Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
 |
|
| 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 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.
| ||||||||||||
| Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
| Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov | Closed | Trumpetrep (t) | 14 days, 15 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 hours |
| Breyers | New | Zefr (t) | 8 days, 14 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 days, 8 hours | Axad12 (t) | 1 days, 1 hours |
| Dragon Age: The Veilguard | New | Sariel Xilo (t) | 6 days, 9 hours | None | n/a | Wikibenboy94 (t) | 5 days, 10 hours |
| AIM-174B | Closed | MWFwiki (t) | 5 days, 4 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 4 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 4 hours |
| List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru | New | HundenvonPenang (t) | 1 days, 21 hours | None | n/a | HundenvonPenang (t) | 1 days, 21 hours |
| Ustad Ahmad_Lahori | New | Goshua55 (t) | 15 hours | None | n/a | Drmies (t) | 10 hours |
| Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects | New | Rusted AutoParts (t) | 2 hours | None | n/a | Rusted AutoParts (t) | 2 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 03:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
 | If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
Current disputes
Yasuke
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. There are a few problems with this filing. First, the filing editor has not notified any of the other editors. Second, the filing editor has misspelled the names of three of the editors. Third, the question may be an issue about the reliability of a source. If so, the issue can be better answered at the reliable source noticeboard. Fourth, there is an RFC in progress. It is not clear whether the topic of this DRN request is related to the topic of the RFC. If this is a question about the reliability of a source, file a request at the reliable source noticeboard. Otherwise, resume discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Peter Baker (slave trader)
– New discussion.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
I declared a very very loose COI in good faith, and this has led to an issue with the articles' original writer who is disqualifying all my comments and accusing me of WP:CANVASSING when I have not, and opening formal move proposals in my name when I have not. If someone would be willing to just chime in and watch, I think there's perfectly reasonable discussion to be had here. But any further attempts by me to encourage WP:NEUTRAL tone are not going to be helpful on their own.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Extensive civil discussion with the user, on the Talk page itself. The tone of the civil discussion isn't nasty by any means, but there is a clear impasse.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
The user @Desertarun opened a formal Requested Move in my name when I did not propose a specific requested move. Please close this, as I have not requested this move. All I requested was conversation with external viewpoints included, such that when I might* propose a requested move, it already had some consensus as to how best to title articles per WP:CRITERIAORDER.
Summary of dispute by Desertarun
The dispte is over a requested move. That discussion is taking place here;[[1]]. Having the dispute in two different places is non-sensical, so I won't be engaging with the process on this page any further. Desertarun (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Peter Baker (slave trader) discussion
- FYI. I have commented on the discussion and attempted to identify the points of disagreement. These all appear to be content, not conduct, issues. I am not a DRN volunteer per se, though I may be willing to help the users deal with their disagreements. ProfGray (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Asian fetish
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as also pending in another forum. As the instructions at the top of this noticeboard say, we do not accept cases that are also pending in another content or conduct forum. The filing editor has also filed a sockpuppet investigation, which is a conduct report. Attempt to discuss the edits at the article talk page while waiting for a CheckUser to act on the sockpuppet report. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Nivkh alphabets
– New discussion.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
Good day! Initially, the dispute began because of my moderation of the specified article. I just rechecked in what form the link in the specified form has the current alphabet. My other opponent ignored this fact, and began to insist that the letters he replaced are allographs, but no convincing evidence was shown, and for some reason now I have to prove the opposite. My other opponent behaves as if the colonizer knows more than other natives and is trying to teach them to read and write. Sorry, maybe for the unfortunate analogy. But the evidence provided is more like OR.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
[[2]]
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Either the opponent will provide other, more convincing evidence, or roll back the edits to match the ALREADY EXISTING references in the article.
Summary of dispute by Kwamikagami
These letter variants are allographs, per sources, and both variants are acceptable for the writing of Nivkh and many other languages of Siberia. (For example, ⟨Ң⟩ with a ticked tail and ⟨Ӈ⟩ with a curved tail, and similarly with other letters in the series, e.g Қ/Ӄ and Ҳ/Ӽ.) AFAICT, Modun has failed to provide a single source to the contrary, and is relying solely on WP:TRUTH.
