Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
|
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.
|
Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
Nivkh alphabets | Closed | Modun (t) | 29 days, 11 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 18 hours | Kwamikagami (t) | 1 days, 17 hours |
Wudu | Closed | Nasserb786 (t) | 20 days, 21 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 17 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 17 hours |
15.ai | In Progress | Ltbdl (t) | 10 days, 17 hours | Cooldudeseven7 (t) | 1 days, 8 hours | Cooldudeseven7 (t) | 1 days, 8 hours |
Tuner (radio) | In Progress | Andrevan (t) | 6 days, 13 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 16 hours | Andrevan (t) | 1 hours |
Jessica Nabongo | Closed | Log6849129 (t) | 2 days, | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 17 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 17 hours |
Wolf | New | Nagging Prawn (t) | 1 days, 23 hours | None | n/a | Nagging Prawn (t) | 1 days, 23 hours |
USA | Closed | 2806:2F0:A700:F275:7C5E:A0B8:369A:3A72 (t) | 1 days, 18 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 17 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 17 hours |
Barb horse | Closed | TahaKahi (t) | 19 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 10 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 10 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 08:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
Current disputes
[edit]Nivkh alphabets
[edit]Closed as being edited normally. The instructions for DRN say not to edit the article. Rule A.5 says: Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. If the article is edited by a party while discussion is pending at DRN, the mediation at DRN will be failed.Since the edits by Kwamikagami were made in good faith in response to a request to work out compromise wording (which I intended to be worked out in user or draft space), I will do a general close rather than failing the mediation. Resume normal editing, with discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Nivkh alphabets. I would normally give an instruction to report disruptive editing at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay, but I don't think that is necessary, because the editors have not been uncivil or disruptive. So please continue to be civil. If discussion at the article talk page becomes lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be made here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
|
Closed discussion |
---|
Wudu
[edit]Closed as abandoned by filing editor. The filing editor has not edited for a week, and this discussion is now being closed. Continue discussion at the article talk page, Talk: Wudu. If discussion on the article talk page is again lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here to resume discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
15.ai
[edit]Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Ltbdl (talk · contribs)
- Thought 1915 (talk · contribs)
- RocketKnightX (talk · contribs)
- SuperStain (talk · contribs)
- VexVector (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
the dispute is whether 15.ai is abandoned or not.
15.ai is an ai text-to-speech program that has been down for ~19 months. the article said that 15.ai was under maintenance until thought 1915 edited the article to say 15.ai was abandoned, and rocketknightx edited the article back to the status quo. i and rocketknightx edit warred over this, and i apologize for that.
those who support saying that 15.ai is abandoned include myself, thought 1915, and superstain. those who support saying that 15.ai is under maintenance include rocketknightx and vexvector.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:15.ai § Editing with respect to the last two topics of Past Tense
Talk:15.ai § The project is not abandoned.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
by determining whether the article on 15.ai should say it is operational or abandoned.
Summary of dispute by Thought 1915
[edit]I am so sorry if this comes off as biased or too casual; this is my first time having disputes happen. After seeing multiple talk pages in the article that suggested changing the article to past tense, I applied the change. This, seemingly, started an edit war against one who wanted to revert my change and those who were fine with my change. Talk topics have been attempted to solve this issue, one started by me after realizing that an edit war may occur without intervention. At this point, the reasoning for keeping the site in the present tense and not calling the site abandoned is that there are not enough citations and a sentiment that the site could come back up. This sentiment is only felt by one editor, as everybody else involved that I see listed in this dispute holds the opposite opinion. The opposite opinion that has been quite common among the editors involved is that the site indeed has been abandoned. This is because of a lack of contact for over 18 months, the domain being used to host completely unrelated projects (see tf2[dot]15[dot]ai), and the fact that multiple other sites allegedly made by 15 (see pony[dot]best) have been found. After third-party intervention, a decision to stop editing until a consensus was reached occurred. Some of the editors claim that RocketKnightX may have a bias that prevents neutrality in the article. Checking RocketKnightX's user contributions can help a third party conclude this general sentiment. There is one point I would like to highlight in this dispute: there has been no contact or mention of 15[dot]ai for more than a year; the site no longer appears on a search engine. If we were to classify the site as abandoned or under maintenance, how would it be cited? Would the amount of time without any contact and the usage of the domain for different projects be enough to consider the site abandoned? Once again, I apologize for any bias in my statement.
