 |
|
This is aninformal place to resolvecontent disputes as part ofdispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such asrequests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on thetalk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You arenot 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 atalk page to continue to argue any point that has not metpolicy requirements. Editors must take particular care addinginformation about living persons toany Wikipedia page. This may also apply to somegroups.
| Do you need assistance? | Would you like to help? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should becivil, calm,concise,neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask avolunteer, who will assist you.
| We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over thevolunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being avolunteer 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:
Open/close quick reference
|
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.
– New discussion.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
When Dying Light first released it wasn't clear if Harran was in Turkey or not. Now Dying Light: The Beast is released. It's the third game in the series but a direct continuation of the first game, Dying Light. The main character of the game, Kyle Crane, directly tells that Harran is indeed in Turkey when talking about the events on the previous game, Dying Light. Wikipedia article says it's in some random Middle Eastern territories. Well, it's stated now it is in Turkey and it should be changed. But an user disagrees without valid reasons. The involved user claims that further explanation of the lore shouldn't be included in the article like it can't be updated forever. User also tells that Turkey has no bearing on the rest of the plot and the Wikipedia article. I find it ridiculous because when it's stated that the place is in Middle Eastern territories, the user finds it has bearing but when Turkey is mentioned the user disapproves. I think it's personal to the user.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
The dispute needs a certain and noncontestable decision to prevent a revert war because more people will come and see it when they play the new game and want to change the article.
Dying Light takes place in "Harran" but no country is mentioned in the game and contemporary sources describe the setting as fictional, thus the plot description mirrors this. In the past, there have been a number of edits adding Turkey because there happened to bea real place with that name. WhileDying Light: The Beast, released 10 years later, does mention Turkey, game plots are usually written in isolation and rarely incorporate lore information that did not exist at the time of release. Additionally, the country has no impact on the rest of the article, so its exclusion is no major loss.IceWelder [✉]20:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute. Please readDRN Rule A. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So I am asking each editor to state, concisely and specifically, what they want to change in the article, or what another editor wants to change that they want to leave the same. I think I know what the issue is, but I would rather rely on concise statements from the editors than be mistaken.
Are there any questions?Robert McClenon (talk)05:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Initial sentence: Harran is a fictional city located inMiddle Eastern territories...
Paramount change: Harran is a fictional city located inTurkey.
Reason: This is also very important because when unrelated users use Google search to ask "Is Dying Light Harran in Turkey?". This sentence is highlighted by Google and shows false information that it is not. This is the core of the dispute.
1st secondary edit: In the very second sentence of the article, "...quarantine zone in a fictional Middle Eastern city called Harran." to either "...quarantine zone in a fictional Turkish city called Harran." or "...quarantine zone in a fictional city called Harran." and in the Setting subsection, "In the fictional Middle Eastern city of Harran..." to either "In the fictional Turkish city of Harran..." or "In the fictional city of Harran...".
Reason: Since we know that the place is in Turkey there is no need to preserve older "Middle Eastern" adjectives. They should be replaced or removed. And it has no real usage neither by location or inspirations since the only inspirations from Europe, South Asia and South America. If it were a reproduction of Dubai we could have preserve it. Since it would be fictional Middle Eastern city.
2nd secondary edit: Harran is a fictional city in Turkey. It shares the name of the Harran that was an ancient city and currently a municipality and district located in Şanlıurfa Province, Turkey.
Reason: 3D modelling inspirations mentioned in the article. Name inspiration may be useful. Readers will ask whether Harran is a real place or not and should know that it's not a made up name. Or the ones familiar with the real place will ask whether it's in the game or not. They should be aware of only the name comes from the real Harran. We already mention that inspirations are from Istanbul, Turkey and Mumbai, India. --TheDerebeyi (talk)08:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
References
It appears that one editor wants to make two changes to the article to state that the setting is the fictional city of Harran in Turkey, and the other editor wants to leave it alone to state that the location is the fictional city of Harran in the Middle East. Is my understanding correct?
