Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ryulong (talk | contribs) at 07:17, 3 May 2013 (→Arbitrary break). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

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 18:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Ghost in the Shell, Talk:Ghost in the Shell

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Ghost in the Shell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Ghost in the Shell (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs)
• Ryulong (talk · contribs)
• Lucia Black (talk · contribs)
• Niemti (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am engaged in a long running debate over the content and structure of a page with Lucia Black and Ryulong. Discussion has yielded no results and a key article viewed by 60000 people is effectively two smashed together articles, with the manga page on top of a minimal franchise branch. Policy-based discussion is rejected for 'we already did otherwise'. Relevant policies are WP:SS specifically WP:DETAIL. Also WP:UNDUE andWP:SPINOFF. Though WP:SIZE and WP:NPOV are also probably relevant for readability and scope.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This is the first step, Lucia Black's dramatic ANI and Mediation about me 'not discussing' was summarily closed as false. The RFC to oppose my GA close was also rejected for procedures.

How do you think we can help?

Assist in obtaining a resolution to this matter.

Opening comments by ChrisGualtieri

To make matters short and simple. Back in October 2012, Lucia merged the Ghost in the Shell (manga) page to Ghost in the Shell. Later put it up for GA and no one took notice until I reviewed the material. I failed the article for numerous reasons and went about trying to fix it, as I was contesting her unilateral change which was hard to detect. Lucia Black overreacted and opened a RFC to contest my GA close, brought me to ANI after I laid out my fixes and tried formal Mediation as well that same day. They both closed as I was discussing with Lucia. I end up taking a wikibreak and come back before Ryulong repeats the merge and begins the dispute anew.

My stance is that the manga page is distinctly different from the franchise material. The original mangas comprise a minority of the content yet dominate the franchise page. Ryulong and Lucia Black are intent on removing the franchise page (Lucia claimed the franchise as not-notable previously) and Ryulong believed the articles were short. The manga was 25kb at merge, but was over 35kb. The original franchise page at Ghost in the Shell is so damaged as needing to be entirely recreated. The page is very important and due to the Ghost in the Shell related items containing numerous entries bearing the exact same name, it is more important than ever to have a franchise page to serve as a proper navigation and bring context and clarity to the media.

Examples of the ridiculous titles of the system Ghost in the Shell corresponds with a manga, a film adaption and an unrelated but based upon video game. Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex is a tag that runs for 2 seasons of an anime, two video games bearing the same exact name but released on different systems (Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex (PS2) and its sequel Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex (PSP)), another manga and novels. If the absolutely weird naming of the content wasn't enough, three distinct 'universes' seem to exist, so that Stand Alone Complex is based on, but distinct alternate universe. Same with the newly released Ghost in the Shell: Arise which is both a series of film and a manga with the same name. All of which bear the obvious prefix Ghost in the Shell, and the majority of the content is not even from the original creator anymore. Masamune Shirow's original manga may have started it, but it comprises about 10% of the material. A franchise page should not be primarily about the original manga in their fullest depth with the other franchise parts tacked on as an afterthought. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This is listed as stale, but I am still watching this and really would like input on it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Ryulong

I have had no problems working with Chris until he and Lucia began fighting over the formatting of the page after we came to an agreement to merge everything fairly recently. Both Lucia and I think a single page will suffice but Chris's actions to unmerge the page, his fight with Lucia, his work to produce an "under construction" live version for his claims of a 60k visits a month page, and his insistence that there be two pages to cover very similar subjects is keeping anything from moving forward. Also, Niemti, to my best understanding, is not for or against any version of the page, but Chris is latching onto a comment he made over similar actions taken on an unrelated article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've attempted to come up with a compromise between the two differing opinions on where the page should go with this edit, but Chris is now accusing me of edit warring because of these two edits, as he reverted between and I just thought I forgot to make the change in the first place.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Lucia Black

Ghost in the Shell is divided by several alternate series. Considering the article has the original media (manga) merged back, and all other alternate series have their own article and cover the media closest related to it, it only makes sense to cover the media closest related to the original media, and not so much on the other media thats more related to the alternate series (that are already covered in their own media). It would duplicate too much info to the point that it would make the other child articles virtually useless. Ryulong some what agrees with what ive said (if not completely). Chris insist his reasoning on that it is a franchise article, and should cover all media equally, in which case would only convolude the article as multiple series and adaptation share the same media but are less related to eachother.

EDIT:To clarify what i mean, there is Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex that fully details its respected media. But the TV series is the original Stand Alone Complex. And the same goes with Arise series. Unlike certain other stories, the Plot between the original nd its alternate universes are still similar enough to show they are based off the original series.Lucia Black (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Niemti

I'm actually not really involved, but my proposition is that Chris & Ryu work out something on their own (without LB). That's also "closing", because I'm out. --Niemti (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell, Talk:Ghost in the Shell discussion

