Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

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. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer 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: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Jessica Nabongo	New	Log6849129 (t)	3 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours
Neith	New	Potymkin (t)	3 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 14 hours	Potymkin (t)	15 hours
Existential risk studies	Closed	JoaquimCebuano (t)	1 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 17 hours
Ashfield Independents	Closed	NottsPolitics (t)	13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	7 hours
Existential risk studies	Closed	JoaquimCebuano (t)	13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 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 06:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Avi8tor on 15:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Peugeot 505 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Peugeot 5CV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Avi8tor (talk · contribs) Mr.choppers (talk · contribs) Dispute overview When it was founded, Wikipedia had many discussions in the early years to figure out what units to include or not include in articles, A compromise resulted in the USA and the UK having different primary units from the rest of the world, which seemed like a reasonable compromise. see Wikipedia:Measurements Debate. Editor Mr.choppers seems to think the MOS does not apply because a certain unit was used when a vehicle was initially sold, regardless of the wording in the Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Primary Unit. This problem goes back years, with Mr.choppers reverting every edit I make to do with which unit is primary. This time it stems from editing Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV, Mercedes-Benz Actros and numerous other vehicles going back years, I’d like a decision on what constitutes the primary unit. The next disagreement. The UK and the USA have received exemptions for strong national ties, which no other country has! But what is the criteria for “strong”, it seems to me that any ties to the USA or the UK are classed as strong national ties even if other editors say they may be weak or trivial. In the case of the Peugeot 505, it was exported to the USA and Australia so how do we get strong national ties to the USA? It is a French designed and manufactured car! The Manual of Style is apparently interpreted differently by different editors and needs clarifying. Is a strong national tie 50% or more than 50%? Who decides? Let’s take Tesla, whose cars are made in the USA, China and Germany, all units used in design and manufacture are SI units, so which country has strong ties and which units are primary? Well it is a Company headquartered in the USA, so that would give strong national ties. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Peugeot_505 Units of Measurement. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? The manual of style states three options: In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States and the UK. In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units. Can an editor pick and choose something else because of the ambiguity of the remaining wording regardless of the statement "will be SI units"? Summary of dispute by Mr.choppers Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The issue is that there are two kinds of horsepower, metric and non-metric. Most of the world (Europe, Japan, Latin America) uses metric hp, US and UK and some other english-speaking countries uses imperial hp, and a few countries like New Zealand, Asutralia, and South Africa have switched over to SI. There is no recognized standard for how to distinguish metric and non-metric hp (some use the German abbreviation PS for metric hp, but this is somewhat inappropriate for French or Italian cars, for instance). The definitions of these units are very similar, which often makes it hard to tell which unit is being used - sometimes you can tell from context. Non-english sources are almost certainly using metric hp. Here are the conversions, showing how close these units are: {{convert|100|hp-metric|kW|2}} 100 metric horsepower (73.55 kW) {{convert|100|bhp|kW|2}} 100 brake horsepower (74.57 kW) While many countries have officially switched to SI (kilowatts) over the last several decades, this process is by no means complete. Nearly all references, all magazines, all journals, and most manufacturers have held on to metric hp and it is still the primary unit in many situations and markets. I will be happy to provide links and examples if needed, but will limit myself to VW chairman Ferdinand Piëch laying down a target number of 1,001 metric horsepower (736 kW; 987 bhp) for the Bugatti Veyron in 2001. Metric hp is current, it is used industry wide, and I would argue that it remains the most commonly used unit worldwide outside of insurance companies and government offices. Don't get me wrong, though - I do not want metric hp to be the prime unit across Wikipedia. Kilowatts are the default lead unit for most cars of the last two-three decades, while imperial horsepower are still dominant in UK and US. What I recommend is that we always lead with the appropriate unit, instead of using a one-size-fits-all method. The appropriate unit is typically the one used in the car's home market when it was built, or the one used in the majority of reliable sources. It is rare that there is any conflict - the Peugeot 5CV, for instance, was built five decades before there was any thought to use kilowatts. Peugeot uses metric hp to describe it. The US-market Peugeot 505 is a bit less clear; for me, what matters is that the engines were heavily re-engineered for the US market, with federalized cars also receiving different sheet metal and a significant number of other technical changes. Again, all references for the US Peugeot 505 uses imperial hp to describe the car, from factory manuals to period articles to current writings about it. I am not entirely sure what Avi8tor wants to have changed, but describing a French car from the 1920s using kilowatts is anachronistic and in contradiction to MOS since it contradicts the units used in all reliable sources. There are always edge cases, like the US-market Peugeot 505, but those situations can and should be discussed. Avi8tor also has a problem getting metric v imperial hp mixed up with horsepower ratings systems like DIN vs SAE, gross versus net, and often drags in tax horsepower (which does not directly relate to power outputs) as well. Avi8tor has introduced factual errors, like here, where he carelessly changed the output from 110hp/81kW to 109hp/81kW. Minor to some, but still a factual error. Sorry about dragging you all into the bewildering world of horsepower...  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC) Mr.choppers is quick to blame me for something I did not do. As you can see from his reversion, the stated value prior to my convert template inclusion was hp & kW, He was happy with those the day before with a previous edit until I got involved, I chose kW as the primary unit. You didn't like what I'd done and changed the convert template to metric-hp and kW. Neglecting to follow the manual of style for a European Vehicle which would be kW & PS or metric horsepower, whatever you want to call it. The difference between the two units is about 1 horse. Avi8tor (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC) I just realized that Avi8tor cherry-picked from the MOS above, so here is the relevant text as it applies to older automobiles: In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units (such as kilograms), non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, etc.) I have shared this sentence with them on numerous occasions but it remains unacknowledged.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC) Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on the user talk page. A statement on the article talk page is not sufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC) Volunteer Note - The template that opens a case does not automatically notify the other editor. It appears that the filing editor reasonably thought that it did, but it doesn't do that. The filing editor must do that manually. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC) Now done Avi8tor (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by moderator (Peugeot) Are the editors interested in moderated discussion, subject to DRN Rule A? If so, I will ask each of the editors to start off by stating what they want to change in the article, or what they want to change that another editor wants to leave the same. I understand that one issue has to do with the units of power. Are there any other content issues? If you are citing the Manual of Style, please state exactly what section in the MOS you are citing, just so that we don't have confusion about what rulebook is being used. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC) The reference is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Units of measurement/Unit choice and order. Shortcut MOS:UNIT or MOS:UNITS about halfway down the page. This debate in a nutshell is how we interpret the MOS. I see "In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units", Mr.choppers sees "or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, etc.". Sources can be cherry picked depending on what country they are from. USA all imperial, Australia all SI. I live in France, the owners manual for my two cars give power in kW only, as do owners manuals in the UK. Mr Choppers live in the USA so he'd prefer NON SI units worldwide. I follow the MOS and place SI units primary for countries outside the USA and UK. The MOS needs to be fixed to remove the ambiguity. Less than 50% of Wikipedia users are from the US or UK, all those other countries use SI. Wikipedia is for an international audience. All owners manuals for cars in Europe (including the UK) have kW for Power. I can send a copy of that page. Avi8tor (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Peugeot) First statement by moderator (Peugeot) I will ask two questions that I have already asked, but that were not answered directly. First, do you agree to take part in moderated discussion, subject to DRN Rule A? Please read it (again, if you have already read it). Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. I will ask the questions, and you will address your answers to me and to the community. Be civil and concise. Participation in moderated discussion is voluntary, and it will not continue unless the editors agree to the rules. Second, please state briefly what you want to change in the article, and where, or what you want to leave the same that the other editor wants to change. If you want to change the units of measure of the power, specify all of the locations that you want to change. Do not, at this time, explain why, only what you want. We can discuss why later. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Peugeot) 1) Of course. 2) I want the units of power to reflect the units used in reliable sources on the topic. For the Peugeot 505, that is kW/metric-hp (I would prefer to lead with metric-hp but it doesn't really matter) for all markets outside of North America, for the federalized cars I believe it should be non-metric hp and kW. This was the existing state of the article until 31 May 2024.  