed The "urban agglomeration" template after consensus modifications adds value to the article -- ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Closure Three of the main parties in this dispute, Fowler&Fowler, AVC, and Mrt3366, the filing editor, have expressed a desire to close the DRN. Any thoughts? It looks like the filing editor has gone ahead to create an RfC on the issue. The discussion is currently spread between three locations (Talk:India, the DRN case, and the RfC page), which is a practice that is not encouraged.--SGCM (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Obi2canibe on 13:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Obi2canibe (talk · contribs) Himesh84 (talk · contribs) Sudar123 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Two reports on the Sri Lankan Civil War were produced following its end: a UN panel report on accountability (the Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka) in April 2011 and the report by the Sri Lankan government's Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) in December 2011. Both reports made recommendations. In March 2012 the UNHRC passed a resolution which urged the Sri Lankan government to implement the LLRC's recommendations. The UNHRC did not consider the UN panel's report. Neither the draft resolution tabled by the USA nor the final resolution adopted by the UNHRC mentioned the UN panel's report. The two reports aren't mutually exclusive. They both contain similar, if not the same, recommendations. Himesh84 has made additions to the Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka article in which he claims that the UNHRC "accepted the LLRC over the Report of UN Secretary General". I asked him provide references to back up his claim but he has not provided any references, stating "It is very much clear UNHRC accepted LLRC over the other article [UN panel report]". Without reliable, neutral references Himesh84's claims are nothing more than personal analysis. Have you tried to resolve this previously? This has been discussed on the article's talk page for the last two weeks but we have been unable to agree. How do you think we can help? Explain to Himesh84 that his additions are personal analysis. Opening comments by Himesh84 Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Secretary-General(SG) report was published in 2011 March and LLRC made published in December 2011 as an alternative to SG's report. Both report address the same issue but implementations are different. LLRC recommend to solve issues locally, but SG's panel found that the Sri Lankan justice system was incapable of providing accountability. So there is a clear difference in believing and implementing others recommendations. In 2012 UNHRC summit , UNHRC decided to proceed with LLRC. Since LLRC contains implementation part which is differ from SG's implementation methods, UNHRC has chosen LLRC implementation methods over SG's implementation methods(They may not mutually exclusive. But not Coherent. Sri Lankan government doesn't agree on SG's panel recommendations and SG's panel doesn't agree on LLRC recommendations. If recommendations are identical this can't be happened ). After UNHRC decision, implementers have to follow LLRC methods. When methods are differ they will chose LLRC methods over SG's methods. When there are alternatives to address same thing and if one is chosen, others will be automatically deselected. This is a well known fact, not an personal analysis. I can give real world examples. Obama is the US president. He can requests (order) to withdraw army from Iraq, allocate money to financial firms,... But someone who doesn't participated to the presidential election can give opposite requests. But officers are following Obamas requests (used the term 'orders') over others. No one asking references. Every one know Obama is the selected one others are deselected with or without participating to the election. So this is not personal analysis but it is a well known fact. I wanted the answer from Sudar and Obi2canibe to the following question to clarify it. But they never answered this valid question. This is a valid situation that implementers definitely had to face in the future. Lets say this report saying some thing should be achieved by process 'A' but LLRC says process 'B'. After the feedback from UNHRC summit, what should be the correct approach ? Process A or B ? Lets see whether they will answer to it in this discussion.--Himesh84 (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Sudar123 Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Hello, I'm a volunteer at DRN. We will wait on opening comments by the principals. Jobberone (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC) I'm afraid Himesh84's opening comments are a continuation of what he was doing on the article's talk pages. He avoids answering the issue at the heart of this dispute - Wikipedia is a place for facts backed up by reliable references, not personal analysis - and instead comes up with irrelevant analogies.--obi2canibetalk contr 15:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC) You're saying the issue is WP:OR? Jobberone (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Yes. WP:OR states "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves". Himesh84 has not provided any reliable, published sources to back up his assertion that UNHRC "accepted the LLRC over the Report of UN Secretary General".--obi2canibetalk contr 18:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I have answered to the issue. I have clearly mentioned the implementations are not coherent and have described how implementation methods are differ.Your claim "They both contain similar, if not the same, recommendations" is wrong. That's the only thing you can use to prove using over is wrong. As I described in initial comments, there is big differences in the believing and implementation methods. Also my question is not irrelevant. You can answer it without bothering relevant or irrelevant. I am not agree you saying it is irrelevant. So I expect either your answer or reliable references to confirm it is irrelevant. When Implementing the solution, implementers have to chose implementations of LLRC over SG's methods. How is that be irrelevant ? It is a must faced , unavoidable situation. It is a Scenario case. Also don't worry whether this is a continuation of the previous discussion or not when we hope to get best solution. I will answer to your all questions. Please answer to the my question without hiding behind rules and regulations. --Himesh84 (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Himesh84 I understand it can be frustrating at times but you must be able to have verifiable sources that confirms your edits. Please, review WP:OR. You may also wish to review Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:synthesis. Your edits constitute WP:OR and will continue to be challenged until you reference them with verifiable sources. Will this settle the dispute? Jobberone (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC) :I have referenced the UNHRC vote which they voted to implement LLRC. Can you Please specifically describe for what parts/ statements do you expect further references ? If it to using word "Over", it is not a WP:OR. It is a well know fact. I have described it in my previous example. At least can you Answer to my question ? --Himesh84 (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Another volunteer here. @Himesh84, your edits replaced a source that is considered reliable (the BBC), with a source (which focuses only on Sri Lankan affairs) that almost certainly has a viewpoint on the subject. Although your contributions are welcome, you'll have to find another source that meets Wikipedia's policies on reliability and neutrality, and explicitly makes the claims you're arguing for.