Can each editor please provide a reason, based onpolicies and guidelines why their request is correct?
Are there any other questions?Robert McClenon (talk)05:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to correctly cite an in-game resource. But since it's just to explain the reasons I will link a YouTube gameplay with timestamp:Dying Light: The Beast gameplay (00:00:29). Main protagonist of the game, Kyle Crane, explains it the location is in Turkey while talking about the events on the Dying Light. This is a primary source. Further explained reasons are in my zeroth statement. It's not a contradicting new information. The first game didn't clarify the country at the time of the release. Someone worked in the game said something about it being somewhere on Middle East and Wikipedia article quotes it. Dying Light: The Beast is a direct continuation of the Dying Light and have the same protagonist. Since it clearly mentions the country we can't say it's in somewhere in the Middle East anymore. It's Turkey. --TheDerebeyi (talk)14:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We appear to be at an impasse. I can see four ways around the impasse:
Does either editor have a compromise? Do the two editors both agree to accept athird opinion?
Are there any other questions?Robert McClenon (talk)04:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it is not necessary to state that a fictional city of Harran is inTurkey, because it is described as a fictional city in the Middle East. A reader who wants to know whether Harran is based on a real place can retrieve the article onHarran and see that in modern times it has been in present-dayTurkey.
Are there any other questions?Robert McClenon (talk)00:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
– Discussion in progress.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
I was reviewing the article Gol Maal when I noticed the poster is not appropriate for the film. There are several flaws in the poster:
I replaced theposter file with anotherimagethat I thought served the purpose better. But the original editor, user @Kailash29792, reverted the change with a bad-faith curt comment, "No way".
I started a discussion on the user's talk page (now copied to article's talk page:here) and mentioned the flaws I found. I also mentioned that their comment was not constructive.
But the user stated that my poster was a DVD cover (I don't know how they reached that conclusion). When I pointed out thatWP:FILMPOSTER states that DVD covers are acceptable, the user said that they should not be used when a theatrical release poster is available. But the point is that the uploaded theatrical release poster is 'not official! It's a third-party creation.
The user then created adifferent new file (not sure why). The new poster is quite similar in content to the old poster and hence has the same flaws.
I feel that the image I uploaded is valid for fair-use rationale and also suits the article given its prominence in popular culture. I sincerely believe that either my old image orthis image (from a source mentioned byWP:FILMPOSTER) should be used.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
[2] copied from the original discussion:[3]
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Resolve by deciding a) Whether my change was invalid in the first placeb) Whether my change should have been revertedc) Whether the creation of a new file is validd) WhetherWP:FILMPOSTER could use with an additional guideline on when old posters can be replaced
I am ready to act as the moderator of this dispute if the editors are willing. Please readDRN Rule D andthe statement that South Asia is a contentious topic. Is the only article content issue the question of which film poster to use, or are there any other issues?Robert McClenon (talk)07:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Resolve by deciding
a) Whether my change was invalid in the first place
b) Whether my change should have been reverted
c) Whether the creation of a new file is valid
d) Whether WP:FILMPOSTER could use with an additional guideline on when old posters can be replaced
I don't know what it takes for this dispute to be resolved soon, since it's been clearly explained many times. The image Kingsacrificer uploaded is a video cover. The only concern Kingsacrificer has is that a female actress is in the center of the poster. See the related productshere - all of these posters have that actress. The poster uploaded by Kailash29792 is authentic and has been published onCinemaazi's Facebook page,Google Arts and Culture and other similar film poster publishing sites. Quality-wise, the file uploaded by Kailash29792 is far better than the image Kingsacrificer uploaded. There's no need to upload avideo cover that was probably created by Shemaroo for their digital streaming platform when a high-quality poster exists. Kailash29792 uploaded that file separately to match the file name with the article's titleGol Maal. Previous file name:File:Golmal_Poster.jpg to Current file name:File:Gol_Maal_poster.jpgManick22 (talk)17:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do the editors agree to moderated discussion underDRN Rule D? Is the issue about whatfilm poster to use in the infobox? If the film poster is either an issue or the issue, I am asking each editor to provide a copy of or link to the poster that they would like to use, and a statement of what the source of the poster is. It is not necessary at this time to tell why you want that poster; that will be the next question. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion.