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC) 1. Yes. 2. I think the manual of style needs to be more specific in that the primary unit outside the USA should be SI as stated in the MOS. Consistency of the displayed unit is important. The unit/s following can be non SI. This would include RPM, hands or whatever is used in that field. I believe this way every English speaker on the planet will understand the unit they are used to. Avi8tor (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (Peugeot) The Peugeot 505 article currently lists the power for all engines primarily in CV, which is metric horsepower, and also provides kW, and hp (imperial hp). The Peugeot 5CV article lists power primarily in hp, and also in kW. The SI unit of power is kW (kilowatts). (That is, the watt is the basic SI unit of power, and automobiles have power that can be measured in kilowatts.) I am asking that any editor who wants to list the power primarily either in CV or in hp should provide a reason. One editor referred to cars made for the US market, for which hp is the standard unit of power, but I see no mention in the article of any cars that were specifically made for the US market. So my question is what reason is there for using any measure other than kW as the primary measure. Are there any specific suggestions for how the MOS should be changed or clarified? Are there any other issues than the units of power? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Peugeot) I think the primary problem is some editors read the statement "or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic" as meaning if they can find a source with their preferred unit, this gives them free reign to use a source unit other than kW, which I believe is not the intent of the MOS. Equally some argue that SI was not in existence so we can use the original unit. If a way can be found to more forcefully state the intent of the MOS or equally remove the statement that appears to give free reign. The other item not yet addressed is the "strong national ties". I see no strong national ties of this Peugeot model with the USA as it was still made in France and also exported to Australia. Reading the MOS on strong national ties, strong national ties has more to do with language and spelling in different countries. Avi8tor (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC) Both the CV (this is one of many abbreviations in use; there is no recognized abbreviation for metric hp) in the 505 article and the "hp" in 5CV refer to metric horsepower. Leading with kW works for me for the 505 but is historically incorrect for the 5CV, which was designed and sold and only ever discussed in terms of metric horsepower. Using both horsepower units would have a silly result, since the difference is only 1.4 percent: {{cvt|11|hp-metric|kW hp}}: 11 hp (8.1 kW; 11 hp) Here are a few references for the 5CV; all use metric horsepower: [1], [2], [3], [4] (5CV cars in general, no mention of kW), [5], [6], [7], The MOS is fine as is; it reads In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units (such as kilograms), non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, etc.) (underlining mine). Reliable source discussions are exclusively metric hp for the 5CV, mainly metric hp but also kW for the 505 (excluding North America). Leading with kW for the 505 is fine, incorrect for the 5CV. I would still argue that the 505 is primarily a metric-hp design, which is why you see nice, even, marketable power outputs of 110, 130, 150, 160, and 180 hp (m). In the 1980s, European manufacturers typically released both DIN (metric horsepower) and EEC (kilowatt) ratings, see period technical description, pages 16 and 17. They lead with metric hp, FWIW. The section Peugeot 505#North America is limited to North American-market cars - federalized cars were significantly re-engineered, due to the completely different regulatory environment in the US, and there is almost no overlap in content between this section and the remainder of the article. All power and torque figures are different and are specific to US market models. There are currently seven cited works in this section; every one of them uses imperial hp exclusively. Unlike British or Australian market models, the US 505 was not merely an export model, this version has strong ties to the US. I am not saying that I get to cherrypick because I managed to locate a single reference which uses one unit or the other - when reliable sources, period or current, do not use kW at all, then it is anachronistic and misleading to lead with kW. Metric market cars built pre-SI should not lead with kW. Examples include Mercedes 15/70/100 PS, which is literally named after the metric-hp power output. In 1962 the power of the Mitsubishi Minica increased from 13 to 13 kW (17 to 18 hp; 17 to 18 PS) - this looks ridiculous if you lead with kW. The Fiat Uno 75 (and all Fiats of the era) is named for its output in metric hp. The VW Golf TDI 140 is named for its output in metric hp (as was the rest of the lineup). Avi8tor has already been debating this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Power_and_Torque_units, where other editors agree that leading with the appropriate unit as per references is the correct option. But while the rest of the world continues to use metric hp as well as kW (with kW dominant for newer cars) to describe cars, Avi8tor is trying to create a one-size rule which will not make anyone happy and, which while meeting a particular reading of the MOS, violates other WP rules. The MOS leans towards SI units (which I agree with) but it also includes a carveout for using the units used in reliable source discussions. This is as it should be, because Wikipedia's purpose is also to reflect the sources as per WP:V. As per WP:SOAP it is not for us to ignore the units used by the manufacturer and by reliable sources (period and current), in an effort to advocate for SI adoption.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (Peugeot) Is this disagreement only about which unit of power is mentioned first? Is there agreement that kW will be mentioned? If so, is it really that important which unit is mentioned first? When I said to read and follow DRN Rule A, I forgot to restate Rule A.1, "Be civil and concise", and in particular I didn't emphasize rule A.1.2, which says to be concise. I didn't ask for a 660-word explanation of why we should lead with CV. An editor writes: I am not saying that I get to cherrypick because I managed to locate a single reference which uses one unit or the other - when reliable sources, period or current, do not use kW at all, then it is anachronistic and misleading to lead with kW. Metric market cars built pre-SI should not lead with kW. When an editor says that they are not saying that they get to cherrypick, they usually mean that they are defending their cherrypicking. The Peugeot 5CV is pre-SI. The Peugeot 505 is not pre-SI. The Manual of Style provides for project-specific style guides, and the style guide that applies to automobile articles is: Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Power and torque. I will ask each editor to state concisely whether they agree that we should follow the conventions used by the WikiProject, or whether they think that the conventions should be changed, or whether they can provide a reason to deviate from the conventions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC) Are there any other content issues? Third statements by editors (Peugeot) I did not know of the existence of the WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions until you listed it. I had only the MOS to follow. It appears to be well written and covers what we have discussed, even if a little dated especially with the convert template where there is no need to have abbr=on or off, cvt does the former and convert the latter. But that can be fixed via the talk page. I think the Manual of Style WP:UNITS should be changed to read as follows (below) outside the United States and perhaps the United Kingdom (it appears that power in owner manuals in the UK lists power only in kilowatts) to avoid ambiguity (my suggested change in Bold). In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, secondary units can be non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, etc.) I'm making an assumption that strong national ties refers only to language ties as written in (MOS:TIES)? And would take the main corporate office location for manufacturing ties. Avi8tor (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC) I defended myself against cherry-picking because Avi8tor twice suggested I was doing so, that's all. I agree that we should follow the project guidelines - and the example table provided has "100 PS (74 kW; 99 hp)" included as accepted practice, which is also in line with WP:MOS. As per my first and second statements, leading with kW for the 505 is fine except for the US-market 505s, which are universally described in terms of imperial hp. If it is unacceptable to use two formats in one article, then I suppose every mention of power output will have to use all three units, however awkward. Leading with the unit used in reliable sources is common practice (as long as the unit is not obsolete). Note: if this discussion is going to affect the long-standing formatting of many thousands of articles, I believe there should be more people than the three of us involved.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator (Peugeot) I will repeat a question that I asked at the beginning of moderated discussion. Exactly what in the article does each editor want to change, or exactly what does each editor want to leave the same that the other editor wants to change? Also, am I correct that the only issue is what units of measure to use for engine power? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (Peugeot) I'm happy working with Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. Due to differing interpretations, I would like to see the Manual of Style: Unit Choice and order amended to the paragraph below. Changes in Bold. In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, secondary units can be non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, etc.) Avi8tor (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC) The Peugeot 505 article is fine the way it was antebellum and fine in its current state. There are plenty of good reasons for leading with kW for markets outside of the US and I remain amenable to that.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC) I believe the only issue is engine power, but I didn't start the DR. No one particularly cares about torque figures, which is why the SI unit (Nm) has fully displaced the pre-SI kgm almost universally.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderator (Peugeot) I am not sure that there is any remaining content disagreement between the editors. Are we in agreement that the article will specify kW as the primary units, except for vehicles made for the US market, and will list both hp (customary horsepower) and CV (metric horsepower) as secondary units? Are we in agreement that, for vehicles made for the US market, the article will specify hp (customary horsepower) as the primary units, and will list kW as secondary units. If so, we can close this dispute as resolved, and can then discuss whether to change the style guide appropriately. Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC) Thank you for your patience and in clarifying this issue, I'm happy to working with the WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions Avi8tor (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors (Peugeot) Yes, in agreement. Am I correct in interpreting your opinion as only relating to the 505, whereas the pre-SI 5CV will remain in metric hp with kW as a secondary? Thanks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC) My understanding is we use Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions, specifically for power and torque the section: Power and torque. Avi8tor (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Norse Deity pages