--SGCM (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Himesh84, your are filibustering. You have been asked repeatedly to provide reliable references to show that the UNHRC chose the LLRC report over the UN panel report. The Colombo Telegraph reference you provided only states that the UNHRC resolution was passed. It does not state that the UNHRC chose the LLRC report over the UN panel report. The passing of the resolution is undisputed.--obi2canibetalk contr 20:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Only facts should be referenced. Not axioms. LLRC proposing a local solution. But UN SG's panel (Don't use the term UN report. UNHRC is the official UN committee about Human right violations ) proposing international solution. LLRC rejected international solution, UNSG's panel rejected local solution. When asking to implement LLRC by a resolution it is asking to solve problems locally. Local and international are completely opposite and are mutually exclusive choices. You must try to understand it without asking references every time. If you can understand that they are opposite, you has to accept UNHRC accepted LLRC over UNSG's panel report. You try to skip the conversation. You are the filibustering one. Without going into constructive conversation , you repeatedly asking reference to a well established axiom.--Himesh84 (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Obi2canibe, you have claimed "They both contain similar, if not the same, recommendations". I wanted to get clarify your own words. Are both recommended to resolve issue locally or internationally ? --Himesh84 (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC) If it's "well established", you should be able to provide a citation for it that explicitly states so.--SGCM (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC) What I am asking are both report recommending local solution or international solution. Without knowing his answer (local or international implementation) I can't find references to the implementation differ from his assumed implementation method --Himesh84 (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Himesh84, Wikipedia isn't a forum to discuss the relative merits of the two reports. A simple request has been made of you: provide references for your additions. If you can't provide this, admit it and remove your additions.--obi2canibetalk contr 20:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC) I am just asking to clarify your initial comments. It is sense of using the word "over". According to the definition of "over" it can be used in here. http://www.thefreedictionary.com - See the case 10) b) In preference to UNHRC have given preference to the LLRC from bunch of reports (see the main article of the UNSG's report) to address human right promotion activities in Sri Lanka. LLRC is a tabled/approved/accpeted report in UNHRC. I have linked it. But UNSG's report is not a considered/approved report in UNHRC. If you accept that the approved thing has more preference than unapproved things UNHRC has clear preference towards LLRC. So using the word "over" is correct. Since I have given link to the definition of "over" you should keep my changes. Otherwise you should prove that un accepted things has equal or more preference than accepted things. --Himesh84 (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC) "If you accept that the approved thing has more preference than unapproved things..." Therein is the problem. Being approved (as in an approved document, like in this context) is not synonymous with preference. The two have very different connotations. Implying that they are synonymous is original research, and you will have to find a reliable source that explicitly states the UNHRC has a preference over the other report. If there isn't a source that states it, then the Wikipedia article can't make that claim.--SGCM (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Lets see Obi2canibe's opinion on this. If he is ok with that then we are done. --Himesh84 (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC) I agree with SGCM that "Implying that they are synonymous is original research, and you will have to find a reliable source that explicitly states the UNHRC has a preference over the other report. If there isn't a source that states it, then the Wikipedia article can't make that claim." Himesh84, please stop reverting the article to your version after this stage of opinion regarding the issue at hand at [[DRN}. Please don't drag things to no where, then we should consider its of WP:CIR.Sudar123 (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Lets wait until Obi2canibe reveal his opinion on this. He is the one who started to asking references to using word "over".He is the one who bought the issue to here. Now I have referenced it. --Himesh84 (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC) You haven't found or cited any references, you are just pushing your Original Research in a circle. If you want, please find a good blog and edit there.Sudar123 (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Himesh84, this is just more filibustering. Of course I agree with SGCM when he says "you will have to find a reliable source that explicitly states the UNHRC has a preference over the other report. If there isn't a source that states it, then the Wikipedia article can't make that claim". Are we done, you'll withdraw your additions?--obi2canibetalk contr 17:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC) (od) Just a thought, but might it be time to discuss WP:CIR in relation to what appears to be a persistent misunderstanding of key policy (WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:R) here? 24.177.125.104 (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC) I agree with you. It should be discussed under WP:CIR as well. I don't think User:Himesh84 is fit enough to understand diplomatic issues.Sudar123 (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC) I have been accused of some wrong doing but deadly enough for any external investigation. I was allowed for internal investigation by my own conscience by the law enforcing bodies doesn't mean - "Internal Investigation is accepted over External Investigation". Their choice doesn't validate they have rejected the other. Maybe at the later stage, they may go for the External Investigation.Sudar123 (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC) This request will be closed as resolved within 24 hours. The consensus here is that the source must explicitly state a claim if the statement is included in the article. Analysis of implications, if not mentioned in the source, should not be brought up in the article. This is especially germane, given that the subject, the Sri Lankan Civil War, is a controversial one.--SGCM (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Saint Seiya