Are there any other questions?Robert McClenon (talk)07:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting 2 posters:
Kingsacrificer (talk)19:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I preferthis poster.Manick22 (talk)08:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue appears to be the choice of the poster. There appear to be three posters that are being considered:
Is that correct? If so, will each editor please state why they disagree with each poster with which they disagree?
If agreement is not reached, we will compose and launch an RFC.
Are there any other questions?Robert McClenon (talk)19:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with choosingPoster 3 because of the following reasons:
I preferPoster 2 because it is beautiful, clear, identifiable, and of good quality.
I would also support the inclusion ofPoster 1 overPoster 3, because it is from MovieposterDB, a source prescribed byWP:FILMPOSTER, but is not an ideal choice.
Kingsacrificer (talk)07:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only one editor has responded at this point. If there is still a content dispute about what film poster to use in the infobox, I will compose and launch an RFC.
Is there still a content dispute about the poster? Are there any other questions?Robert McClenon (talk)16:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I have launched RFCs with more than two options in the past, and am ready to do it again. I will consider how to word the RFC so as to reduce the likelihood of the closure being a second runoff RFC. But if the editors can't agree on a poster, the community will reach rough consensus on a poster by RFC.
Are there any other questions?Robert McClenon (talk)22:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a draft RFC for review atTalk:Gol Maal/RFC on Film Poster. If the RFC is satisfactory, I will launch it by moving it to the talk page. Please do not vote in the draft RFC at this time, because it is not active. Please do not comment in the draft RFC. If you have comments about it, please enter them here, in the DRN.
Are there any other questions?Robert McClenon (talk)01:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
– Discussion in progress.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
There is a dispute on the2025 Moldovan parliamentary election article on whether the infobox at the top of the article should be TIE or TILE. The discussion has also sought to include the rest of the articles of Moldovan parliamentary elections for the sake of maintaining consistency. Main arguments in favour of TIE were that it allows more information to be shown (number of votes, the previous results, pp swing and the image of the party leader), that most of the legislative election articles across the world use of TIE, and that Moldova does not have that many parties to need TILE. Main arguments in favour of TILE were that TIE would leave a blank spot, that TIE takes more space, and that each country may have a different standard depending on local circumstances.
After some days of bringing forward arguments, the discussion has stalled without any signs of the parties giving up.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:2025 Moldovan parliamentary election#Infobox
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
At this point, the discussion needs an independent third party that can help come to an agreement or close the matter indisputably.
