Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This Request for Mediation has been closed.

This case was closed at 30 April 2007
The reason given for closure was: Not all parties still agree to mediation.
Parties: If you wish to resume this mediation, please file a new request.

Contents

[edit] World War II

view edit delete watch
Filed: 21:15, March 5, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Involved parties

[edit] Articles involved

[edit] Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

[edit] Issues to be mediated

  • Should the individual countries making up the Axis Powers and Allies of World War II be listed in the Combatants section of the infobox, or should only links to the relevant articles be provided?
  • If countries are to be listed, which countries are appropriate to list for each side?
  • If countries are to be listed, should commanders for those countries also be listed?
  • If commanders are to be listed, which commanders are appropriate for each country?

[edit] Additional issues to be mediated

None listed. I'm not sure where, exactly, to put this, but I would like to suggest this mediation case be moved from the article World War II to Template:WW2infobox. Please see Template:World War II, as well as Template talk:World War II for an example of how I think infoboxes should be discussed (the way in which the whole wiki setup has implied to me). With all due respect, the original editor who used the template {{Infobox Military Conflict}} in the mainspace erred; {{Infobox Military Conflict}} should have been used on a new template, as I've done (that editor probably didn't know about templates and was just copy-and-pasting the whole syntax from another war article). If this isn't the wikiway, please enlighten me. Xaxafrad 18:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.
  1. Agree. —Krellis (Talk) 21:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Agree. —NEMT 21:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Agree. —Parsecboy 21:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Agree. Oberiko 23:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Agree. –Petercorless 23:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Agree. Grant | Talk 23:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Agree. --Flying tiger 14:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Agree. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Agree. — Badgerpatrol 16:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Agree. — Demerphq 21:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Agree. — Habap 22:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Agree. — W. B. Wilson 19:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Agree. - Wandalstouring 19:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Agree. -Blueshirts 18:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Agree. - Haber 23:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Agree. - Cla68 01:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Agree. - Xaxafrad 17:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-mediators should not edit this section.

A few notes:-
  • I've added Dorvaq (talk) to the list of parties, given he/she signed under the agreement header. An experienced user, I will trust Dorvaq to know whether he should be classified as a party to this request or not. If anyone has a comment to give on this set of actions regarding Dorvaq, please do so on the mediation case talk page.
  • Of the (at present) four two users who haven't signed to agree or disagree to formal mediation here (the annotation "+" in the party list indicates they have given their input, and helps us keep track in cases with large party lists like this):-
  • Haber and Blueshirts have edited Wikipedia since they recieved the user talk page notice around 21:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
  • W. B. Wilson and Wandalstouring have not edited Wikipedia since they recieved the user talk page notice around 21:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC). W. B. Wilson hasn't edited since March 3. Thanks to these two for noting your opinion on mediation. 09:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I encourage the four two users above, in particular the two who are active as I write this, to state whether they will agree or disagree to mediation.
  • I would like to note my interest in taking such a case to my fellow mediators.
Cheers, Daniel Bryant 05:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Accepted

For the Mediation Committee ^demon[omg plz] 16:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
As noted above, I'll take this. I'll begin setting up the mediation pages tomorrow evening (ACST). Daniel Bryant 07:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I've recieved an email from a party to this formal mediation, requesting that another mediator in place of I take this due to an issue regarding his/her editing which I was a "party" to prior to this mediation being filed. Given that mediation is a non-binding good-faith effort between all parties, I feel it is in the best interest of this dispute if I remove myself from this mediation and add it back to open tasks. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 07:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Ill take it. -Stevertigo 23:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
This mediation is closed as unsuccessful. For the Mediation Committee, Armed Blowfish (mail) 15:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)