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Ryulong on 07:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• List of Saint Seiya characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Saint Seiya antagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Athena's Saints (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Saint Seiya Omega characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Saint Seiya: The Lost Canvas – Anecdotes characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Saint Seiya: The Lost Canvas characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ryulong (talk · contribs)
• Onikiri (talk · contribs)
  • 186.32.118.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Dispute overview

I (Ryulong) have attempted to modify the pages to be in line with the current style guides (MOS:ANIME, MOS:JP) as well as remove material that does not fit in with Wikipedia's current policies (WP:OR, WP:OWN). However, Onikiri (talk · contribs) (who also edits while logged out as 186.32.118.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) refuses to accept any of the proposed changes, which includes removing literal translations of character names (the WP:OR issue) and adding the Japanese phonetic readings for character names that in no way match the usual readings of the Japanese writing systems provided (e.g., kanji normally read as "Tenmaza" are intended to be read as "Pegasasu", and I have added the katakana that are read as the latter).

Onikiri basically refuses to discuss the changes I've proposed and has explicitly stated that he will revert things he disagrees with because he is the only one working on the pages. Consensus, while small, is against him in the discussion he started and it does not appear that he will be construcively working towards a conclusion at all; several "minor edits" of his have been reverts of my content. I do not know how to continue working with him at this rate because he is dismissive of everything.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

• Several messages left for him which are mostly ignored
• Thread he started

How do you think we can help?

I believe a wider audience will help keep the conversation from going in a vicious cycle, and hopefully reach Onikiri where my dozen messages to him over the past 24 hours could not.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Onikiri

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

I have answered his messages. He sends like 20 messages to say the same thing. He insists in adding the katakana readings for character names that are already in kanji. The addition of katakana readings is redundant, superfluous and also clutters the text making it difficult to read. Some time ago, the katakana readings were included, but were removed by general consensus among the users, as I said, they were redundant, and removing it helped trim the size of the article. As I have told him, any change that actually contributes to the improvement of the articles, is very much welcome, but redundant text only helps to make the articles harder to read and to increase its size. About a year ago or maybe a little more, I undertook the task of trimming down the lists sizes, a task that needed the removal of superfluous text and the creation of separate lists to better organize the characters and make the lists much easier to read and smaller in bytes. The users back then agreed with the changes to the lists, and no major changes have been necessary since then. This user Ryulong only seeks to force in the lists what he thinks is necessary, but it is only superfluous text that only contribute to make the articles harder to read, it is superfluous because the info is already there in kanji, and additionally, the kanji forms are the most widely used forms of the names, in merchandise, in the comics, media, etc. Katakana forms are mostly an aid for children, for those not familiar with the western readings of the constellations and such, etc. He insists in adding superfluous elements, and that is the reason of the constant reverting and editing. As I tell him, any useful addition is very much welcome, but superfluous text is far from being useful. Onikiri (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Saint Seiya discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN, and I'll be hopefully shepherding this dispute to a resolution. As I've had some previous experience with Ryulong I'll stand back for a bit and see if there's any objection to me assisting. Let's wait until Onikiri responds. Question: Have either of you considered getting outsiders from WP Anime & Manga to give feedback on your dispute? Hasteur (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Another volunteer willing to help out. So, does anyone have a reliable source as to which reading is considered official? And @ Onikiri, consensus can change.--SGCM (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources for name spelling requested below:

Saint Seiya author, Masami Kurumada, used both kanji and katakana to spell the names of constellations and such, buth, mainly in kanji. The katakana is found in the form of furigana, that is, small characters over the kanji that act as a reading aid, but in japanese, mostly the kanji is used for the names of constellations. And in merchandise, as well, the furigana and katakana formas are just an assistance. Katakana are also used mostly in the names of constellations with no direct japanese equivalent such as Perseus or Heracles.

For example: http://img1.uploadscreenshot.com/images/orig/9/25306030393-orig.jpg

You can clearly read: 龍星座の紫龍, theconstellation name followed by the character name, and the furigana: ドラゴン - シリュウ over the kanji, as an aid for children or people unfamiliar with the kanji, but it is not essential to read the names. It comes useful in japanese articles, as they are used by native users, but in an english article, katakana forms are unneeded, as only a small fraction of readers can understand the japanese characters, thus they're superfluous.

Another example: http://img1.uploadscreenshot.com/images/orig/9/25306133379-orig.jpg

It reads clearly この天雄星ガールダのアイアコスがな (Kono Ten'yūsei Garūda no Aiakosu gana) the katakana form appears only as furigana, with the name that employs japanese words being spelled mainly in kanji, that is "Ten'yūsei", which translates to Heavenly Valiance Star, and the katakana is simply a prescindible reading aid, and it is used also in the part of the name that employs foreign names, that is, Garuda and Aiacos. There, its usefulness is not questioned, as in these cases, it is necessary, when, and only when foreign names are involved, but in the japanese part of it, it is not needed in a wikipedia english article. Furigana is mostly employed by children and foreign students, native speakers dont need it unless the kanji are indeed uncommon, which happens but not as often.