We have as one source, in a discussion about why it was a mistake for Unicode to assign separate characters to these curved ⟨Ӈ⟩ letter variants, and the reasons Unicode has refused to do the same for additional letters (e.g. a curved variant of ⟨Ҷ⟩ che), by an expert in some of the languages in question (namely N. and E. Khanty and Nenets), an account of how a an influential textbook publishing house (Education Ltd.) created the curved-tail glyphs as in-house variants of these letters for their primers, primary-grade textbooks and other materials when publishing in the govt-assigned alphabet. This is part of a series of discussions involving multiple linguists working on these languages. We also have recent govt publications, in Nivkh, using the original ticked (e.g. ⟨Ң⟩) forms of the letters, including formal material such as trade documents. That is, both forms are in use in the modern era. Modun keep providing sources that use the Education variants of the letters, e.g. ⟨Ӈ⟩, as if they somehow negates the other. Modun has reverted the addition of the ticked variants to the alphabet charts and deleted a reference to the Unicode discussion, replacing it with a 'cn' tag.
There's nothing suggesting Nivkh is special in this regard. It's a general feature of these letters across the minority languages of Siberia, no more significant than the difference between double-loop ⟨g⟩ vs script ⟨ɡ⟩ in English, and unusual only in that Unicode (mistakenly) assigned them separate codes.
For Khanty, another language of Siberia that uses some of these letters, we recently found an orthography committee who decided that the curved-tail variants ⟨Ӈ Ԓ⟩ are to be preferred. At the same time, the principle Khanty language journal has gone in the opposite direction, using a third variant, ⟨Ӊ Ӆ⟩ with a diagonal tail. Modun insists these are different alphabets, despite no evidence for that idea, because allographs supposedly do not occur in Cyrillic. When I pointed out the extensive allography between Russian, Serbian and Bulgarian, he said those were "font" differences. Well, these are "font" differences too: Education Ltd created their own font for their textbooks.
Because two graphic variants are used for these letters in Nivkh, both by official sources, both should be included in the article. We should presumably stick to one for the examples for consistency, but the alphabet charts should reflect what people actually use. — kwami (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't say that allographers don't encounter it in Cyrillic. And excuse me, why is the commission for discussing alphabets of one language(s) applicable to another language? It's the same as if we were now discussing the spelling of the English language and why the results would be applicable to other languages (for example, to French, Spanish or other languages).
- The source you indicated discusses the Tofa, Khanty and Evenki alphabets, as far as I remember, but there is no mention of the Nivkh alphabet.
- This is a direct lie about deletion!
- This is what it was like before the rollback: 1, This is what happened after the rollback: 2, 3 and here's what happened next, you added the link LATER!
- You can't even provide convincing evidence that these letters are "allographs". This is not a proven fact! Modun (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- These forms are allographs across the board, per RS's. They were part of a general Soviet standardization of the minority languages of Russia and occur in multiple languages.
- I would think govt ministry publications in Nivkh would count as evidence that both variants are used in Nivkh. That's also suggested by the history, that the curved variants were created by Education Ltd. after the Nivkh alphabet had been created, and were used in Nivkh material, following the govt-set orthography, by Education Ltd.
- Deleting a citation and replacing it with a 'cn' tag is a deletion. Calling that a "lie" doesn't change anything. — kwami (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- you bring your conclusions into practice. We do not know for what reasons and why different variants of alphabets were used, and bring this conclusion into practice because these are "allographs" it looks like OR.
- here is an example of how you started a "discussion" you deleted the CN column (deleting CN) Modun (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- By the way, here is an excerpt from a discussion about the Khanty countries, where one of your oponets also thinks that this is OR, and at least he is not being disingenuous and does not call things by their proper names. You are inflating an unproven statement as a “fact”. Modun (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Again, your TRUTH is 'fact', but expert conclusions are 'OR'.
- We follow sources. It's as simple as that. If you have RS's to support your claims, great! Let's see them. So far you've provided nothing.
- BTW, I just found another example of a Nivx text that uses the original letter forms, this time the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, bilingual Nivx and Russian. — kwami (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Great, the document was published in the old version of the alphabet. Where is the fact that these letters are allographs? I am a moderator and author of a translation of an article from Russian Wikipedia. Why do I have to prove anything to you?
