Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Convention Parliament (England)

Request for formal mediation
Request for formal mediation
Article	Convention Parliament (England) (talk)
Submitted	25 Aug 2010
Mediator	Not yet assigned
Status	Awaiting party agreement
Notes	None
	view; talk; edit; delete; watch;

Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.

To report a problem with the outcome of this case, contact the Mediation Committee.
If additional mediation proceedings are required, a new mediation request should be filed.
These case pages should not be edited, even to correct article content problems. Case pages are not indexed by search engines.

Resolved:

For an explanation of why the case was closed, refer to the talk page or contact the Mediation Committee

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

Convention Parliament (England)[edit]

Dispute specifics[edit]

Involved users

Utinomen (talk · contribs), filing party
Philip_Baird_Shearer (talk · contribs)

Articles concerned in this dispute

Convention_Parliament_(England) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

Issues to be mediated[edit]

Primary issues

The article was partially split and then the page moved from a general title to a less general title. A disambiguation page was subsequently created with a general title, for the split material and this page. The issue is whether the page should continue to be split into separate articles (with all articles diverting from the disambiguation page), and have the page in question moved to a specific title (which would like the others stem from the disambiguation page). This further split and move would be to achieve coherence and uniformity with the first split and move, because the content is more appropriately presented as separate articles which relate to each other via the disambiguation page as connected but distinct material, rather than at present where some content is separate but the rest is bundled together in the page in question without a justification based on the actual content.
There is an interconnected but secondary issue with the section 'Convention Parliament of 1399' which has been flagged up as potential WP:OR, but without any result as yet. If the article was split then this secondary issue would not be relevant.

--{{subst:unsigend2|20:58, 27 August 2010| Utinomen}}

Additional issues (added by other parties)

I do not think that user:Utinomen has explained the situation very clearly. The page "Convention Parliament" was created in May 2003 as a page about English convention parliaments, by user:Ericross it remained a page about the English convention parliaments until this edit on 26 June 2010 when user:Utinomen added a section on the Irish parliament and promoted a one line mention of the Scottish Claim of Right Act 1689 into a section on the Scottish parliament. Less than an hour after it was changed from an English Parliament specific page into a general page, I reverted the edit, move the page to an English specific page called Convention Parliament (England) with the comment "It seems that the term has been used for more than just the English parliament so move this article to a specific English page", changed the original page location into a disambiguation page.[1] with the Irish specific information moved out into a new article called Irish Convention (1660) -- it needed the year disambiguated to differentiate it from an existing article called Irish Convention (1918).

The point of a disambiguation page is to present topics with the same name but usually not related topics in a switch. The English page on convention parliaments is about three events which are related because, each event sets a precedent for the next one. So they are related topics and an overview page is warranted even if eventually there is enough material for the page to become a summary one.

While the topic was only about the English Parliament there was no need to extend the title with a dab, but the Irish and English Parliaments had distinct corporate identities and including the in one article made no more sense to me than including Parliamentary sessions of Canada and New Zealand even even though the have the same monarch. -- PBS (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]

All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request.

Agree. Utinomen (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. PBS (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.

Note: All parties notified. AGK 14:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. For the Committee, AGK 23:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.