Katakana is only needed in names that are foreign in origin, such as Perseus, Wyvern, Griffon, and even in some of such cases, Kurumada employed kanji, such as Kerberos: 地獄の番犬星座 (jigoku no banken seiza) with the furigana ケルベロス (Keruberosu= Kerberos) on top of them. In these cases, the katakana is not to be removed as it is the official spelling from the comics, but in the constellations it is simply not needed.

Another example to further comprehension of the problem:

For example, the Pegasus Saint name and constellation, in japanese, can be spelled as:

天馬星座の星矢 (Tenba seiza no Seiya) or ペガサスの星矢 (Pegasasu no Seiya)

The first form is the most widely used in SS related merchandise and the original comics, and it can be read too as Pegasasu no Seiya.

But the user Ryulong wants it to be spelled in the articles as

天馬星座 (ペガサス) の星矢 (Tenba seiza (Pegasasu) no Seiya)

It is longer, redundant, and cluttering, and even confusing for readers that cant read japanese. Not to speak superfluous, as it says the same name twice. An he wants it this way for all the constellations, and other character names. Add to it, the romaji rendering of the japanese name template and you get this:

Pegasus Seiya|天馬星座 (ペガサス) の星矢 |Tenba seiza (Pegasasu) no Seiya

When you can simply have:

Pegasus Seiya|天馬星座の星矢|Pegasasu no Seiya

Much shorter, less confusing, and reduces size in bytes.

The form of the names that has been used all this time in the articles is the simpler one, as it is shorter, concise, katakana is unneeded as it is superfluous and redundant. For some time, years ago, the katakana was added but it was removed after deciding it wasnt needed, for the same reasons explained here.

In merchandise: http://www.hobbystock.jp/goods_img/hby-itf-00001747.0.jpg http://www.mpsnet.co.jp/hobbynet/photos/GASYASEIYA3L.jpg

The kanji forms are prevalent, as evidenced. Additionally, the user Ryulong insisted in changing the official western rendering of the name of a character: Scorpio Milo. In japanese, the character name is spelled in the comics and merchandise as: 蠍座のミロ, with the furigana スコーピオン (Sukōpion). That means, it is intended to be read as Scorpion Milo, indeed. But in the west, the constellation he represents is not called Scorpion, it is known as Scorpius or Scorpio, so the correct rendering would be Scorpio Milo or Scorpius Milo. And Scorpio Milo is the form that is virtually ever present in all Saint Seiya related merchandise. This is another unnecessary change the user Ryulong is trying to force.

Katakana forms are virtually used as aid only. Necessary for japanese articles at best, but in english articles, theyre totally superfluous. And in any case, I know consensus can change, but in the past, many users have discussed the matter at hand and then a decision has been made, but this user Ryulong hasn't even bothered to ask to do so, and also, what he intends to do, add superfluous text, seems rather unnecessary.

In the past, the articles were tagged because of their large size in bytes, thats why i undertook the task of trimming down their size. Adding katakana again will only help to increase the articles size and the risk of the articles being tagged again. Add to that, the cluttering of the text, SPECIALLY for readers that don't understand japanese.

Onikiri (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I saw my error with the Scorpio/Scorpion thing, and it's been fixed so stop complaining about it.

The katakana is not superfluous or redundant. It is needed because text like 蠍座 is never written as "Scorpio(n)" in Japanese. And, Onikiri, I am only trying to add what would be found in furigana in the manga into the characters' names in the articles. This does not mean that I will romanize "天馬星座 (ペガサス) の星矢" as "Tenma Seiza (Pegasasu) no Seiya". I have never written it like that. All I did was take your {{nihongo|Pegasus Seiya|天馬星座の星矢|Pegasasu no Seiya}} and turned it into {{nihongo|Pegasus Seiya|天馬星座 (ペガサス) の星矢|Pegasasu no Seiya}}. This particularly important, because in the most recent edition there is a character whose name includes the phrase かじき座, which is normally Kajiki-za. However, in the context of the program it is Dorado. Issues like these are why I am insisting on the inclusion of all of the katakana forms, because the kanji, hiragana, and katakana names of characters are being read in a way that is drastically different from the way they are written. This would be like having a person who writes their name as "David" but it's pronounced as "Richard", and if we have a page about them we don't give any explanation as to why it's pronounced that way. The last reason why he's removing it is claiming the articles are too long. My versions of the pages are shorter than his, so I don't know why he's bringing that up.

Onikiri has been refusing to budge on this issue. He keeps changing the reason why (if not falsely labeling edit summaries) and he has been throwing out all of the edits I have made to the pages just because he does not want the katakana on the pages, when I've made plenty of other formatting changes that make the pages easier to read to put them in line with MOS:ANIME and MOS:JP. In fact, I've just gone through the reverts Onikiri performed again to keep the formatting changes, but leave out the katakana. This is not the goal I want to seek, but Onikiri will keep throwing out all of the edits I've made to the pages unless the katakana is removed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Might I add, that anime mentions of the constellations names are not a reliable source, as they vary greatly, even from episode to episode. For example, the Orion constellation is mentioned as Orion-za, Orion Seiza, or simply Orion, in the first SS film, and in SS Omega. The Scutum constellation is mentioned as Tate-za, or Sukyūtamu-za, the Phoenix constellation has been mentioned as Fenikkusu-seiza, Fenikkusu, or even Hō'ō -seiza Fenikkusu, etc. While in the original comics, the names are much more homogeneous, without constant variants. Merchandise also keeps more in line with the names found in the original comics. It is much more reliable for the articles to use the comics as a source, rather than the anime adaptations, in which the names vary from episode to episode. Variants of the names are mostly found in the anime. Another example, The Dorado constellation that he mentions, it is called as "Kajiki-za Dorado", so both forms are used in the anime, and this was how it was already in the article, so I don't know why he complains about it. Onikiri (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The anime is as reliable a source as the manga, but that's not important. If the katakana/furigana is included with the names in Japan, then we should include it with the Japanese names on Wikipedia. There are dozens of terms that are in usage on these pages that have names written in kanji but pronounced in a completely different manner than they are written, and it is disingenuous to not show that the kanji are not normally read that way, which is also problematic when the names are pronounced differently depending on the medium.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