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Dots321 on 02:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Thor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Odin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Baldr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Sif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Horagalles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Dots321 (talk · contribs) Bloodofox (talk · contribs) VeryRarelyStable (talk · contribs) Yngvadottir (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The inclusion of infoboxes, I saw that the Norse deity pages didn't include them when pages from other mythologies did like Greek, Roman, Canaanite, etc. But Bloodofox is against said inclusion of the infoboxes despite their inclusion on said previous articles. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thor#June_2024 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Either the removal of the deity info box template and subsequent removal from any pages using them or the inclusion of infoboxes for all Norse deities Summary of dispute by Bloodofox Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Every so often, a user will come by and insist that we have infoboxes on these articles, demanding that since other articles have them, we must have them too. This always gets rejected as pointless (For example: 2008: "Infobox": Clear consensus against, 2011: "Infobox": Clear consensus against, 2017: "Infobox redux": Clear consensus against, etc.) This time the user insisting we use infoboxes has now so far been reverted by two editors: myself and @Yngvadottir: (who the user did not tag here). Our Norse myth-related articles have a long history of being not only some of the very best-sourced mythology related articles on the site, but the editors who built them consistently reject these as being unhelpful and misleading to the reader: gods are complex, with contradictory and/or source-dependent information surrounding them and no shortage of theories associated with them. Meanwhile, infoboxes treat them like some kind of car model or Marvel Comics character. They are at best redundant with the first few sentences or paragraph of these articles. Typical of these infobox demand flare ups, the user demanding we use infoboxes also insists that we bundle them with misinformation. Here the user has shown a poor understanding of the material they're editing about, insisting on misinformation Sif as "god of wheat", Baldr as "god of light", Odin as "god of wisdom, and so forth, like some kind of shoddy 19th century grade school text. As for invoking other (terrible) mythology-related articles as a defense for why we need infoboxes: Most of our myth and general folklore articles are unfortunately still awful and badly need to be rewritten from scratch but our Norse myth articles are fortunately in a much better state than most. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by VeryRarelyStable Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Although this discussion has been ongoing, a comment of mine on Talk:Thor (following edits by Dots321 on Thor) has become the kernel of the current dispute. Thor and the other Norse mythology articles have a long consensus, if consensus it be, of disdaining the use of infoboxes as suitable for (for example) cartoon characters or cars or other "simple" subjects where all the facts are known. My opening comment pointed out that this attitude mischaracterizes the usage and purpose of infoboxes. That point is being ignored on the talk page now, where it is once again being asserted that infoboxes are not suitable because this is not a simple subject where all the facts are known. I tried to make clear that my comment was about the usage of infoboxes generally, but the ongoing dispute has (understandably but frustratingly) returned to the most recent specific infobox added to the page. —VeryRarelyStable 03:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Norse Deity pages discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. I'm not sure whether I should post to this page, or whether if so, it should be here, but Dots321 has also not mentioned that their infobox addition at Thor was first reverted by still another editor, TylerBurden, on grounds of lack of sourcing. Dots321 is focusing only on Bloodofox, but both in the past and currently (at Talk:Thor—as I recall, there have been past discussions also at the talk pages for Odin and Loki), Bloodofox is merely one of the editors who have discussed infoboxes in relation to Norse mythology articles and determined that there is no compelling reason for consensus against them to change. (The last of Bloodofox's discussion links above is wrong: the 2020 "Infobox, redux" discussion is here.) Dots321 suggests a ruling that Norse mythology articles must use the infobox, or else that the infobox must not be used anywhere. That's clearly outside the scope of this noticeboard, and it's an extreme false dichotomy (or maybe simply begging the question of whether infoboxes should be used consistently in deity articles). Before responding in the ongoing discussion, I reviewed the past discussions and I see no indication that the issue has been dismissed or that editors arguing for infoboxes have been treated disrespecfully, in the past or now. Also, while Dots321 is not alone on the talk page at present in advocating an infobox, at this point Dots321 is edit-warring in the Thor article. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC) The idea that I'm currently edit warring is false and in fact stopped on my second round of reverts to open this dispute. I didn't bring up TylerBurden because the incident with them is irrelevant to this current discussion. Tyler burden assumed what i added was not on the articlse when in fact they were, I even went as far as finding and linking a source that was already present on the Sif page see [[8]]. I will also note to Bloodofox and potentially Yngvadotir that it is not allowed to comment on the contributor on this noticeboard but only their contributions. Bloodofox is very much allowed to comment on the quality of my contributions but the needless attacks against me like "Typical of these infobox demand flare ups, the user demanding we use infoboxes also insists that we bundle them with misinformation. Here the user has shown a poor understanding of the material they're editing about, insisting on misinformation Sif as "god of wheat", Baldr as "god of light", Odin as "god of wisdom, and so forth, like some kind of shoddy 19th century grade school text." are very much unwarranted and uncivil in discussion. Onto about my proposed resolution I am someone how likes things to be standardized which is why I implemented infoboxes in the first place. So the resolution I proposed was very much steeped in this philosophy. Even though I am aware that the first proposed resolution is out of the scope of this noticeboard I proposed it to at least start some discussion about the subject my bad on my end. I will now discuss why I think infoboxes are beneficial. Bloodofox and Yngvadottir dislikes the use of infoboxes as they claim that they are redundant and over simplify the subject. While i do agree that infoboxes simplify the subject as that is their purpose, I disagree that they are redundant. As although they can just implement information already said at the beginning of the article, they can also bring information from further down the article. Like if a god is the equivalent with another god from a different mythology, as those are generally further down an article. And thus only readers who read the whole article or those that would read the subsection would know about that subject. Thus if an infobox was implemented readers who aren't those types and would just read the summery would be informed on a subject they would otherwise not know of. Although infoboxes are simple if the reader is interested enough they will read the article for a more detailed summery. Dots321 (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC) If you don't know what you're talking about, expect to get called out on it. Don't try to insert misinformation in Wikipedia articles. Learn about a topic before you write about it. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Here you go again straight to uncivil discussion about the contributor. The misinformation I supposedly inserted into the article was that the gods were gods of something which you say they aren't I can go on about If a god is heavily associated with something that would mean they are the God of it. But this is all meaningless to the inclusion of infoboxes and purely semantics. You seem hellbent on trying to discredit me in a way filled with passive aggressive remarks that are very uncivil and do not have a place in civil discussion. Dots321 (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Luckily for our readers, when users such as yourself apply garbled misinformation to these articles, it's swiftly reverted. This included your desire to insert that Sif is "god of wheat" among several other typical infobox simplifications to the point of misinformation. You're not helping the project with that, you're harming it. If you detect that you have a poor handle on what you're discussing, ask on the talk page first. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC) I believe the consensus against infoboxes on Norse mythology pages is based on a misreading of the use and implication of infoboxes. If anything their purpose is the opposite of what is being asserted: to take a subject complex enough the article itself cannot be reduced to a simple list of facts, but sufficiently entangled with other subjects that a reader might need to quickly look up one fact about them without having to wade through a complex article, and present a bullet-point version of such facts as are known about the subject. I must also question Bloodofox's assertion above that "our Norse myth articles are fortunately in a much better state than most". The Norse myth articles are in a terrible state. They appear to be written solely for the benefit of readers who are already scholars, as they take familiarity with the intricate procedures involved in folklore scholarship as a prerequisite for reading the article. I don't believe this is the intention, but they are being curated by people who are familiar with scholarly procedure and have apparently forgotten that not everyone is. —VeryRarelyStable 03:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Most of our Norse myth-related articles are written to WP:GA standards by way of the tireless efforts of our editors—one of the few on the site that care about the quality of folklore-related articles—and are objectively heads and shoulders above all other mythology-related articles on the site. They are by and large written using the highest quality sources available. Just about every other group of myth-related articles on the site are poorly-referenced opinion pieces, often with terrible sourcing. From the sounds of it, this is a you problem: you might consider less time on talk pages and more time getting familiar with the basics before commenting. