Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-10 Chimera

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Clarifying positions

So it seems like the dispute primarily centers around which alternate meanings of the word chimera should be included. Here are the ones you've discussed so far; if there are any others, please tell me.

• Chimaera (geography)
• Chimera, the unit in WarHammer 40K
• Chimaeras, oil paintings by Lena Hades

Is this the entirety of the dispute? As for untactful edit summaries, all I have to say is, everyone, please try to be nicer. This mediation is not going to bother with how you editors may have treated each other in the past, only with the content dispute. In all current and future discussions please keep WP:CIVIL in mind. Thank you. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned; except that I would like the reversions of Chimaera (geography) to stop too. --Septentrionalis 22:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Alright, then I have a question for you and DreamGuy: why or why not do you think Chimaera (geography) should have its own page? --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 23:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It was originally in Chimera; it was only moved to Chimera (mythology) because DreamGuy insisted (correctly) that it was too long for a dab entry. It could have been a separate article then, but it would have been a stub.

Most facts researched for talk pages should go somewhere; and adding them makes it a little long for balance, in chimera (mythology) - and then there is the spelling difference. This is especially true since the natural-events or Euhemeristic explanation of mythology is much less accepted now than it was in antiquity, or 1870, for that matter; I doubt it myself. When this is over, the paragraph in the mythology can probably be trimmed, and {{see main}} added; although I like the bit about the tea in the geysers. Septentrionalis 23:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I will agree with the reasoning that the text is too long to belong on the disambiguation page as per standard disambiguation page styles. Is it someone's contention that Chimera (mythology) and Chimaera (geography) be merged? Also, is there any good reason why the two are spelled differently? --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 14:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  I do not understand what DreamGuy wants, or on what grounds; at one point he insisted that the geographical Chimaera was invented for Turkish tourism, which is inconsistent with the ancient and 19th century sources. As for the spelling:

  • The dab article and the mythological article are spelled Chimera on the ground (probably correct) that this is the most common spelling in English.
  • The geographical article is spelled Chimaera, because it deals with a Greco-Latin placename, so spelt.
  • Chimaera discusses the genus of fish. Chimaera is the Neo-Latin genus name, and the initial author likes it.

  I could live with a rearrangement, but each of these makes sense. Septentrionalis 17:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• So are you fine with the status quo? Unless DreamGuy cares to step in and say something, it doesn't appear that there's any other issue here. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• On the article names, yes. It's DreamGuy that's been trying to make Chimaera (geography) into a redirect. On the condition of Chimera, the dab page, I still want it changed. --Septentrionalis

• What's wrong with the dab page and what changes do you propose? --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 16:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I’m happy that this issue is being mediated.

I’m content that the geographical and mythological aspects of the chimaera become separate articles, though this seems over-complicated as they seem to be closely linked. It is certainly a fact that the place exists and is so named today (see any guidebook). Barring a coincidence so extreme as to be ludicrous it can only be that either the place was named after the mythical creature or the creature was named after the place (or they were both named after some third entity or idea).

I prefer the spelling with an ‘ae’ because this is more ‘correct’ in Graeco-Latin transcriptions, but if we are using the simple ‘e’ because it is the preference of the article’s first author, then so be it.

I would like to know if we can print an s-cedilla as the final character of the word ‘Yanartas’, the modern Turkish name of the place.

I apologise if I omitted my signature from one of my comments.

PS I was in Arezzo on 7th January and, blow me, what should I stumble into but a statue of the chimaera her- or itself, looking pretty lost I must say, in the central reservation of the road in front of the station. (This is a copy of the famous Etruscan one pictured in the ‘mythology’ article, which is in the archaeology museum in Florence.)

TobyJ 13:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• The thing is that Chimera is a disambiguation page (which is somewhat confusing), so other uses of the word chimera (i.e. geographical and mythological) have to be broken off into their own pages. If Chimera wasn't a disambiguation page they could probably live together on the same page. What we have right now, with geography and mythology being seaparate, is good enough.
• As for spelling - it's not worth time worrying over. Just turn the alternate spellings into redirects to whatever article name the main text is on.
• As for using the "s-cedilla" (I'm assuming that it's a character from another alphabet), it depends. If it's just in the article text, then by all means, go for it. If you're talking about putting it into the article title then it might not be such a good idea, as this is the English Wikipedia and the vast majority of users are going to have no clue that that specific spelling is the correct usage and won't know how to type in that character to even find the page.

It appears that we're nearing the very end of mediation so further comments will go on the main mediation page (this is the talk page). --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 21:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)