And sorry, but the name "Scorpion" it is indeed written like that in japanese, but it is not intended to be read by us as such, as the constellation is not named Scorpion in the west, check proof:

http://img1.uploadscreenshot.com/images/orig/9/25308305190-orig.jpg

You can clearly read 蠍座のミロ and the furigana Scorpion : スコーピオン. Katakana indeed is not necessary in english articles, whereas in japanese ones it is, because of the wide range of variants a name can have due to multiple kanji readings, but even for native japanese readers, theyre not imprescindible, in an SS article at least, as the local constellation names are widely known in Japan.

Katakana is not needed in english articles as it only makes the text harder to read and it is NOT useful for most english wikipedia users, only for those of us that understand japanese. And even us that do, don't really need it, kanji is enough.

It's like the case of Saint, Kurumada spelled it as 聖闘士, with the furigana Seinto. So, japanese readers know that they don't have to read it seitōshi, but Seinto, but in english, you dont have to read it Seinto, but rather Saint. This is the case for Scorpion. Onikiri (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The katakana is needed because it's part of the way the name is presented in Japan. Your various scans from the manga prove this fact. And I'm sorry if I translated Milo's title wrong in English because I was not aware that he was called "Scorpio Milo" in the English adaptations. But this is not important. The fact is that by not giving the furigana, as presented in Japanese media, we are providing a disservice to our readers and they may think that (example) 聖闘士 is always "Seinto" and not "Seitōshi".—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

t may indeed be useful for japanese and chinese wikipedia, but not in english wikipedia. Most english wikipedia users, I would dare to say, 90%, doesn't even need the japanese names. They are interested only in the english names, they will need katakana even less. What you say is true, katakana is clarifying, but not as much as it is in japanese or chinese wikipedias. In english wiki, it is just an additional, even superfluous text, and it maybe needed only in cases that are indeed rare or uncommon. Most english wikipedia users even ignore the japanese text, as it is something of interest more for japanese speakers, students, hardcore manga/anime fans and the like, not the casual reader, or even casual fans. Onikiri (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, everyone. I would like to throw my two cents into the discussion and say that I believe the inclusion of the katakana in the cases Ryulong has specified would be beneficial to the articles. With the exception of Saint Seiya, these articles are about anime and manga that have not yet been licensed in English, so the question of whether users "need the Japanese names" is quite moot. In most cases, Japanese names are all there is and being that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is important that articles do not promote confusion among readers. Without the katakana spelling of forced readings of kanji, users will question whether the information they are given is correct if they see romaji that does not match the kanji in any way. Cyn starchaser (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if I understood, but SS is licensed in english, the manga was released entirely by VIZ...and the anime was released to some extent to. Also, the discussion is not about NOT including the japanese names, but about the superfluous katakana text. English readers are not missing anything as the japanese kanji names are already in the articles. Even in japanese the readers not always see the kana spellings of the names. →Onikiri (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The pages in dispute are not only related to Saint Seiya, but also the spin-off series Omega and The Lost Canvas, which have not been licensed in English. The furigana under analysis cannot be considered superfluous, as without it the kanji takes on a completely different, and unpredictable, reading. Cyn starchaser (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to apologize to Hasteur and SGCM for the turn of events here. I believe we have made your jobs a little more difficult with this more public bickering.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

So, what's the resolution then, I still think the katakana is superfluous and must be removed and only kept where necesaary. Onikiri (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well at least three other people disagree with you, so maybe this shows that the consensus has changed so you shouldn't be removing it on the very minor basis that you do not like it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)*3: Onikiri, we don't make decisions for you. We only provide the venue and suggestions about resolving the dispute, but I'll try taking a crack at it. First of all the tagging of the article for size concerns was probably in relation to WP:SIZE which is concerned about the readable prose, not characters on the page. Second it's great that you've demonstrated the need for all the writing styles in the source material. Now looking at wikipedia's guidelines/manual of style/consensus It seems to suggest that if the source material is using multiple styles of writing the name, it makes sense to report it here. Wikipedia articles (especially ones on foreign language topics) are used by both foreign language speakers wanting to check their English comprehension and for English speakers to start to learn how to write/pronounce the foreign language. Therefore it seems reasonable that the extra identifiers are included. Obviously in these list articles it might make more sense to split the exceptionally large ones into smaller readable units (Heroes, Villains, Side Cast) to avoid the tag for size complaint. Hasteur (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That's what I did, about a year ago...Onikiri (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so how about the Manual of Style guidelines that Ryulong has pointed at? What about pinging WP:ANIME for feedback? Looking at the manual of style, I'm inclined to think it would be good to have the alternative writings be present even if it adds a small amount of extra text to the page. It appears you're personalizing this and treating yourself as the protector of this little corner of WP, I question if possibly WP:OWN applies to your actions. Hasteur (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