Summary of dispute by RocketKnightX
[edit]Okay. So, 15 said "I've been alerted that there appears to be a coordinated attack against my project by another service, with affiliated groups spreading rumors that I had abandoned 15.ai, or that I had placed it behind a paywall, or that I had killed myself, etc. I assure you that I am still the same stubborn person I was three years ago when I first launched my project – please don't believe these malicious lies. I'm doing the best I can, and I'll always continue to do so." They tried to mean that the project was not abandoned and is in under maintenance, but some people still not convinced due to waiting too long. The only reason why the project isn't up is that it needs to be perfect, as quality is more important than quantity.
Summary of dispute by SuperStain
[edit]My involvement in this dispute began some months ago when I noticed that an editor had been reverting edits made to the 15.ai page that could be interpreted as painting the website in a negative light. After noticing these edits, I took it upon myself to clean up the page, removing irrelevant and potentially biased passages, fixing certain spelling errors and adding archived references. A few months later, I returned to the article's talk page to provide insight into a discussion being held on the status of 15.ai, some of which now serves as the foundation for arguments in favour of classifying the website as abandoned. A few weeks later, I checked on the article again and found that an edit war had arisen between two editors, one believing the site to be abandoned and the other holding out hope for the site's return. Feeling that 15.ai had been down for long enough to justify classifying the website as abandoned, I edited parts of the page in order to counteract revisions made to label the site as "under maintenance". Conscious of potential 3RR violations, I made sure to limit myself to two of these edits before moving on with my day. Echoing Thought 1915's feelings, I believe RocketKnightX to be biased in favour of 15.ai. However, I also feel that another editor, HackerKnownAs, who I alluded to previously in my statement, to hold similar biases, as their account was created the same day as many of the articles sourced, and their contribution history seems to be comprised exclusively of edits made to protect the website's image and to remove mentions of competing websites/15.ai's ongoing downtime. I feel the best course of action here would be to classify 15.ai as abandoned, and to investigate the article's overall edit history to determine how much of this page was written with bias.
Summary of Dispute by VexVector
[edit]To be clear, I do not, “support saying that 15.ai is under maintenance”. This is a misrepresentation of my involvement. I merely added a citation-needed tag to the claim that the site was abandoned, and reverted an edit which removed the tag without resolving the need for it. If the site is claimed to be abandoned, then it should be a claim which is cited or explained somehow. The page did not have any rationale for considering it abandoned. What is the cut-off point? Is there præexisting policy on this matter? An explanation is all I ask for, along with the explanation being included on the public page.
15.ai discussion
[edit]Zeroth statement by possible moderator (15.ai)
[edit]I am ready to act as the moderator for this content dispute. Please read DRN Rule A and state whether you are willing to follow the ground rules. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise.
It appears that the main question is whether to characterize the web site as abandoned or defunct, or whether to characterize it as under maintenance. Is that correct? In Wikipedia, we report what reliable sources have said, including about the (lack of) availability of the site. So my first question to the editors is whether they can refer to any reliable sources that comment on the status of the web site. If so, please identify the source(s).
The purpose of dispute resolution, including moderated discussion, is to improve the article. So my second question is whether there are any other portions or sections of the article that you want to change that another editor wants to leave unchanged, or any portions of the article that you want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- You are correct in what the main question is about the categorization of the website as either abandoned/defunct or under maintenance.
- Directly answering your first question, we were unable to find specifically reliable sources regarding the status of 15[dot]ai. We do have alledged sites made by 15, tweets that 15 had said about the status (and an implied release timeframe that has already passed), and the current usage of the domain 15[dot]ai under tf2[dot]15[dot]ai, but I assume that these do not qualify as reliable sources.