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as fizzled out. Neither party has stated what changes they want to make to the article. If there still is a content dispute, discuss it at the article talk page,Talk:Arattai.Robert McClenon (talk)21:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
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 I revised the article by adding content, rewording, removing redundant material, and making factual corrections. However, another editor believes my revisions constitute puffery and promotion and claims that critical content was removed. The editor refused to provide specifics and expects me to guess their concerns, which is not feasible.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I believe labeling my entirerevision as puffery and promotional and rejecting it outright is unfair, as I did not use such wording or phrases. I need a third-party opinion and request an independent editor’s review of both my revised version and the editor’s maintained version. Summary of dispute by Zalaraz[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I think OP is not clearly explaining the problems with their edits. Their AI-based responses on talk page have made it only more difficult to understand what are their actual concerns. They should try convincing editors as to why their edits are constructive without using AI. They are yet to do that yet.Zalaraz (talk)01:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Arattai discussion[edit]Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Arattai)[edit]I am ready to act as the moderator if the editors want moderated discussion. Please readDRN Rule D andthe statement that South Asia is a contentious topic. If you reply, you are acknowledging that you have read the rules and restrictions.DRN is a forum for content disputes. So please state concisely what you want to change in the article, or what you want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. The use ofartificial intelligence to post to talk pages is strongly discouraged, and the use ofartificial intelligence to edit articles is forbidden. However, this discussion is primarily about article content, because the use ofartificial intelligence is a conduct issue. If you can demonstrate that another editor is usingartificial intelligence, you may report it toWP:ANI, and this discussion will be closed. The unsubstantiated claim that an editor is usingartificial intelligence iscasting aspersions and is apersonal attack. So: If you want to resolve a content dispute by moderated discussion, please state concisely what you want to change in the article or to leave unchanged.Robert McClenon (talk)19:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the current article (the version which other editors deemed stable) lacks:
If adding the above content is deemed promotional or puffery, I have nothing further to add.Anoop Bhatia (talk)19:43, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Zeroth statements by editors (Arattai)[edit]First statement by possible moderator (Arattai)[edit]Neither editor has provided a concise list of changes that they wish to make to the article. I am inferring from the comments that one editor has tried to make substantial revisions to the article, amounting to a partial rewrite. Is that correct? If so, can they provide either a link or diff showing their preferred version of the article in the history or a link to a sandbox with their preferred version of the article? If the other editor wants to leave the article unchanged, I would like a statement from them saying that they want to leave the article unchanged, and statingbriefly that they disagree with the changes. Are there any other questions?Robert McClenon (talk)00:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] First statements by editors (Arattai)[edit]Second statement by possible moderator (Arattai)[edit]Four days ago, I asked for a concise list of what changes each editor either wanted to make to the article or did not want made in the article. I haven't seen the answers. I don't want to close this dispute as fizzled out, but I might have to do that. Are there still any content disputes about the article? Are there any other questions?Robert McClenon (talk)16:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Second statements by editors (Arattai)[edit]
|
– New discussion.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
I’ve been trying to add a short, neutrally worded paragraph about the Flynn brothers’ business milestones — specifically their collaboration with Jamie Oliver’s Food Tube network and the opening of a plant-based café at Dublin Airport. The information is based on reliable, independent sources including The Irish Times, The Irish Independent, and Dublin Airport’s official website.
Each time I’ve proposed or added this content, another editor (User:Bluethricecreamman) has reverted it under WP:PROMO, saying it’s promotional. The text itself is factual, properly sourced, and intended to balance the article, which currently focuses mainly on controversies. I’m seeking help in reaching consensus on whether this short, sourced content can be included in line with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I’ve discussed this issue extensively on the article’s Talk page and at the NPOV noticeboard, but there hasn’t been input from uninvolved editors. Here’s the main discussion link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_and_Stephen_Flynn#RFC:_Adding_a_short_%E2%80%9CBusiness_Growth_and_Expansion%E2%80%9D_paragraph
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
It would help if a neutral moderator or group of uninvolved editors could review the proposed text and sources, and offer feedback on whether it meets neutrality and due-weight standards. I’m open to revising the wording further if needed, as long as the page can reflect these well-documented aspects of the subject’s career.
Multiple other editors including onWP:NPOVN have told this one editor that plain addition of purely promotional language is too much.
There was an editor who added a bibliography, which seemed appropriate. Would be against anything like what calmsea is suggesting.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)23:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
– New discussion.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
Disagreement over whether the date of death of Ricky Hatton is uncertain. Initially, due to the reporting on Hatton's death detailing he was "found" on the 14th of September, there was uncertainty about the date of death as all reporting was stating as "found" or "death announced". On September 26, theBBC publishedan article about Hatton's funeral procession. In it, they included the funeral notice they were citing in visual form. On this notice itgave a death date of September 14. Dotsdomain and Martinevans however still took issue with the sufficiency of this, asserting points like "It's possible to obtain a burial/cremation permission certificate without specifying the date of death", "funeral home notices fall underWP:SPS, and a general accusation of theBBC having bias and not being infallible.