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC) From the sounds of it, this is a you problem: you might consider less time on talk pages and more time getting familiar with the basics before commenting This right here is very much unwarranted and goes against This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. Dots321 (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by volunteer (Norse mythology infoboxes) A preliminary discussion is in order to determine whether DRN will be useful in resolving this dispute. Please read DRN Rule D. Please read the first infobox ArbCom case and the second infobox ArbCom case. The discussion of whether to have infoboxes in articles is a contentious topic, and, by continuing in this discussion, you acknowledge that disruptive editing is subject to Arbitration Enforcement. The opening statement by the filing party displays an ignorance of Wikipedia policies concerning infoboxes and global and local consensus. The statement asks for: Either the removal of the deity info box template and subsequent removal from any pages using them or the inclusion of infoboxes for all Norse deities In other words, there is a demand to apply the same rule to Norse mythological deities as to Greek and other mythological deities. The use of infoboxes is governed by local consensus. If there is no local consensus, then the use of an infobox is based on an article-by-article choice. I have two questions for each editor at this time. (There may be more questions later.) First, are they willing to take part in moderated discussion, at least briefly, subject to DRN Rule D? Second, what does each editor think should be done with respect to infoboxes in Norse deity articles: 1. Strongly encourage infoboxes? 2. Permit infoboxes on an article-by-article basis, to be decided by article talk page discussion, or article talk page RFC? 3. Strongly discourage infoboxes? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Norse mythology infoboxes) As the Editor that opened this dispute I agree that Either the removal of the deity info box template and subsequent removal from any pages using them or the inclusion of infoboxes for all Norse deities isn't reasonable. It wasn't made out of ignorance as I know a sweeping change such as removing infoboxes from a whole subject can't be resolved on DRN which is about solving more local issues. But it was made to discuss the topic more, it isn't a good way to start discussion. And I will admit that this is a shortcoming of mine. Referring to the first question I would be willing to partake in moderated discussion. Now about the second question. As someone who very much likes things to be standardized. Another reason for my proposed resolution, even if I knew one of them was an unreasonable resolution for DRN, my bad on my part. I am in favor of 1.Strongly Encourage infoboxes and to a lesser extant 2.Permit infoboxes on an article-by-article basis, to be decided by article talk page discussion, or article talk page RFC or 3. Strongly discourage infoboxes if the majority of other mythology article were to sometime in the future remove their infoboxes, although this is a hypothetical scenario and not my view point right now. Dots321 (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)) For me the primary concern is the readability issue; I feel an infobox would go some way towards mitigating that. The article might be a turgid sea of jargon, but at least people visiting it seeking one reference to use in some other context would have somewhere to look without having to wade through it all. (Readability is the #1 criterion given for GA status, separate and prior to accuracy and the quantity or quality of sources. I don't believe the page would pass that test if it were to be reassessed.) I note that since 2008 the basis of the consensus against infoboxes has been that they "are suitable for things like statistics and disjoint facts about cities and countries"; that they "pigeonhole" things; that they "may be good for baseball cards" but not for subjects with cultural depth. What I would most like to see from this discussion is a statement, from a party with knowledge of broad Wikipedia practice but disinterested in the outcome of this particular discussion, as to whether this is, generally speaking, a fair site-wide characterization of the usage, purpose, and connotation of infoboxes. If it is, then the consensus has an outside authority to bolster future arguments. If not, then that consensus should be reconsidered. —VeryRarelyStable 03:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC) If we thought infoboxes would help or be appropriate to these articles, we'd have already added them. The only requests we see for them appear to be from users who would prefer complex deities from the historic record were discussed like car models, baseball players, or comic book characters: there is no 'canon' and every aspect of these figures is complicated, with descriptions and other data often varying by source, time, and place. It doesn't help that the users demanding infoboxes don't seem to have bothered with the basics on these topics. If they had, they'd know very well what a pointless discussion this is. Of the several editors have worked on these article over the years, most of them scholars in historical linguistics or folklore studies, the overwhelming consensus has 'infoboxes for these articles are pointless at best and promote misinformation at worst'. Hopefully we'll get specialists who know what they're talking about in other folklore areas of Wikipedia because right now Wikipedia badly suffers from poor coverage of these topics beyond northern Europe. Meanwhile, we've got a few editors here who contribute nothing to the article but seem to have a tireless appetite for demanding that we insert infoboxes on the article. Wikipedia has a lot of problems that need solving: attempting to get infoboxes on some of the site's best myth articles isn't resolving any issues but it is wasting our time. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC) It doesn't help that the users demanding infoboxes don't seem to have bothered with the basics on these topics. If they had, they'd know very well what a pointless discussion this is. Meanwhile, we've got a few editors here who contribute nothing to the article but seem to have a tireless appetite for demanding that we insert infoboxes on the article I've pointed out countless times that snide remarks against editors like these isn't allowed on DRN. But yet you still persist against me and even VeryRarlyStable. You didn't need to insert that "these editors don't know anything" multiple times but you did anyways. DRN is a place for civil discussion about the subject, not some internet forum, where if you discredit the other user in this passive aggressive way you win. Dots321 (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC) These "snide remarks", as you put them, are crucial for understanding what's happening here. In short, we have a couple of editors here with a very poor handle of the material demanding that we add infoboxes to some of Wikipedia's best myth articles. They want to treat complex figures from myth like they are cars models, comic book characters, or similar, while our leads already handle these matters perfectly well, employing nuance. These infoboxes are redundant and misleading and show a very poor understanding of the material they're supposed to reflect. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC) First statement by volunteer (Norse mythology infoboxes) Read DRN Rule D again. Please pay particular attention to sections D.4 and D.6. Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your answers to the community and the moderator (me). One editor wants to have the same practice with regard to infoboxes for Norse gods as for other mythological gods. Do they have a reason, other than the general principle of consistency, why they want to specify a standard practice across different mythologies and pantheons? I have looked at the documentation of WikiProject Mythology and have not found a style guide or similar standard, and in particular have not found a guideline about infoboxes. If any editor is aware of a guideline about infoboxes that is applicable to mythology, or specifically to Norse mythology, please identify it. If there is no project guideline (and I haven't found one), then a decision on infoboxes is made on an article basis. It appears that articles on Greek gods or Mesopotamian gods have infoboxes because the editors of those articles have chosen on an article-by-article basis to have infoboxes. It appears that any editor who wants infoboxes for Norse gods can either discuss them on an article-by-article basis, and possibly have RFCs on an article-by-article basis, or can work at the level of WikiProject Mythology. What does each editor want to do now, or think should be the next step? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Norse mythology infoboxes) Standardization is a part of my reason for the inclusion of infoboxes, but is not the sole reason. I feel like infoboxes can bring up information scattered around the article into an accessible summery, like equivalent gods. On Thor's page the section where it discusses Thor's connection with different gods from other mythologies, is quite far down thus less likely to be seen by readers who'd just read the summery, or skim the page. An infobox can take this information and make it accessible to these types of readers. Any other points I feel like can be better explained be VeryRarelyStable. Dots321 (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC) Accessibility is key. For deities that have largely ceased to be worshipped, the Norse gods have a relatively prominent position in present-day culture – close to par, I would say, with the Graeco-Roman gods. Consequently, like a scholarly article with many citations, they are being referenced on the peripheries of an increasing number of formerly unrelated areas of culture. Whether we like it or not, this means that people will increasingly be coming by to seek small snippets of information about them. We can ask them to drop what they're doing and read the whole article instead, but they're not going to. In many cases, they will have received some misinformation and be seeking to confirm whether it is true or not. If they can't find the information, some proportion of them are going to decide that the misinformation is true (since they can't find a clear statement to the contrary), and repeat it. If we care about misinformation we need to care about accessibility and readability. Which, as I have already said, is my main concern with regard to infoboxes. It would take me beyond the scope of this discussion to expand upon this point, but while experts in a given subject are obviously the most qualified people to judge the accuracy and