- As for your second question, a new talk topic on the page asked whether the CMU Dictionary section of the page was necessary, although the topic is too new for any consensus to be formed yet.
- If any editors have information that contradicts my statement, please correct me. I may make mistakes by accident. Thought 1915 (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- I forgot to answer you on the first point, sorry. I will, to my best knowledge, try to follow the stated ground rules. Please let me know if I made a mistake though. Thought 1915 (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- i can follow the ground rules. i have nothing to add to thought 1915's summary. ltbdl☃ (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- I personally very much think that 15.ai has definitely been abandoned and the article needs to be updated. It's not gotten any changes within the last few months and I haven't seen any updates about it. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits! 11:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (15.ai)
[edit]First statement by moderator (15.ai)
[edit]If reliable sources do not say that the web site has been abandoned, we should not say that the web site has been abandoned, but we can state what the reliable sources report about the status of the web site. Stating that it has been abandoned would be original research. However, stating that it is under maintenance would also be original research unless that has been reported by a reliable source.
Is there any disagreement about any other content issue? Are there any continuing issues about how to report the status of the web site? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- This goes in tandem with considering the site abandoned, but, the tense of the article seemed to be disputed. I placed it under past tense under the suggestion of the talk topics above me; the story of how that went is the same as considering the site abandoned.
- As there have been no reliable sources on both considering the site abandoned or under maintenance, I wonder how it should be classified under these circumstances. Thought 1915 (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's very hard to find an actual reference that would document that the site is abandoned. We might need to do a [citation needed] instead. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits! 11:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would be fine with this. Thought 1915 (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nice. Anyone else up for [citation needed] in place of a reference? Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits! 00:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- [citation needed] with what? ltbdl☃ (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Since it's hard to find a reference, it might just be easier to put a [citation needed] in place of it. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits! 11:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- placing a [citation needed] next to "is" is a little silly. ltbdl☃ (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- All I am saying is we just need to find some way to incorporate saying that the 15.ai platform has been abandoned, and write a [citation needed] at the end. I don't really care how it is placed, I guess it just needs to follow WP:MOS Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits! 11:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- placing a [citation needed] next to "is" is a little silly. ltbdl☃ (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Since it's hard to find a reference, it might just be easier to put a [citation needed] in place of it. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits! 11:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- [citation needed] with what? ltbdl☃ (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nice. Anyone else up for [citation needed] in place of a reference? Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits! 00:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would be fine with this. Thought 1915 (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's very hard to find an actual reference that would document that the site is abandoned. We might need to do a [citation needed] instead. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits! 11:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
First statements by editors (15.ai)
[edit]Second statement by moderator (15.ai)
[edit]Is there agreement now that the web site should be reported as abandoned, and that a {{citation needed}} note should be used for that statement? If so, do we have agreement, and is this issue resolved? If not, please state what the remaining disagreement is. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that reporting the site as abandoned and simply placing a *citation needed tag* is appropriate. I know of one editor who may oppose this decision, but said editor has not participated in any part of this dispute discussion yet. If I see that the majority of editors also share this sentiment, I feel that we could then talk about how to properly edit the site as abanoned and properly placing a *citation needed tag*. Thought 1915 (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- they’ll definitely oppose this decision, but i agree to this. ltbdl☃ (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can only think of one singular editor who may oppose this. May you please elaborate? Thought 1915 (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- singular they ltbdl☃ (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I apologise for the confusion. Should we wait for their confirmation, or should something else be done? Thought 1915 (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- i'll notify them again, let's see if they answer. ltbdl☃ (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, Im the person who proposed the [citation needed] replacement. We could for example place in the text, like this:
- As of date, it is unknown if 15.ai is abandoned or not, as no activity has been seen in a long time. [citation needed]
- (this is an example only)
- in the event that it may not be suitable to just blatantly place a [citation needed], To prove that this is abandoned, since we can't add original research as of WP:NOR, we might be able to use discussion threads as seen on Reddit and these other websites. I have provided the links to them below.
- Link one
- Link two
- Link three
- Link four
- Link five
- In my opinion, this one below might be the best as it is independent.You should still see the above references.