I disputed these three positions; I found the burial certificate assertion to be based onWP:OR, as there is no evidence this was the case for Hatton's burial certificate, I found funeral home obituaries don't fall into the criteria outlined at SPS, and highlighted BBC was deemed generally reliable throughWikipedia:RSPBBC. Their arguments to me didn't merit a disqualification of the source, and due to the first discussion thread moving in a circular direction I elected to close the thread. U-Mos opened a new thread a week later, restoring the circa as a "compromise". In this time Hatton's coroner inquest began, The others editors had particularly been seeking this out for definitive proof. In the Coroner's Office's filing of the inquest week,they list DOD as the 14th. Dotsdomain still rejected this. Third party resolution needed.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Ricky Hatton#Ricky did on Died 14th September 2025,Talk:Ricky Hatton#Date of death, post-inquest opening (16 October)
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Due to the fundamental disagreement, I feel at this stage outside parties are needed to weigh in on the topic. I just see the discussion returning to a circular one should it just remain amongst the currently involved parties.
In my view the overwhelming consensus on the talk page indicated that including a definitive date of death for Hatton (at this stage) would be premature. Once a Coroner orders a post mortem/inquest, the Registrar has no official role until the Coroner, either makes a decision or restores the Registrar's role in the process. Clearly the Coroner requires more time to assess toxicology reports or expand on their results and other relevant matters. My research indicates that Coroners, when publishing Inquest listings use a provisional date provided by the reporting authority, in this case the police, of the date the body was discovered.
The Funeral Directors' good-faith publication in advance of the Inquest, wrongly relied upon the date Hatton was found, as no other verifiable official date was or could be available because the Coroner had not even begun to consider any of the available evidence. Following the funeral, during the adjournment hearing of the Inquest, a finding of death by "hanging" was publicly released, but not much else.
It's been the view of most talk page editors that we shouldn't speculate on the Inquest outcome, until the facts are established. These are sensitive matters particularly for the immediate family and jumping to any other conclusion, on the date of actual death, if and when the Coroner decides to rule which of the three selected dates (12, 13 or 14 September) is published is unhealthy.
In the meantime circa 14 September 2025, seems to be a description used on certain other subject profiles.
Note: Editor has been away from Wikipedia since October 8. Potentially will not be participating in discussion.Rusted AutoParts02:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This strikes me as primarily aWP:PSTS matter. There are two primary sources that indicate an exact date of death of 14 September, as described by Rusted Auto Parts. While I couldn't say whether Coroner's Offices ever list dates of death with "circa" or indicate uncertainty in another way, or just give the best approximation in cases such as this pending the inquest's findings, I agree that this is entering into speculative territory. However, the weight of secondary of sources remain clear that the date of death is not certain – from closer to the time ([8]), and made more clear by the timeline by the inquest at its opening in the last week ([9][10][11]), reliably confirming that he was not seen after 12 September. It seems clear to me, per PSTS, that this creates a circumstance where we should not definitively list an exact date of death, because secondary sources tell us that this is not certain.
There isone secondary source, from prior to the inquest, that mentions in passing "As of his death on Sunday 14 September". I'm going to again quoteMIDI here from the talk page discussion, because I think they put this very well:What other sources do we have for the precise date? Should we cherry pick a single source that gives specific information, ignoring those that don't corroborate it? While this is no longer a breaking story,WP:RSBREAKING guidance seems pertinent – "seek multiple independent sources which independently verify". Are we able to do that with what the sources currently say?
