Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-05 Naming conventions (television)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | ||||||||||||
|
Contents |
[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-12-05 Naming conventions (television)
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
[edit] Request Information
- Request made by: Elonka 03:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)
- A couple thousand television episode articles around Wikipedia, that are being subjected to move wars
- Who's involved?
- Ace Class Shadow (talk · contribs)
- Anþony (talk · contribs)
- Argash (talk · contribs)
- BlueSquadronRaven (talk · contribs)
- Chuq (talk · contribs)
- Elonka (talk · contribs)
- EnsRedShirt (talk · contribs)
- Jay32183 (talk · contribs)
- Josiah Rowe (talk · contribs)
- MatthewFenton (talk · contribs)
- Milo H Minderbinder (talk · contribs)
- Ned Scott (talk · contribs)
- Peregrinefisher (talk · contribs)
- Riverbend (talk · contribs)
- Serge Issakov (talk · contribs)
- Tango (talk · contribs)
- TobyRush (talk · contribs)
- Yaksha (talk · contribs)
- Wikipedical (talk · contribs)
- Wknight94 (talk · contribs)
- What's going on?
- There is a dispute about how to name television episode articles, which basically boils down to whether or not WikiProjects should have the right to come up with guidelines for their area of interest, that may not be in strict accordance with Wikipedia-wide guidelines. For example, the Star Trek WikiProject uses a consistent suffix for each episode, even if not specifically required by Wikipedia:Disambiguation (see the subcategories at Category:Star Trek episodes for an example). Many other WikiProjects have chosen similar formats. A few editors think this is wrong, and they're forcing all episodes back into "Wikipedia" format, regardless of objections, and usually without even any attempt at WP:RM. So far several hundred articles have been moved, and edit wars and move wars are sprouting up all over Wikipedia.
- What would you like to change about that?
- I would like for the current moves of hundreds of articles to stop, so that we can have a proper and civil debate, and try to find a consensus compromise.
- Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
- No preference
[edit] Mediator response
I will review all pages, if you have anything to ask, please see my talk page, thank you, :) WikieZach| talk 21:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- This case has apparently been superseded by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions. Should we close this case? --Ideogram 00:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
[edit] Discussion
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
Based on Elonka's recent actions and comments, I can't accept that she is trying to seek mediation in good faith. This mediation attempt appears to be an attempt to get an injunction to stop consensus action which is only opposed by a few. I don't agree that WP:TV-NAME is disputed, it has consensus support and only a couple dissenters whose refusal to accept consensus is approaching the point of disruption. I also consider it very disruptive to try and use potential mediation as evidence that a dispute exists or that a guideline doesn't have consensus. How can people be expected to participate in mediation, if their very participation is misrepresented elsewhere? --Milo H Minderbinder 14:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's clear that there is a dispute, with multiple editors on either side of it. I also believe that each side regards the other side as being the "disruptive" ones. We obviously need assistance in figuring out how to communicate. But yes, I would like an injunction to stop the moves, as every time another page gets moved, it just increases the tension. It causes a sense of urgency, and a "circle the wagons" mentality. So I recommend that all moves (by either side), simply stop for now, until we resolve the dispute. --Elonka 18:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- As a gesture of good faith, I'll offer a proposal. For any series where you can find an actual discussion with a proper quorum which resulted in consensus for the pre-emptive disambiguation convention, I will agree that moving those episode articles would be considered controversial. At least controversial enough to warrant a WP:RM regardless of whether the move is blocked. By "proper quorum", I don't mean one guy like in the TMNT case. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- The Star Trek example hasn't been valid since CBurnett proposed the redirect compromise. CBurnett is the user who originally proposed the "always disambiguate" at WikiProject Star Trek for the purposes of linking and searching. Those purposes are solved with redirects as CBurnett suggested. Jay32183 19:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- How about instead, we follow normal Wikipedia procedure, which is that instead of having to prove that there's consensus to not move a page, that you first have to prove that there is consensus in order to move it in the first place? Go through the normal WP:RM process, instead of turning it around backwards. --Elonka 19:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- That seems like an appropriate idea, in fact most pages unilaterally moved were done out of process with no consensus to do such a thing, it seems appropriate for them to file a WP:RM for every page unilaterally moved. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think most feel those articles were inappropriately named in the first place so why would a WP:RM be needed? Those were fixing mistakes, not controversial moves. They should have been moved long before this discussion ever started. This is just an old wrong being righted. (Of course I can't prove it but) I'll bet neither of you would have even noticed if one person had written a bot five months ago and moved every single episode page that did not properly follow WP:D. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- If it wasn't controversial maybe.. however it is. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think most feel those articles were inappropriately named in the first place so why would a WP:RM be needed? Those were fixing mistakes, not controversial moves. They should have been moved long before this discussion ever started. This is just an old wrong being righted. (Of course I can't prove it but) I'll bet neither of you would have even noticed if one person had written a bot five months ago and moved every single episode page that did not properly follow WP:D. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- That seems like an appropriate idea, in fact most pages unilaterally moved were done out of process with no consensus to do such a thing, it seems appropriate for them to file a WP:RM for every page unilaterally moved. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- How about instead, we follow normal Wikipedia procedure, which is that instead of having to prove that there's consensus to not move a page, that you first have to prove that there is consensus in order to move it in the first place? Go through the normal WP:RM process, instead of turning it around backwards. --Elonka 19:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- The Star Trek example hasn't been valid since CBurnett proposed the redirect compromise. CBurnett is the user who originally proposed the "always disambiguate" at WikiProject Star Trek for the purposes of linking and searching. Those purposes are solved with redirects as CBurnett suggested. Jay32183 19:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- As a gesture of good faith, I'll offer a proposal. For any series where you can find an actual discussion with a proper quorum which resulted in consensus for the pre-emptive disambiguation convention, I will agree that moving those episode articles would be considered controversial. At least controversial enough to warrant a WP:RM regardless of whether the move is blocked. By "proper quorum", I don't mean one guy like in the TMNT case. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Would all parties agree to start mediation in the following procedure?: All sides make a statement and from there I offer a compromise. WikieZach| talk 21:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good, boss. Where do we start? We all make a separate section on this page like at WP:RFAR? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there a link somewhere on "how to write a statement"? If so, it would be helpful, since I think most people here have never done such a thing. I've informally heard that a good statement is "no more than 500 words, and with extensive diffs", but if there are more detailed instructions, please provide a pointer. --Elonka 23:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