- Link 6. I definitely think that a reliable source is needed, so here are some examples if the [citation needed] is not appropriate. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits! 02:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- I worry that the referenced sites may not seem reliable, but I might be wrong. I feel more comfortable with using the *citation needed tag*. Thought 1915 (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Got it. Keep me updated if we see any good references. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits! 00:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I worry that the referenced sites may not seem reliable, but I might be wrong. I feel more comfortable with using the *citation needed tag*. Thought 1915 (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- i'll notify them again, let's see if they answer. ltbdl☃ (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I apologise for the confusion. Should we wait for their confirmation, or should something else be done? Thought 1915 (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- singular they ltbdl☃ (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can only think of one singular editor who may oppose this. May you please elaborate? Thought 1915 (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- they’ll definitely oppose this decision, but i agree to this. ltbdl☃ (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (15.ai)
[edit]Tuner (radio)
[edit]Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
Are WP:GALLERY and other images appropriate to illustrate the progress and development of tuners over time and their varying design considerations?
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Tuner_(radio)#Image_gallery
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Users are arguing policy that doesn't exist or doesn't apply. I am trying to improve the article and these editors are throwing weight around without a sane rational basis to remove good faith improvements.
Summary of dispute by Kvng
[edit]WP:GALLERY is clear that these are generally undesirable. Andrevan claims that the gallery documents the development of tuners but I don't immediately get that from the pictures or captions. If we're going to try to tell that story, we need improvements but I'm not convinced telling this story is important and may introduce an WP:UNDUE issue. There is already a Commons link where these images can be perused by readers. ~Kvng (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Fountains_of_Bryn_Mawr
[edit]Andrevan seems to be unaware of consensus guidelines on image use in articles,in this case adding 10 redundant[9] images of radio tuner face-plates, some scattered across unrelated sections. Trying to explan that Wikipedia is not a repository of images and that they should have MOS:PERTINENCE, be placed in context and against descriptive text, and be readable at thumbnail resulted in WP:ICANTHEARYOU on the part of Andrevan [10] [11] and reverts of any attempted improvement [12]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Tuner (radio) discussion
[edit]
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Tuner)
[edit]I am ready to try to act as the moderator for discussion of this content dispute. Please read DRN Rule A. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of moderated discussion, as of any dispute resolution procedure, is to improve the article (not to address the conduct of the editors). Please state that you agree to follow the rules for the discussion. It appears that the main issue, or maybe the only issue, has to do with images. It seems that one editor wants to include a large number of images in the article, and two other editors disagree with the inclusion of the images. The editors have already referred to the image use policy and in particular the policy on image galleries, but please read it again. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
My first question is: Is there an issue about the inclusion of certain images in the article?
My second question is: Are there any other article content issues other than an image dispute? If so, what is the other issue?
My third and fourth questions are about the images. Third, are all of the images in Commons? If not, what is their copyright and fair use status? Fourth, will each editor please state concisely why they think that the the image use policy supports their view about images? Address all of your answers to the moderator (me) and the community. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Tuner)
[edit]- The dispute is about the number of images and their MOS:PERTINENCE to the content.
- I'm not aware of any other content dispute.
- All images are in Commons and I don't know of any fair use issues.
~Kvng (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Is there an issue about the inclusion of certain images in the article?
Yes, Images unreadable at thumb MOS:IMAGEQUALITY --:> showing the subject too small... so Yamaha T-420, Onkyo T-4000 are too small - unreadable at thumb.
Are there any other article content issues other than an image dispute? If so, what is the other issue?
No
Are all of the images in Commons?
Yes
Please state concisely why they think that the the image use policy supports their view about images?
WP:IMAGEPOL - WP:IG is pretty clear:
- A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article - This is a shoehorn per adding editors own statement.
- a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons. This is an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject, no way to discern one from the other or why they are there, and no way to improve the images - they are generally unreadable.other than looking like a tuner (and some of them don't even look like a tuner). And they are already in the Wikimedia Commons.
- cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images Text already describes the evolution of Tuners and, per the current text, two images are all you need: an image of tuner vacuum tubes, an image of tuner transistors.
- Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made These images do not collectively add to the reader's understanding because they are barely readable and repetitive so no contrast or comparison can be made.
Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
1. Yes, the issue is about the images.
2. No, there is no other dispute other than the value of the images and image gallery and whether it is telling a useful story or illustrating something useful.
3. All images are on Commons and there are no issues with copyright.
4. Basically my argument hinges on such text in WP:GALLERY as A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images...Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made....Images should be captioned to explain their relevance to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery...Some subjects easily lend themselves to image-heavy articles for which image galleries are suitable, such as plants (e.g., Lily), fashion (e.g., Wedding dress), and the visual arts (e.g., Oil painting). Others do not
My argument is that these images are not, as has been claimed, blurry, dark, unreadable, low quality, or redundant. They are clear illustrations of what a Tuner is and what a Tuner has looked like. They are selected to show a good cross-section of different images - front and back, inside and outside, Japanese, German, American, analog, digital, wood, metal, plastic, tube, solid state, etc. It is not necessary to be able to read the writing or the numbers, as those do not contribute to anything useful that isn't explained in the article itself. The point of the images is to illustrate consumer electronics and digital products industrial design. The arguments made don't hold up to scrutiny regarding the images or the policy or the consensus. Originally, I had placed the images all as thumbnails alongside the text, but I changed it to a gallery as many other articles do. There is no blanket consensus not to place these useful images, as has been claimed. If a specific image is perceived to be problematic, we could find a replacement or remove that one, but I do not see that overall, the criticisms that have been rendered on the images are policy-based or justifiable. Andre🚐 02:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- The galleries in the examples given in green text contribute to the article in specific ways. In Tuner (radio), the gallery is just dropped at the end of an already overloaded section. It may turn out that a gallery is a good thing to have in an improved version of the article. Per WP:DEMOLISH I'm not actually opposed to retaining it if that's where we're heading (I do, however, have some skepticism about how well that will work out) but I don't yet see the beginnings of any of that in the text. The only hints that this may be coming are talk page statements from Andrevan and inclusion of dates and countries in the gallery captions. If Andrevan can show us a source or two we can use to back the story of tuner development, that would help convince me that this direction has some promise. ~Kvng (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Tuner)
[edit]It appears that one editor wants to include a gallery of images of radio tuners, and two other editors disagree. I am asking each editor to provide a revised statement of why they think that the image gallery either is consistent with the policy on images or is not consistent with it. If there is no agreement, we will develop a Request for Comments on the yes-no question of whether to include the gallery in the article. So, in preparing your statement, develop a statement that will be included in the RFC for the attention of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Are there any other content issues?
First statements by editors (Tuner)
[edit]The image gallery is consistent with both the image use policy as well as the examples of many other articles which have detailed image galleries, much larger and taking up more space and more redundant than the modest image gallery on Tuner (radio). I originally created this article back in 2004 and it was in a very poor state until I started working on it again recently. I already have a detailed narrative in the works in the article with references, and a big part of that has to do with the early growth of the FM radio and TV and American consumer electronics industry after World War II, followed by the growth of electronics development and production primarily in Japan and the production of cheap, miniaturized transistors and the growth of digital electronics. That is illustrated by the photos which show the evolution of the tuner from the days of the vacuum tube to solid state circuit boards. You do not need to be an expert to understand what a tube is and what a board is and see the little capacitors and filters and stuff and then see how the analog knobs give way to digital, tape deck looking, black, plastic hi-fi. If the specific images look a bit bad to someone, I am open to swapping out the images for better-looking images, but there's absolutely no policy basis that categorically rules out having image galleries. I do not at all see how it is a constructive or consensus building activity to just come along and remove image galleries when many many other pages have them. The images I have selected for the page are a small sampling of the many images on Commons for this topic, the ones that have decent lighting and a well-framed