- I asked you a simple question, can you provide another source somewhere where it is said that the indicated letters are allographs? You are constantly trying to give me that this is a "fact". Well, at least provide another source where this is also indicated. Moreover, in the correspondence you indicated, not all linguists agree with this interpretation, but for some reason you ignore this opinion.
- You adjust the practice to your convenient picture. This is already OR. Modun (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Here are some other examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (5-ru), 6.
- Practically given by linguists, and no one mentions any "allographs" or the use of any other alphabets at the same time. Everyone consciously uses the same alphabets. But for some reason the opinion of these linguists does not interest you. I doubt that these people made any mistake. No one even mentions the interchangeability of some letters. Modun (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Nivkh alphabets discussion
Zeroth statement by moderator (Nivkh)
I am ready to try to moderate this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A and say that you agree to the ground rules. In particular, do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. It is not resulting in any progress. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors.
The purpose of content dispute resolution is to improve the article, so I will ask a question that I usually ask at the beginning of moderated discussion. Please state concisely what you want to change in the article that the other editor does not want to change, or what you want to leave alone that the other editor wants to change. Do not explain the reasons why you want to change the article or leave it unchanged, at this time. We will go into the reasons later, but at this time I am only asking what the issues are, not why there are issues. I understand that there are issues about original research; we can go into them later. However, if there are issues about the reliability of sources, please state them at this time, so that we can ask about them at the reliable source noticeboard.
If there are multiple points in the article that are in dispute, please provide a concise list.
Please state concisely what the content issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I agree. Let's try. Modun (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. Summary below. — kwami (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Nivkh)
- Summary: There are two possible pathways, depending on which of us the sources support. Of course, it's possible that RSs might contradict each other.
- If I'm correct, there are duplicate Unicode characters for several Cyrillic letters used with Siberian languages, according to discussions at Unicode about encoding more of them by linguists who specialize in these languages. Several of these letters are used for Nivx, namely Қ/Ӄ Ң/Ӈ Ҳ/Ӽ. (There is also Ӻ, which should be mentioned, but because Unicode has refused to encode a second variant, due to that being a mere allograph and not a distinct letter, it wouldn't appear directly in the alphabet charts unless we want to use SVG images for consistency with the other letters.) We should reflect the RS that these are allographs, note that the variants were invented by a specific influential textbook publishing company, and note that both variants are found in official documents. Both variants should be listed in the alphabet charts, though for conciseness we should choose one for the examples.
- If I understand correctly, Modun claims that Қ/Ӄ Ң/Ӈ Ҳ/Ӽ are not allographs, but instead that there are two distinct Nivx alphabets in current use, with apparently identical orthographic rules. If true, the article would still need to reflect that. If Modun can find RS's for that claim, then we should list the two alphabets side by side. We would need to use SVG's for Ӻ, because there is no Unicode support for it in the second alphabet. Perhaps we could merge the cells of the alphabet table where the letters are identical, assuming the same sorting order. Since we would then have competing RS's about the nature of the distinction, we should note the disagreement. We should still choose one alphabet for the examples.
- There is a second issue, that of replacing Nivx letters with punctuation marks. We should instead use proper letters, i.e. ⟨Кʼ Ӄʼ/Қʼ Пʼ Тʼ⟩ and dialectically ⟨Чʼ⟩. Here on WP-en, we use the appropriate Unicode characters for apostrophe-like letters. For example, we use the dedicated letter ⟨ʻ⟩ for the Hawaiian ʻokina, and not the single quotation mark. Similarly with other apostrophe-like letters, regardless of whether the script is Latin, Cyrillic or something else. In this case, the alphabetic letter is U+02BC modifier letter apostrophe. Currently the article uses U+2019 right single quotation mark. These characters look more-or-less the same but can behave quite differently. U+2019 is regularly replaced by the ASCII apostrophe per the no-curly-quotes rule of the MOS. — kwami (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Metrication of the United Kingdom
– New discussion.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
The user Defacto is attached to the imagine (Tomatoes for sale in a UK greengrocer's shop 2013) however consensus states it should be replaced, which is now occured, which he continues to disagree with.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom →The lead photo: I had engaged a third opinion.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Please rule in accordance with the consesous myself and the third opinion that the lead imagine was not appropriate and was replaced.