My view is this is one reliable secondary source that briefly contradicts multiple others on this matter: in this instance, not only are the other sources more numerous, they more centrally concern the timeline of Hatton's final days, and in the majority of cases come from after the inquest's opening, when more detailed information became available. Taking all this into account, I continue to believe that a "circa" caveat next to the 14 September date is most appropriate at this time, given the information we have available through reliable secondary sources.U-Mos (talk)17:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to assert that the statement "The Funeral Directors' good-faith publication in advance of the Inquest, wrongly relied upon the date Hatton was found, as no other verifiable official date was or could be available because the Coroner had not even begun to consider any of the available evidence" is original research. There is no evidence that the funeral directors based the inclusion on the date the death was announced. It feels as though there's a conflation that due to the inquest still looking to determine cause of death, this makes all information around his death undetermined.Rusted AutoParts17:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am ready to act as the moderator if the editors want moderated discussion to resolve this dispute. Please readDRN Rule D,the ArbCom ruling on biographies of living persons, andthe designation of biographies of living persons as acontentious topic. Thepolicy on biographies of living persons also applies to very recently deceased persons. Are there any content disputes other than what date to list as his date of death? I am willing to conduct moderated discussion. However, what the editors may want is the advice and opinions of editors who are experienced with biographies of living persons, and of recently deceased persons. I would suggest that the editors ask for an unbiased opinion atthe biographies of living persons noticeboard. I will leave this case on hold to allow the editors to request advice atthe biographies of living persons noticeboard.
Are there any other questions?Robert McClenon (talk)05:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any further content disputes on this article. I am happy for RAP to raise this on the BLP noticeboard (and in fact have suggested that as a step previously). Otherwise more than happy for you, Robert, to moderate this discussion.U-Mos (talk)05:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there still a content dispute about the date of death in the infobox? The infobox currently reads c. 14 September 2025. If there is any objection to that date, please state what you want it to read, and we can discuss. If there is no objection stated, I will close this dispute as resolved.
Are there any other questions?Robert McClenon (talk)21:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
– New discussion.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
There's an ongoing dispute over how to format the infobox. Absolutiva and Nikkimaria think we should write "Russian Empire" as simply "Russia" in|birth_place= and omit "Russian SFSR" in|death_place= because ofMOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, etc., while I disagree and consider this a misuse of the guideline.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Vladimir Lenin#Infobox formatting
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
By providing an independent fourth opinion.
As I attempted to concise infobox places for historical matter perMOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Similarly,Mike Novikoff frequently removing Russian SFSR from infoboxes (pertemplate guide edit) to most prominent Russian people, includingVladimir Putin,Vladimir Vysotsky andVasily Utkin.
There are multiple discussions about the exclusion of RSFSR via:
In the Russian Empire, for inside Russian places just simply "Russia", for prominent people likePeter the Great andIgor Stravinsky (per edit).
I am ready to act as the moderator if the parties to the dispute request moderated discussion. Please readDRN Rule D,the ArbCom ruling on Eastern Europe, andthe statement that Eastern Europe is a contentious topic. Are there any content issues other than the dispute over the infobox?Robert McClenon (talk)06:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a content dispute at this time? The infobox lists his place of birth as being in the Russian Empire, and his place of death as being in the Russian SFSR. Does anyone want either of those changed? If so, we will discuss. If not, I will close the dispute as resolved.