subject that clearly shows what it is without bad framing, reflections or weird shadows or darkness. I've chosen a chronology from 1960 to 1990, and several American units, a German unit, and a Japanese unit, one of each showing the guts, ie tube, board, or another kind of board. In some cases it's the front and back of the same thing to show a different angle and give a better idea of what you're looking at. All of this to me is reasonable to try to show what a tuner is, which shows you something you don't get from the text. You wouldn't know that a vacuum tube is a weird round thingy like a tin can or that a ceramic filter is a tiny diode that solders onto a small lead, but you do actually kind of get that from the images. You wouldn't necessarily understand the idea of turning a dial to manipulate a radio if you never saw one in real life. There are kids on this website who were born in 2005 let's say, who have never seen one of these. I think they improve the article and improve Wikipedia. Andre🚐 08:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Jessica Nabongo
[edit]Closed as problematic in various ways. The filing editor has been indefinitely partially blocked from the article in question. While they are not blocked from the article talk page and are permitted to discuss the article, filing a case here is not a substitute for an unblock request, and the partial block is understood as the uninvolved opinion of the blocking administrator that their editing of the article has been disruptive. The discussion on the article talk page has been inadequate. The filing editor has not notified the other two editors. If there had been adequate prior discussion by a good-standing editor, I would remind them to notify the other editors. The filing editor should either request unblock, on their user talk page or at WP:AN, or simply avoid the article from which they have been blocked. I will note that a similar request was filed in August, and was closed as abandoned. Other editors may continue editing of the article and the article talk page, normally, without regard to the blocked editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Wolf
[edit]Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Nagging Prawn (talk · contribs)
- Wolverine_XI (talk · contribs)
- Moxy (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
I attempted to add a sentence on the Wolf Wikipedia page citing a report from a peer-reviewed scientific journal of one wolf eating 181 Payette's Short-Winged Grasshoppers. Unfortunately, I encountered unexpected resistance, despite there having been no such disputes regarding this report in the citing literature. I was told to bring it up to the talk page, which I did. I was told to justify my edit, which I tried to do, citing precedent for similar dietary detail in other Wikipedia articles. An anonymous user concurred that it seemed worthy of inclusion, but I did not receive a rebuttal. After waiting for several weeks, I believed the support from a third party and lack of response otherwise might justify reverting the reversion. However, my edit was reverted again. Upon requesting reasons why this occurred on the talk page, I was told there was no context for the fact I was trying to add to the article. However, the citation provides this context, and upon mentioning this I received no response. After some days, I tried again to add this fact to the article, but after a few more days it was reverted again, with no new arguments given. As far as I can tell, this edit does not violate Wikipedia guidelines, so I am at a loss.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I was told to open a topic about this on the Wolf talk page, so I acquiesced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wolf#Including_a_note_about_a_paper_reporting_a_lone_wolf_that_ate_181_grasshoppers When objections were raised, I made good faith attempts to address them in this topic.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Hopefully, I would like to be able to add this observation to the article, as it is such a surprising report. It neatly demonstrates the dietary breadth mentioned in the sentence that would have preceded this edit. Failing that, I would like robust reasons why this should be excluded. I hope moderation can encourage either the addition of this fact or meaningful dialogue about why it shouldn't be added.
Summary of dispute by Wolverine_XI
[edit]Summary of dispute by Moxy
[edit]Wolf discussion
[edit]USA
[edit]Closed as improperly filed and as premature. There does not appear to have been any discussion either at an article talk page or on the talk page of the other editor. Also, the topic listed in the filing is not the topic described by the filing editor. The filing editor is advised to register an account. The editors are advised to discuss any issues at an article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Barb horse
[edit]Closed as declined by the other editor. DRN is voluntary. The other editor erased the notice of the DRN filing, which is a recognized way of declining to participate in moderated discussion. It is not the most polite way of declining to participate, but notifying an editor three times after they have erased the notice twice is tendentious. Even if the other editor had accepted, this case would be closed because other forms of dispute resolution including a thread at WP:AN were open at the time, so that filing here looks like forum shopping. This close is a caution to both editors, but primarily to the filing editor. Since these are two editors who are not discussing content, the next step may be a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|