reliability of articles on that subject, they are, by reason of their very expertise, the least qualified to judge the readability of such articles – because the technicalities and terminology are all familiar to them and they do not see how daunting, or baffling, they are to non-experts. Lay reader contributions are essential. So I would be less concerned about the absence of infoboxes if someone were to rewrite each Norse mythology article thoroughly, from the ground up, to the point where they lead non-expert readers gently from familiar concepts to unfamiliar, instead of throwing them into the scholarly deep end and letting them sink or swim. No factual point need be lost, but much of the terminology would have to be simplified. While we're waiting for someone to volunteer to do that, I suggest we use an infobox for accessibility in the meantime. As regards standardization, I think there's a case to be made for consistent usage of the {{Infobox deity}} template across the mythology and religion articles, which might need to be raised at the relevant WikiProject. It's not simply consistency for aesthetics' sake, but that consistency lends aid to coherency. Speaking for myself, I think I tend to subconsciously read the size of an infobox as a quick proxy measure of the importance and scholarly depth of its topic. I suspect I am not alone. (I mean, of course, the size of an article's infobox as compared to the infoboxes of comparable articles. I don't compare the infobox for Aphrodite to the infobox for Dunedin, but I do compare it to the infobox for Enki.) —VeryRarelyStable 12:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC) "Accessibility is key...We can ask them to...read the whole article instead, but they're not going to...we need to care about accessibility and readability." I'm sympathetic to encyclopedic articles being accessible to non-experts. Additionally, every element of an encyclopedic article should present concise information that is factually unassailable . An infobox is useful when it advances at least one of those two objectives without degrading either. Non-experts can and should be expected to do some work to engage with encyclopedic material. Nobody has to read an entire article to acquire desired information. Text search functions are available to everyone on every device and every browser. "...I suggest we use an infobox for accessibility in the meantime." There seems to be a difference in opinion regarding the practical consequences of inserting an infobox into Thor. The best course of action is to construct a prototype, present it on the Talk page, and find out if prototype iteration survives scrutiny. Take it to other interested Talk pages if it is met with intransigence. Chino-Catane (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC) Second statement by volunteer (Norse mythology infoboxes) Two editors have made statements that support the inclusion of infoboxes for Norse deities. The editors who oppose infoboxes have not made statements. However, it is clear that the editors who want infoboxes can take either of two approaches. The first is the article-by-article approach. They can develop infoboxes, one at a time, for Norse deity articles, and insert them into the articles. The editors who oppose the infoboxes will revert their addition, at which point the proponents can submit RFCs on whether to include the infobox. The infobox should be developed before the RFC is submitted, so that the community will know what they are voting for or against. The second approach is the subject-wide approach. The editors who support infoboxes can discuss at WikiProject Mythology, and can develop and implement a style guide that provides that infoboxes should be used for articles on deities. Alternatively, a style guide can be developed that provides that infoboxes should not be used for articles on deities. Please let me know which approach will be taken by infobox proponents. Are there any other questions or comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Norse mythology infoboxes) First, there is a consensus that infoboxes are at best useless and at worst bearers of misinformation for this topic. Consensus has always been squarely against infoboxes on these articles, as demonstrated quite clearly above. Given the lack of consensus for infoboxes (are we really debating this?), none of us who are opposed to this should be dragged further into this discussion. Keep in mind that we're dealing here with a duo of editors who are insisting we add phrases like "god of wheat" to our Sif article and "god of wisdom" to our Odin article, displaying not only ignorance of the topic but a lack of concern for nuance or sourcing. Edits like that are routinely reverted on sight to avoid article quality decay. Second, there's zero reason to apply infoboxes to these articles. These are not car models, comic book characters, or train types we're discussing here but complex figures from myth. A core group of motifs remains consistent among them but there are many unknowns and some material about them varies by source, and those sources come with their own complex considerations. The data we have can on deities can change over time as for example deities develop into different roles or in difference spaces (a matter our Classical myth articles are for example painfully bad about communicating to our readers). Frankly, none of our myth or folklore articles should have infoboxes: they're totally pointless for them. To be correct, the lead must cover the material with the nuance and variation required of the topic. Third, the few editors who demand here that we add these infoboxes have demonstrated a very poor understanding of the material they're discussing. They haven't taken the time to become familiar enough with the topic to discuss it, much less demand that we treat it in any specific way. Suggesting that there's a need for infoboxes on all folklore articles appears to be a suggestion made out of 'I've been reverted!' spite to push back on the rest of us, a problem not unique to Wikipedia but all too present in the project. Obviously, there is not and should not be any requirement for infoboxes on our articles, and edits and comments from these editors have demonstrated that they are not in a position of familiarity with these topics to even imply as much. It's petty and unhelpful. Look, this discussion is not constructive. Wikipedia has many problems that need assistance resolving and a lack of infoboxes is not one of them. We need more hands to help with improvement on our folklore coverage beyond northern Europe, not time wastes like this. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC) Well, I think it's pretty clear what the outcome would be of an RFC. A consensus is not a consensus if it defines its community to exclude all those who dissent. I see infoboxes yet again being dismissed as suitable for "car models, comic book characters, or train types" as if it were already agreed that that is all infoboxes are good for. This is an example of the logical fallacy known as begging the question. My initial comment on Talk:Thor was made simply and solely to raise that question. I do not agree that infoboxes imply that a subject is simple and cut-and-dried, and no argument has been advanced to support the claim that they imply any such thing; that claim has now been asserted without support, by my count, six times in this discussion alone. That being the case, I support seeking standardization with guidance from WikiProject Mythology. I have said what I have to say about readability; I do not feel my concerns have been addressed, but my repeating what I have already said will add nothing to it. —VeryRarelyStable 08:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC) I agree with VeryRarelyStable and support seeking guidance from RFC or WikiProject Mythology. Although a bit unrelated to the sole inclusion of infoboxes I would like to raise the question what does it mean to be the god of something. If a deity is associated with something, doesn't that mean that deity is the god of it? But this question is best continued elsewhere like WikiProject Mythology. Dots321 (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC) I've been following the back-and-forth at the Thor article and Bloodofox is right. This ill-begotten quest is an unproductive time sink and a waste of energies that should be devoted to improving the article rather than dumbing it down with the gross oversimplification of a worse than useless infobox that harms the article's integrity. Carlstak (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (Norse mythology infoboxes) I don't think that compromise is likely. Some editors are strongly opposed to infoboxes, and some editors are strongly in favor of them. The status quo is that articles on Norse gods do not have infoboxes, and articles on gods in other mythologies have infoboxes. As I have noted before, the proponents of infoboxes can work in either or both of two ways. The first is that they can develop infoboxes on an article-by-article basis and submit RFCs for the community to decide whether to add the infoboxes. The second is that they can discuss at WikiProject Mythology, and can develop and implement a style guide that provides that infoboxes should be used for articles on deities. Alternatively, a style guide can be developed that provides that infoboxes should not be used for articles on deities. If there are no other questions or comments, I will close this thread as being discussed on article talk pages and at a WikiProject. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Norse mythology infoboxes) I support both options of requesting RFC or seeking help at Wikiproject Mythology. I feel like the infoboxes I developed for the pages were sufficient enough, even with the supposed "misinformation" that was calling the deities a god of something. Although I am biased about my contributions. Dots321 (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC) As I say, it's pretty clear from this conversation what the outcome of an RfC would be; if the opposing party don't so much as notice that we have raised points not covered by the stock responses they've been using for years, we can't hound them for answers. That being the case, WikiProject Mythology would be the next step. Some time in the next week, when I get time, I will formulate a proposal for standardizing the {{Infobox deity}} template. Something gives me the feeling, however, that any outcome except "delete the template altogether" will be disregarded at the Norse mythology pages. If that is the outcome, or if not, when the standardized infoboxes are removed from the Norse pages anyway, I guess it will fall to me (as the one who has noticed the problem) to undergo the more time-consuming task of rewriting the Norse pages from the beginning to the point that they can be read by non-experts. This concludes what I have to say on the matter. —VeryRarelyStable 04:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of South Korean girl groups