My knowledge of Japanese is minimal, so I've hesitated commenting so far, but I agree with Hasteur. The participation of third party WP:ANIME members would be helpful, and the article should follow the Manual of Style guideline on anime and manga articles.--SGCM (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with the katakana being included in the character names, but I think it should be included in the names only. Not long ago, earlier this year, some dude included it in every technique found in the character lists, including the japanese template, that is, romaji, japanese characters, etc. It was reverted, but it took several times for him or her...to desist. That was too much, as all of you can imagine. As I said, I can agree for it being included in the names, but it shouldn't be included in the technique names, as that is excessive. Onikiri (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Diff or a link to that sequence events? It's my understanding (and I could be wrong) that Ryulong is just wanting to do the character names. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we may have an agreement Hasteur (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The technique names are pretty useless though. And I've added katakana for the constellation names as well as any proper nouns written in kanji that have any odd katakana spellings (ex. "Bronze Saint", "Mariners", "Cosmo").—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The kanji for the warrior factions was already there if I remember correctly, Cosmo wasn't, that is certain. About the technique list, it was created as reference material and additional info, as we included in the english articles the names in english. The original japanese forms were available for each character long ago, when each one had their own article. But after the merging was made, virtually all original japanese forms disappeared, that's why the list was created. Onikiri (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I mean the katakana forms of those words because 青銅聖闘士 is "Seidō Seitōshi" and not normally "Buronzu Seinto".—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like both of you are now talking together and working to a consensus. Any objections to closing? Hasteur (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Dissociative identity disorder

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by WLU on 18:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Location of dispute Dissociative identity disorder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved WLU (talk · contribs) Tylas (talk · contribs) MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Since early 2012 the DID has been edited and revised extensively. As part of this revision, extensive, essentially unreasonably long discussions have occurred on the talk page. The discussions have become repetitive and nobody is changing their minds based on them. Tylas, who has self-disclosed a diagnosis of DID, has repeatedly stated her belief that the traumagenic position regarding DID is the majority position, and that discussion of the other position be, at best, relegated to a single “Controversy” section or even a single paragraph. Myself and Mathew have repeatedly stated that this is inappropriate, and that dissenting opinions published in reliable sources (of which there are many) should be documented and discussed throughout the article per WP:STRUCTURE. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? There are extensive and repetitive discussions on the current DID talk page and in the archives, numbering dozens of sections and thousands of characters illustrating an effort to address this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC) How do you think we can help? An appropriate outcome in line with the WP:P&G would be one in which Tylas understands how a valid, source-based POV dispute is handled on Wikipedia. I do not want or expect Tylas to change her personal opinions about DID, but I would like to see the tendentious repetition that the traumagenic position is the dominant, mainstream position to stop. Essentially I would like the input of the larger community on the question of whether there are enough recent, reliable sources discussing the controversy over DID such that it should be a substantial portion of the page rather than relegating it to a single section or paragraph. Though Tylas now rarely edits the dissociative identity disorder page, the posting on talk pages is exhausting, lengthy and pointless. Neither side has convinced the other that their position is valid, it's just more repetition of the same thing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by WLU Because the bot or auto-fill page didn't seem to be working, I had to fill all the sections in by hand - User:WLU This may not be the appropriate venue, so please refer if that is the case. The DID article is not currently very active, but any effort to edit will be met with the lengthy, repetitive talk page postings that I would like to see stopped. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Tylas I cannot battle people like WLU and Mathew alone. I think my time will be best served in places other than WP. Those 2 will just keep hounding me until I go. It's not worth the time and heartbreak to do this. Even if they leave, without proper guidelines in place to protect against the fringe organizations like the FMS, another editor with their fringe POV will always crop up to take their place. It's a shame that when someone knows a subject as well as I know DID, or Tom Cloyd did, we are ran off so that, at least in the case of the DID page, people that support the False Memory Society can push their agenda. http://www.fmsfonline.org/about.htmlWho runs the FMS Foundation? The Executive Director, Pamela Freyd, oversees the Foundation's programs and the fiscal and day-to-day operations of the Foundation. Just so you all understand a bit better, P. Freyds daughter is the editor of the Journal of Trauma and Dissociation that WLU and Matthew attack. It is her parents that set up the FMS to defend child abusers as well as parents that were falsely accused. The problem is they are quite fanatical about it, as are many of their supporters. It kills me to give up and let them continue to take over WP, but I just cannot fight the fight here when they have so many people backing them up and know how to use the rules so well to work in their favor. Case closed. WLU and Mathew have won. Opening comments by MathewTownsend Agree with WLU's comments. If talk page guidelines are followed, it would reduce the massive and repetitious posts. The article should follow WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS. One organization with a specific POV shouldn't be declared the "experts" in the field and their sole guidelines referenced repeatedly as fact and used to refute material in peer reviewed journal review articles. Dissociative identity disorder discussion Uninvolved other than offering Tylas some advice on how to get on in Wikipedia. WP:MEDRS would seem to be the key guideline moderating everyone's editing here. Could involvement be sought from Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine - I think part of the problem here may be down to the personalities involved and the way things have been said previously. Noticing also that I believe Dennis Brown has been mentoring Tylas, and some forbearance should be given to Tylas because she does have some difficulties in dealing with editing/other editors due to her problems. I know WP:NOTTHERAPY will probably be quoted by someone, but where someone is trying as hard as they can to edit while overcoming difficulties, I think we should have some tolerance. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Tylas is also being mentored by User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Tylas MathewTownsend (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Noting that this dispute is now apparently ongoing across wikis – the most recent outbreak on talk arose when I restored an interwiki to Simple that had been removed, and there is now ; a continuation of this dispute on Simple, complete with accusations of harassment. After my edit, participants on both sides of the debate have emailed me citing various misdeeds by the "other side". There are elements of both content and behavioural problems here, and it's going to take some careful negotiation to get things resolved. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Hello visitors to DRN. Can we please refrain from further discussion untill Tylas has had an opportunity to respond to the claims? Thank you. HasteurMobile (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Will do. Just to note that Tylas has emailed me to say that she doesn't think she'll be able to get a response together until tomorrow Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Hey Who decides on here how a dispute is resolved? Everyone, both participants and volunteers, through consensus. It's an informal noticeboard, so there are no binding decisions or official judges. The only difference between a participant and a volunteer, is that a volunteer is any editor that has not been directly involved in the dispute. DRN is a place for discussion, and is not a court. If a consensus develops, which requires the input of all the editors, then the dispute is resolved.--SGCM (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fluid and crystallized intelligence