Are there any other questions?Robert McClenon (talk)21:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed for two related reasons. First, there is a thread atWP:ANI, and DRN does not consider any dispute that is pending in another forum. Second, the filing editor has been blocked for use of a chatbot. Whether there is irony is left as an exercise for the reader.Robert McClenon (talk)20:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
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 I have added two edits to the article Chatbot psychosis. One is supported by an article from Wired and the other by a documentary on YouTube produced by journalist Karen Hao from The Atlantic. Both editions are highly relevant to the article, accurately reflecting the information provided in the sources and presenting it impartially. There are no fabricated references, inaccuracies, or hallucinations. User Einsof claims that my contribution was created with an LLM due to an initial redundancy in the text, which has already been addressed and discussed extensively on my talk page and the article discussion page. User Gurkubondinn supported this claim without providing any evidence that my contributions are inaccurate or contain fabricated claims or references. This latter user is not qualified to mediate these discussions impartially, given their previous unfounded involvement in debates on AI-generated content. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chatbot_psychosishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RobertoBriagohttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chatbot_psychosis&diff=cur&oldid=1318104638https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chatbot_psychosis&diff=cur&oldid=1318306312
My request is simple: I would appreciate it if an editor reviews the editions I have made and verifies whether they contain fabricated references or inaccurate information. If this is not the case, I suggest that my editions should be included in the article, as they are relevant to the topic and provide up-to-date information. Summary of dispute by Einsof[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Gurkubondinn[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Chatbot psychosis discussion[edit]Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– New discussion.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
This dispute concerns whether including sourced statements[12] about Taiwan’s constitutional and legal status violates WP:SYNTH or WP:DUE. Since filing DRN, I have added similar, though not identical, arguments.[13][14]
The proposed content is neutrally worded and info is supported by leading academic and legal sources, including the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (hosted by Oxford University Press). All parties appear to acknowledge the spirit of the edit: that the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution continues to claim the mainland as ROC territory and that Taiwan has never made a formal declaration of independence - but the disagreement concerns whether including these well-sourced facts constitutes original research or undue weight.
Horse have argued that this would constitute synthesis or violate due weight, tho no specific policy provision or example of improper synthesis has been demonstrated. Arron noted that the sources support the material[15] and that the edit is acceptable with minor rewording[16]
At one point, horse suggested the edit wasnot the same topic because the legal status supposedly differs from the political status[17] But in thelegal arguments section, this represents due weight and is highly relevant to the topic.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I discussed source at RSN; later found new sources, and Alaexis confirmed them as acceptable. User Gotitbro said content isn’t controversial and should appear in any encyclopedic source on modern China, but recommend attribution for TC.[18] Have discussed on article talk & Horse say sources don't support edit; but Arron confirmed they do. Horse left, leaving remaining issues unclear.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I think the first obstacle to consensus is to help identify what specific policy question is being disputed (in this case, WP:SYNTH and WP:DUE). We cannot agree if edits violates those policies and need help. I believe if we can agree it does not, I believe consensus on inclusion can be reached and further dispute avoided.
| The heading saysSummary of dispute by Horse Eye's Back. It doesn't say to discuss the summary.Robert McClenon (talk)19:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
|
– New discussion.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
Hello,The userAshwinAjax keeps disrupting the format and the information of the page continuously and it has no way to reach him/her.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:AFC_Ajax_in_international_football
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
It is not possible to reach that user. Blocking his/her access for some time may help or maybe you know some ways to reach him/her. For example, if you cans ee his/her e-mail, he/she can be contacted via e-mail.
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as premature. The discussion has been only marginally long enough, and was not in the right place. Discussion should be on the article talk page, because there might have been other editors watching the page besides those listed. Take the discussion to the article talk page and discuss for at least another 24 hours. (I would normally say 48 hours, but there has been discussion on a user talk page.) If discussion continues to be inconclusive, another request can be filed here after 24 hours.Robert McClenon (talk)01:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
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 There is an ongoing problem with sourcing of airport route tables. I have slowly been going through these articles and removing unsourced routes from the tables. This particular article has indeed been tagged as needing additional citations in the routes section since May this year. I removed the unsourced routes, along with a number of citations which, upon examination, didn't verify the content they were listed against, as well as running Citation Bot and a few other QoL scripts. All have been repeatedly reverted, and attempts to discuss with the editors (both are present in the same discussion) led to nothing - both responded once, then ignored the discussion forthwith. When I restored the content, as they had stopped discussing, I was once again reverted. It's reasonably obvious that the method of discussion isn't working. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? User talk:Zackrules90#October 2025 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Hopefully bring the editors to the table - or in the best case scenario, if someone has access to sources for the removed content then it can of course be restored which would be the best case scenario. Summary of dispute by Zackrules90[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by GSHAPIROY[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Dallas Fort Worth International Airport discussion[edit]Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