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 98Tigerius on 07:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute List of South Korean girl groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved 98Tigerius (talk · contribs) Hotwiki (talk · contribs) Ravinglogician (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A disagreement about why putting an end year to some active group just because they don't have group activity this year. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:List of South Korean girl groups#Year active How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? To have a consensus whether to put an end year or put "present" instead to those active groups. Summary of dispute by Hotwiki Some editors in that talk page are arguing why the present year for the girl group - Blackpink isn't included. That girl group has ZERO group activity in 2024. When I asked those two editors to give a 2024 activity for the group, that would warrant being labeled as an active group in the present year, they couldn't give any. Its purely misinformation, to change it to "2016–present", when the girl group hasn't been active in the year 2024 yet.Hotwiki (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Ravinglogician One type of information that this page provides for the listed groups is their period of activity, usually of the form “‹start year›–‹end year›” or “‹start year›–present”. Typically the former indicates that that the group officially announced its disbandment or some kind of extended hiatus, while the latter indicates the absence of such an event, i.e. the group is still active. Recently however a few of us noticed that one editor has unilaterally declared a different standard to ascertain active status, namely “has the group performed a group activity in the calendar year in question”. I think this is problematic for a number of reasons: The editor in question claims that they check the group's social media accounts, search for articles about them etc, thus determining that no such activity has occurred. This is effectively Original Research, instead of relying on a reputable outside source making the claim that the group is not active. The main pages of these groups still list them as “‹start year›–present”. I believe having such inconsistencies between pages is undesirable, and the way to resolve them is by deferring to the subject matter experts, i.e. the editors maintaining a group's main page. This standard is unlikely to be applied consistently even within the page itself, due to the laborious and inherently unreliable nature of determining it. Finally I believe this editor's standard of activity defies most people's expectations, as evidenced by multiple editors disagreeing with them on the talk page; by the editors of the groups' main pages obviously using a different standard; and by frequent attempts to modify the page to the commonly accepted idea of a group being active, that the editor in question then reverts. This dispute has mainly revolved around Blackpink, with Mamamoo and Girls' Generation also having been brought up. Ravinglogician (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC) List of South Korean girl groups discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Zeroth statement by volunteer (Korean groups) I am ready to assist in resolving this dispute, and in particular to determine whether moderated discussion may be in order. Please read DRN Rule A. Be civil and concise. When I ask questions, you should address your answers to the moderator (me) on behalf of the community, not to each other. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. It appears that the content issue is when and whether an end date should be listed for groups. So I have four questions. First, do the editors want moderated discussion in accordance with DRN Rule A? Second, are there any other article content issues besides whether and when a group should have an end date listed? Third, should the article begin with a rule stating whether and when a group should have an end date listed? Fourth, if so, what should the rule state? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Korean groups) First, I'm fine with a moderated discussion. Personally speaking, I think I've been civil regarding this topic. Second, I don't think the article has any other issues that need to be addressed, based from the talk page of the article. Third/fourth, I think there should be a rule in that article. A girl group should only include "present" in the "years active" column, when a girl group already had activity in the present year (2024) - the activity could be a public appearance as a group or a new music release with the girl group doing promotional activities for the release. Girl groups like Twice and Red Velvet have done those in this present year (2024). It cannot be said yet (from January 1, 2024 to July 3, 2024) to girl groups like Mamamoo, Blackpink and Girls' Generation.Hotwiki (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC) First, I agree with a moderated discussion. Second, no other aspect of the article needs dispute resolution at the moment. Third, I think there should be a rule governing this; no strong opinions about whether the rule should be stated in the article itself. Fourth, I would be happy with either of the following two rules: The group's period of activity in this page should mirror the group's main page. The group should only have an end date if the group's main page contains a reference to a reliable source regarding the group's disbandment or otherwise temporary or permanent halt to the group's activities. (I.e. no need to weigh down this page with such references, as long as the main pages of the groups have them.) Otherwise the group should be listed as “…–present”. Adopting either of these rules would result in all of Blackpink, Mamamoo and Girls' Generation to be listed as “…–present”, based on the contents of their respective main pages as I'm typing this. Ravinglogician (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC) First, I'm all for a moderate discussion. Second, none only this content issue. Third, yes there should be a rule regarding the end date of any group. Fourth, a reliable source must be present about the group's inactivity/hiatus on their main page to mirror in the list article otherwise indicating it is pure original research. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 10:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC) First statement by volunteer (Korean groups) If I say to be civil and concise, I do not mean that anyone has not been civil. Reminders that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia are sometimes routine reminders. It appears that there are two different ideas as to what the rule should be about end dates. Some editors say that an end date should be listed if a reliable source says that the group disbanded or has a hiatus. Others say that only years in which group activity has been reported by reliable sources should be listed. I will comment that applying such a rule to the present year, especially in the early months of the year, could falsely cause groups to appear to have disbanded or been on hiatus. Is there a third idea for the rule about end dates, or should we choose between those two rules? I am asking each editor to specify what rule they support, the first rule, the second rule, or a third rule. We can then either reach consensus, or request community input via an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Korean groups) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Benevolent dictatorship