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Runig on 04:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Fluid and crystallized intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Runig (talk · contribs) Cresix (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I've made a small addition to the page on Fluid Intelligence. My edit was related to citing two papers disproving memory training benefits. However, my edits are always being cancelled by user User:Cresix: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fluid_and_crystallized_intelligence&diff=511934732&oldid=511925512 He also sockpuppeted me because I edited from work and home PCs but I use the same account on both PCs, so he is wrong blocking me. I took the references to the papers from another wiki page on N-back. I believe that without these references the article on Fluid Intelligence is biased and one-sided. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I was trying to talk to User:Cresix on his user page How do you think we can help? I think that wikipedia must be unbiased and represent full spectrum of current research. If my phrasing of the papers does not confirm wikipedian standards, it must be marked as so, but reference to the papers must present at the article on Fluid Intelligence so somebody better than me could improve the article. Opening comments by Cresix Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Fluid and crystallized intelligence discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Hello, I'm a DRN volunteer. Thank you for submitting your request, but DRN requires that editors must extensively discuss the subject before bringing it to the noticeboard, which based on User talk:Cresix#Fluid Intelligence that began only a day ago, has not yet occurred. Consider discussing the subject on Talk:Fluid and crystallized intelligence first before making a request on DRN.--SGCM (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unified Software Technologies

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Ldsmithperrin on 16:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Unified Software Technologies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Ldsmithperrin (talk · contribs) Dispute overview My objective is to provide an article that meets your content guidelines and provides accurate information on Unified Software Technologies, an Orlando FL ISV. The article is a blend of information about the ISV and lock-free programming that cites academic and corporate references. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have commented in the Talk page on the three content bullets at the top of our article placed there by editors. I request re-consideration of the content bullets. How do you think we can help? The first two bullets are inaccurate. In terms of notability, the company is a start-up and is in the process of forging relationships in the academic and business communities on an ongoing basis; this will improve the content disposition relative to notability. Opening comments by Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Unified Software Technologies discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Health effects of high-fructose corn syrup

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Jtankers on 17:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Health effects of high-fructose corn syrup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Jtankers (talk · contribs) Dispute overview An editor removed content from sub-article that has been in main article for over a year. Request 3rd opinion on legitimacy of content and recommendations for improvement. Disputed text: Mercury, a known neurotoxin has been found in high fructose corn syrup from plants that use older "mercury cell" technology, including 4 plants in Georgia, Tennessee, Ohio and West Virginia. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Attempted to improve quality of references by removing weak references from Corn Growers Association, and kept peer reviewed study and news media coverage (same links that have long been in the main article). How do you think we can help? Provide an opinion on the validity of the content and suggestions for improvement if any. Opening comments by WLU Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Jtankers hasn't engaged on the talk page yet, so this should/will be rejected. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Health effects of high-fructose corn syrup discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Crimean Karaites

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Kaz on 08:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Kaz (talk · contribs)
• Toddy1 (talk · contribs)
• Nozdref (talk · contribs)
• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs)
• Dennis Brown (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I myself have tried to re-factor talk pages to improve flow. Perhaps my own re-factoring was naive, but at least I never deleted another person's comments. I would like to let those involved in and approving the re-factoring of the Talk Crimean Karaims talk page to understand that it is subjugative to delete or move my comments without my approval, and that it is deceptive to refactor my comments as Toddy1 did [here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crimean_Karaites&diff=512077557&oldid=512076891] then [18] tries to make it look like I am the one who is moving other peoples comments without approval when I undo such edits.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I was concerned that this was vandalism so I asked for help here, but it seems Toddy1 has the support to do whatever he likes to my comments and I have no way to complain about it. I took this to the Wiki Admin Noticeboard [19] but was told that it is not vandalism but simply re-factoring and basically it seems I was told to stop complaining. It does not seem right that I have no recourse to stop this.

How do you think we can help?

If really Toddy1 is entitled to do what he is doing to my comments while I have obeyed instruction not to do it again I want to know why. I also think a policy needs to be written concerning not letting someone accuse a user like me of doing something which in fact has been fabricated by the other users. It stacks the deck and makes Wikipedia look like a place where if you are not in a guild you are on your own and will be bullied out of it. Policy needs to be written to stop this.

Opening comments by Toddy1

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Nozdref

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Beeblebrox

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Dennis Brown

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

• I've only been involved in this article in an administrative capacity, not as an editor. I'm not sure there is much I can offer to assist as I am ignorant of the subject matter and my actions have thus far been restricted to assisting others discuss the issues in a constructive manner, dealing with some incivility and a technical move per request of an editor, with no endorsement of content or views. As to the content itself, I would defer to the mediator(s) here to determine the best solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it would be best for the filing editor to remove mention of the administrator from this filing and "involved parties" at the risk of having the DR closed as malformed. We cannot begin this case while the filing includes uninvolved administrators as this is innappropriate and sets a very bad precedence. Since Dennis has commented the filing editor can simply strike out the name above where listed with parties involved with the dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Now that I have actually read the complaint, I would suggest closing as improper venue, as this isn't about a content dispute at all, but about behavior. Since this has already been to ANI, this amounts to forum shopping, and likely a case of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Of course, that is only my opinion and I trust the judgement of those who regularly work this venue, as I assume they trust the previous outcome at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Crimean Karaites discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

I say this will all respect to all the editors involved in the page, but stop refactoring each other's talk page statements. The recent history of the page is a disaster. I'd like to see the page's sections (From the "Ad-Hominem Talk" onward) fixed so the Table of Contents jumps to the right section. I'm going to recomend that the talk page be restored to some sort of working order before we move forward with this. Also, has there been consideration of starting Archiving on the page? Do we really need threads from 2004? HasteurMobile (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yitzhak Kaduri

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Zad68 on 14:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Yitzhak Kaduri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Zad68 (talk · contribs)
• Cpsoper (talk · contribs)
• Botsystem (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A rabbi wrote a note to be opened after his death. The note suggested, by acronym, the name "Yehoshua", and there are acceptable WP:RSs for this. One editor Botsystem (talk · contribs) has been adding a sentence like "This is also the Hebrew name of Jesus whom followers of Christianity and Messianic Judaism believe to be the Jewish Messiah." without a source. Myself and one other editor Cpsoper (talk · contribs) agree this edit fails WP:V (unsourced) and, even if it were well-sourced, WP:SYNTH. We have tried to engage Botsystem in discussion on this but so far he has not engaged at all. Discussion open here, invitations to discuss at User_talk:Botsystem, but no engagement as of yet. I am concerned because Botsystem has not yet edited the Talk page of this article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

open discussion on article talk page, invitations to talk in edit summaries and at User Talk:Botsystem (please see edit history, he has removed the invitations)

How do you think we can help?

Get Botsystem to address the Wikipedia policy-based concerns regarding the edit.

Opening comments by Cpsoper

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Botsystem

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Yitzhak Kaduri discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hello, I am Amadscientist. I am a volunteer with the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Before we begin we await the opening statements of all parties involved. Before that happens I am requesting the filing editor, go over their opening remarks and remove all mention of outside parties not associated with the DR/N or add them to the "Users involved" section. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Zad68 19:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Please remove all mention of the Administrator and their advice to come to DR/N. This information is irrelevent to the discussion and is not appropriate as it gives the impression of involvement with the case that does not appear to be accurate.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, think I got it now. Zad68 19:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. We can begin once all parties have made opening statements.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually a question about that... the issue we've been having is that Botsystem doesn't engage in discussion. What happens if he simply ignores this DRN case? Zad68 20:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

All parties must be involved in order to begin. If one editor refuses to join, then another route will need to be used, such as Request for Comment or just continue to discuss on talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note to add to my last reply. In this particular case I would be inclined to suggest AN/I as the next logical course of action. Having the entire article locked down over edit warring is not a good sign that this will be resolved through DR as it does appear one user is refusing to collaborate in the spirit of Wikipedia. (Normally I would suggest a third opinion as the dispute is between only two editors however, it does not appear that would be a succesful route)--Amadscientist (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, with the way things have been going, ANI does seem to be in the near future. I did narrow my eyes a bit at the suggestion of "just continue to discuss on talk page". Zad68 20:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I should be clear about one thing, the talkpage IS ALWAYS a good place to attempt to reach out to editors but one cannot force cooperation. When faced with an editor who refuses to engage in a civil discussion it sometimes becomes clear that disruption may be the main goal and the main outcome. There can be only so many attempts to assume good faith before we seek administrative action, but from all I am reading, this may indeed be the only route to take in order to keep information flowing freely. A locked page on Wikipedia is not a good thing to have.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)