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Banedon on 03:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Benevolent dictatorship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Banedon (talk · contribs)
• LokiTheLiar (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Me and LokiTheLiar (and some other editors, but mostly the two of us) have been engaged in a long-running dispute about whether to include examples in the page. We've gone through RfCs and pings to WP:Politics, but never got anywhere; in fact the latest dispute suggests we even interpret the close reason for the previous RfC differently.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[9]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I don't believe more discussion between me and LokiTheLiar will lead anywhere; we simply disagree on a fundamental level and there's no prospect that will change. Any further discussion will just be rehashing old arguments.

Weighing in on how to interpret the close reason would be a good start.

Summary of dispute by LokiTheLiar

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I interpret the close of the RFC a year ago to mean that dictators that are foundational to the concept of a benevolent dictator, like Cincinnatus, should be included with attribution, and that no other examples should be added even with attribution. I also think that this is a correct editorial decision as someone who started and participated in that RFC. Note that I wouldn't necessarily mind brief mentions of specific people, but I definitely think that organizing the page as a series of examples is very bad. Loki (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Benevolent dictatorship discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

PS: Courtesy ping to Tayi Arajakate as the closer of the RfC (although as far as I can tell, they are inactive). Banedon (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Benevolent dictatorship)

I am willing to try to work on this dispute to see how to try to resolve this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A, which will apply to our preliminary discussion. Be civil and concise. I see that there was an RFC about one-and-one-half years ago, and that the RFC did not resolve the disagreement, and now there appears to be disagreement about how to interpret the close of the RFC. Since the RFC was more than a year ago, and had disagreement at the time, a new RFC is probably a better idea than moderated discussion aimed at interpreting the RFC. So I have a few questions. Address your answers to my questions to the community and the moderator, not to each other. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion of the answers. First, do the editors agree to accept DRN Rule A? Second, are there any other content disagreements besides whether to provide examples? Third, does any editor have any objection to another RFC? We will probably have another RFC anyway. It will probably be preceded by discussion to define how to word the RFC, such as the inclusion or non-inclusion of specific examples. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Benevolent dictatorship)

1) Sure, DRN Rule A looks reasonable. 2) There're no other content disputes that I'm aware of (LokiTheLiar might have a different interpretation). 3) Sure, we can have another RfC - but how will you do it different such that it can resolve the dispute? Banedon (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer (Benevolent dictatorship)

One editor has asked a question. The other editor has not yet made a statement, and is still invited to make a statement. One editor asks: Sure, we can have another RfC - but how will you do it different such that it can resolve the dispute? The first problem with the previous RFC is that some editors thought that the close was wrong, and disagreed with the RFC They ignored or disregarded the RFC rather than challenging the RFC close at WP:AN. This meant that the RFC was an empty exercise. If the result of the second RFC is in any way contentious, it should be reviewed in WP:AN, rather than ignored. Then, after any challenge of the RFC at WP:AN to the community, editors who edit against consensus persistently should be partially blocked.

Unless there is a reason why there should not be a second RFC, a draft of the second RFC will be prepared,. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer (Benevolent dictatorship)

I have created a draft RFC at Talk:Benevolent dictatorship/Draft RFC. Please review it and comment on it. If there are no significant comments, I will move it into the article talk page in 24 to 48 hours and activate it. Are there any other comments or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Benevolent dictatorship)

I don't object to the wording, but since it's effectively the same RfC as the first one how is it going to resolve the dispute? We can predict that it'll result in a 50% include and 50% do-not-include result, which still leaves things unresolved. Banedon (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Third statement by volunteer (Benevolent dictatorship)

Do you have a different suggestion? Do you think that a revised wording is more likely to work better?

In particular, should examples be provided in the RFC?

If there are constructive suggestions for how to improve the RFC, we will continue to work on the RFC. Otherwise I will activate the draft RFC.

Are there any other comments or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Benevolent dictatorship)

I'm okay with another RFC but I sort of share Banedon's concerns about this RFC not actually resolving the issue. I do think it's better to try it than not though. Loki (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Considering the arguments for inclusion and non-inclusion are multi-faceted, it might make more sense to link the diff directly (this one) and ask if the removal is appropriate. Respondents can then say yes, the material should be removed and no similar material added, or no, the material is good/can be salvaged, etc. Banedon (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'd personally prefer the RFC as-worded. I don't think "Here's a diff that removed most of the content on the page, is it good?" is better than "Should we have examples of specific benevolent dictators?" Loki (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  How would that lead to a different result compared to the RfC a year ago? Banedon (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  It probably wouldn't, but I'm fine with that, since my goal from the beginning is to implement the result of the RFC. I don't feel any pressing need to change the consensus. Loki (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  And that I would strongly disagree with, since I think you misread the close reason. Banedon (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm pretty confident I didn't misread the close reason, as the person who started that RFC in the first place. But if nothing else, a new RFC will have a new close reason that will presumably be harder to misinterpret. Loki (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I missed Robert's question about examples in the RFC, and I do think some specific examples might help, since there was a difference of opinion last time about examples crucial to the concept (like Cincinnatus) and just random dictators who have at some time been called benevolent by someone. I also think that, because of the way the RFC was closed last time, we should at minimum include the status quo of the previous RFC (namely, "only if crucial to the concept AND with attribution"), in addition to "yes" and "no". But I wouldn't object to more options than this. Finally, I think that it might be relevant how examples are mentioned. I can say for myself that I feel the example section in the article previously was big WP:NPOV problem: giving Castro or Tito a whole section in benevolent dictators implies very strongly that they are benevolent in Wikivoice. However, I have much less problem with inline mentions with attribution: Source X calls Fidel Castro a "benevolent dictator", while sources Y and Z disagree. Loki (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Fourth statement by volunteer (Benevolent dictatorship)

Each editor is asked to propose improvements to the RFC. I am not planning to publish the RFC in the form of asking about deleting anything. So if you think that there should be examples, propose specific examples (and be aware that the examples may be controversial). If you think that the question should give a choice other than Yes and No, state it. I intend to put the RFC in the form that I think is most likely to resolve the issue.

Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion.

Are there any other comments or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Benevolent dictatorship)

My preferred RFC question:

Question 1: Should this article include examples of benevolent dictators at all?

Option Y: Yes.

Option A: Only with attribution.

Option N: No.

Question 2: If Options Y or A, which of the following examples that were included in a previous version of this article should be included?

1. Cincinnatus, the legendary dictator of the ancient Roman Republic.
2. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder of the modern Turkish state.
3. Josip Broz Tito, head of communist Yugoslavia from 1953 to 1980.
4. Lee Kwan Yew, influential leader of Singapore.
5. France-Albert René, dictator of the Seychelles from 1977 to 2004.
6. Thomas Sankara, dictator of Burkina Faso from 1983 to 1987.

Question 3: If Options Y or A, should the examples be each in their own separate sections (as per the status quo) or only inline?

Option S: Separate sections.

Option I: Inline.

Loki (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• I'd rather give specific diffs illustrating the differences.

Question: Should this article contain examples or not?

Banedon (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Fifth statement by volunteer (Benevolent dictatorship)

Exactly what is meant by "Only with attribution"? Does that mean in the form that "A considers B to have been a benevolent dictator of country C?" I infer that is what is meant, but want to be sure.

I have revised the draft RFC to include the With Attribution option and to provide proposed examples.

Are there any other comments or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (Benevolent dictatorship)

That is what I meant by "With Attribution", yes. But I'd also like to say I don't really like the separate Possible Examples section, and that I'm fine with Banedon's two diffs version.

The point of the different sections was to settle all the various subquestions that were brought up by participants in the last RFC. (Back then it was clear that many editors had opinions that were not "yes" or "no", especially around with/without attribution and whether Cincinnatus in particular was different from other examples.) While I'd prefer to vote on them directly, I think that if they're just going to be hanging around, Banedon's version with the two diffs is a better way to do that than just listing them. Loki (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Again I'd rather give example diffs, because the version right now promotes responses like "___ shouldn't be listed, because ...", which are not helpful with resolving the core issue. After resolving that, if the result is "yes", then one can argue whether ___ should be listed. Banedon (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Taylor Swift

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Gsgdd on 09:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Taylor Swift (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Gsgdd (talk · contribs) Ippantekina (talk · contribs) FrB.TG (talk · contribs) Krimuk2.0 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview i think intro is written in fan point of view. i tried to change it. involved editors repeatedly revert my edits. i tried to place tag POV lead - so that i can get opinion from uninvolved users - but that was also reverted too. I already have several editors agreeing to the issue, even supporting placing the tag. What is the best option to get consensus. Can this tag be placed? How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taylor_Swift See last topic How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please place POV lead tag - so that uninvolved wiki editors can review and contribute to fix the issue Talk:Taylor Swift discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. The filing editor is required to notify the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Notified @Robert McClenon Gsgdd (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Are you serious right now? There’s literally an ongoing civilized discussion on how to improve the lead and all you care about is sticking that godawful tag in a featured article, one that is supposed to represent the best of Wikipedia. Also, you need to stop with this aggressive approach. First you got involved in edit-warring with multiple editors and repeatedly accused other editors of being biased when you should be commenting on the content and not on the editors. Maybe constructively engage in the talk page discussion instead of obsessing over a tag. FrB.TG (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC) @FrB.TG I wanted to express my concern about your revert to people’s edits based on arbitrary rules, such as prohibiting “ugly tags” on featured articles. I initiated a discussion on Talk page before making any edits and waited two days ( no one replied) before proceeding. However, my edit was reverted with the explanation that consensus needed to be reached. When I then placed a tag, it was reverted again for being “ugly.” The only person opposing the topic is a Swiftie User:Ippantekina who primarily edits Taylor Swift pages. Like i said - placing tags gets attention of uninvolved editors - help improve the article. I dont think there is a rule - it cannot be placed on feature article. Please respect others’ time and feedback. Reverting should not be used as a tool to discourage and punish editors from making improvements to articles without any valid reason. Gsgdd (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC) @FrB.TG And if you are accusing me that i only care about placing that tag - its so incorrect. I tried to fix issues. But was reverted aggressively by involved editors. And you did not have any opinion on the matter ( ie its fan point of view or not ) All you care about is not placing any such tags and reverting edit's preventing improvements. Look at your actions first. Gsgdd (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC) That tag may no longer be needed. We now have lot of editors making comments. But at that time only person objecting was User:Ippantekina. You were just reverting without participating in Talk and you wrote the intro. So maybe you did not want it to be changed. Its was so easy for you to revert - but maybe adhere to wiki standards first and please stop playing wiki god. Gsgdd (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kylie Minogue

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by PHShanghai on 19:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Kylie Minogue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved PHShanghai (talk · contribs) Hotwiki (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Whenever I try to edit this article to fix wordy hard-to-read text or to re-add missing information, it always gets reverted with comments like "not needed" and "stop trying to change it." I try to take it to the talk page to reach a compromise, but it always reaches an impasse because all arguments essentially whittle down to "Keep it as it is." and "It is not an improvement in my opinion." It also doesn't help that whenever I reply, I get like 5 more replies saying that even things such as basic grammatical copy/editing are "not improvements" and "too drastic changes". How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kylie_Minogue#Tension_critical_acclaim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kylie_Minogue#Contemporary_sources_for_%22Princess_of_Pop%22 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I do want to reach compromise and be more constructive and eventually work on more of the article, but the filibustering is whittling me down. I would like a third or fourth opinion on the whole situation. Summary of dispute by Hotwiki @PHShanghai: has a pattern/habit of everytime they come across the article of Kylie Minogue, they would drastically change the lead section of the article, to the point they've been called out for misformation several times.[10] They claimed that Minogue's first four albums were teen pop albums which were false.[11] When I brought it up, in the talk page, they admitted that they haven't listened to those albums in a long time. They claimed other singles from Minogue's albums Fever had the same chart success as "Can't Get You Out of My Head" which was false, since the other singles didn't enter the top 20 of Billboard Hot 100 and weren't number-one singles in Australia and the Uk.[12] They claimed that certain singles "Dancing", "Say Something" and "Magic" were critically acclaimed yet those singles didn't win any awards.[13] At one point, they claimed that the singles "Say Something" and "Magic" made a significant noise, yet those singles failed to chart in the top 40. The editor also made a RFC request in the talkpage - their proposal to the lead section, and no one really agreed to their proposal.[14] They also had an issue with the infobox picture, to the point they've changed it to two different files.[15] The 2nd file, when someone cropped their uploaded file [16], they wouldn't let that cropped version remain in the infobox [17] The changes they've made in July 2024, a grammatically change wasn't needed and it wasn't an issue to begin with.[18] They were the only one who is activitely trying to alter this sentence "She has been recognised for reinventing herself in music as well as fashion, and is referred to by the European press as the "Princess of Pop" and a style icon." The issue with PHShanghai, goes beyond grammatically change. Every once in a while, they would alter the lead paragraph specifically. There were several times, they made it more wordy when the lead section should be brief. A lot of their changes in the lead section aren't really needed "in my opinion" and they had a history of posting misinformation in the article. Other issues are already discussed in the talk page/talk page archive, and there are more issues there that were brought up, regarding PHShanghai's lead section contributions.Hotwiki (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC) Kylie Minogue discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Zeroth statement by moderator (Kylie Minogue) I am ready to act as moderator if the editors here want moderated discussion as the way to resolve any content disputes. Please read and agree to DRN Rule A. I will restate a few points in the rules. First, be civil and concise, which means to be concise. Overly long posts may help the poster feel better, but do not always clarify the issues. Second, comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. Those two statements say the same thing, which needs repeating. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So I will ask a two-part question. First, does each editor agree to DRN Rule A? Second, what specifically do you want to change that the other editor wants to leave the same, or what do you want to leave the same that the other editor wants to change? Do not give general answers. Be specific at DRN. We need to know what we are discussing. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Kylie Minogue) I have read and agree to DRN Rule A. I am only here regarding my concerns about the quality of the prose of this article, which given that it is a featured article that was last reviewed in 2009, may need a WP:FAR to reevaluate the article quality. I want to maintain the article's FA quality (with regards to references and text quality, once again) but given the constant stonewalling, it has been admittedly hard to do so. Specifically, I would like to make the article more concise by whittling down the lead paragraph's word count from 450 words to 400~ words, and clean up the article body to be under 6,000~ words (right now, the word count is currently at 6,700 words.) There's information there that can be moved to other sections (regarding Minogue's businesses outside of music), in addition, every article section all have 5 paragraphs each; I'm confident it can be consolidated to a more MOS-friendly 3-4 paragraphs. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC) First statement by moderator (Kylie Minogue) The filing editor has replied with a general statement. The other editor made an introductory statement but has not replied to my request for a more specific statement. Since neither editor has been specific at DRN, I will wait about 48 hours to see if the editors provide enough detail about how they want to improve the article for further discussion to be useful. If one editor wants to trim the lede section, they can develop a draft lede section in a sandbox and replace the current lede with the draft version. If that is reverted, the community can be asked to choose between the two lede sections with an RFC. The same approach can be followed for any section of the article. The other editor is encouraged to comment and discuss, but otherwise we can follow the sequence of Bold - Revert - No Discuss - RFC. I will wait for about 48 hours to see if there are any specific suggestions, or if the sequence of BRNDR is in order. Are there any other questions or comments at this time? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Kylie Minogue) No other questions, my zeroeth statement outlined all of the issues I currently have with the article. Thank you. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

African diaspora

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Kyogul on 01:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute African diaspora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Kyogul (talk · contribs) Xuxo (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I noticed other countries' populations included multiracial figures and so I included it for Brazil as I'm most familiar with sources for it and gave almost five sources, many being genetic studies showcasing Pardo/multiracial Brazilians across the entire country having significant African ancestry and made notes distinguishing the amount between people who identify as preto/black vs. pardo/mixed. @Xuxo has a problem with this and has made claims such as not all pardos have African ancestry despite multiple (genetic) studies I linked showcasing otherwise. He says stick to the census, and I then provide him an article that talks about "African-Brazilians being the majority" in which the IBGE (Brazilian census) comments on the trend. He then proceeds to say the source is afro-centric and dismiss it when it's from The Guardian, a reputable international source. He continues to make claims and misrepresent my sources and when pressed for sources, he is extremely obstinate and either refuses to give any or refuses to give any relevant ones. He also does not understand what the term afrodescendant means as he thinks it's a synonym for black person. I explained multiple times already that afrodescendant does not mean someone has to be predominately African. He also has a history of white-washing other Latin American pages and has been warned about it. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have proposed to only include people who identify as black for all countries, not just Brazil. I have said this to Xuxo multiple times and he has refused it and just wants to whitewash Brazil's population. He also has a history of doing this on other Latin American pages [19] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Hopefully talk some sense into him because I've explained it very simply and he refuses to listen Summary of dispute by Xuxo Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. African diaspora discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.