Hi All, and thanks for having patience. I've gone through the extensive talk page discussion and would like to ask some leading questions. How does Ghost in the Shell (the franchise) compare to other long standing Japanese culture phenomenons such as Full Metal Panic! and Naruto. I'm looking at the argued about section (The Publication history) and wondering if the 2nd through 4th paragraphs can be spun over to the list of chapters and re-titled "GitS manga", thereby giving a natural home for the content (by adjusting the title of the page) and gathering the nitty gritty details of the manga publication away from the franchise information. Please give your thoughts. Hasteur (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not the "argued about section". This is a dispute over whether or not there should be a separate article dedicated solely to the original 3 manga volumes and keeping another article as the "franchise" (I swear if I see this word one more time I'm going to rip my hair out) article. Your proposal Hasteur effectively reverts everything to the status quo before merging the "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" article to Ghost in the Shell and renaming the "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" article to List of Ghost in the Shell chapters. The way the article is set up now, as being about the manga first and any adaptations second, is how nearly every other anime article is set up, such as Sailor Moon and Naruto.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Simmer down... It was not a proposal, it was asking a question. I'm looking at the unified page and it seems like those 3 paragraphs that spend a significant amount of space talking about the "And this volume had a statuette with it" kind of details. I don't think that for the page talking about the entire collected works of the story universe(Manga, Anime, OVAs, Video Games, Soundtracks, figurines) the content is a little too detailed. Hasteur (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Your suggestion still throws out a month of work. I don't think this would be much of a problem had the articles not existed in the previous state for about 8 years. While I do agree that soe of the minutae about what got released with what doesn't have its place on the main article (most of it seems trivial) the central article should be about the original piece of fiction as per WP:MOS-AM.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Unlike other mangas, each manga volume is a separate continuation. So detailing each one is due to them being separate it's not "ghost in the shell volume 1". The problem with making a franchise article and a separate manga article is that once split, both articles will cover practically the same. You see, the manga has spun out several alternate tellings that are too connected to the original manga. So splitting the manga will still have to cover those alternate tellings. The other issue is the media based on those alternate tellings. ChrisGualtieri (considering wants this to be a franchise article) wants to cover all media more related to their alternate telling more than the original media (manga), the soundtracks, the manga adaptations, etc.

That media is covered already in their respected article and makes things much more organized.Lucia Black (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Lucia gets it about half right. The original manga and its sequel (the other comprising 1.5) are distinct entities and are not typical in manga productions. Nothing about Ghost in the Shell is 'normal'. It is a collaborative series of works that represent different facets and events that are only connected by the character and theme. The plots are unrelated or contradictory. SAC is not adapted from the manga, it is a alternate universe and non-canonical body of works. We do not even contain mentions to a third of the franchises' titles and I am not counting artbooks and other unofficial publications. Ghost in the Shell is not a typical manga to anime adaption, it is the equivalent of Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek (film). And yes, Star Trek is a top-level topic (a better word for franchise?) for all things Star Trek related. This is not a franchise crusade, its about proper balance and scope within a large collection of works, which is best served by a broad overview of the topic Ghost in the Shell. As for policy arguments, the Ghost in the Shell manga (original and sequel) meets WP:GNG and WP:N. Bestseller status and numerous major mentions qualifies for independent articles, of which the majority of content can be split per WP:SPLIT. Also per WP:SS with the reason to split comes from the lede, "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own." It is not a problem with WP:CFORK because it would be in accordance with WP:SPINOFF and is very much highlighted by WP:RELART. The last issue is the the invoking of the Manual of Style (WP:MOS-AM) as a reason to merge these articles present an issue currently under discussion, but for immediate concern the reason why MOS-AM has no say about the split is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." These MOS-AM and other weak arguments from Lucia and Ryulong has been the source of this problem, but for the scope of this DRN, let's keep it to Ghost in the Shell alone. Other discussions at other pages will be on going, but Talk:Ghost_in_the_Shell#Scope has the most recent conversation including a list of 30+ titles in the Ghost in the Shell franchise. I hate to make arbitrary calls on things, but if 20 meet WP:N and WP:GNG on their own merits, shouldn't the top level topic function as a concise overview of all those materials? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Chris, you need to stop making this subject out to be more than it really is and stop alphabet souping everybody into submission (there is some essay out there that says "don't try to list off WP page after WP page to sway your argument). The current manual of style (which is only under discussion because you started a discussion) suggests that the main article on any anime or manga should be about the original work.

There is no reason that we cannot provide a broad overview of the subject following discussion of the primary work of fiction, particularly because the original work of fiction is so much smaller in comparison to the plethora of works that followed it. Before anything happened the articles were not the best. At this stage your "broad overview" article looked like a piece of shit and the individual manga page was still superfluous at best. At least now we have something that is in line with similar articles on the project, even if you do not like the format. Your constant arguments that the article is too big per WP:SIZE (it's 35k at best) or that it should not focus on the manga are unfounded. And there is no proof that the 30+ other titles you list off meet any notability requirements. I'm also looking at the 2nd GIG page and thinking it's way too short and it could probably be merged into the Stand Alone Complex page but I won't be bold this time around.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to say, that I'm not half right about this. I've watched all the films, read all the mangas, watched all the episodes. They are very well connected not to mention them in the original manga page if split, meaning it will be a near duplicate.Lucia Black (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

To Ryulong: Call alphabet soup if you want, I call them policies and editing guidelines. I've thoroughly cited numerous policies to which you do not seem capable of challenging so you are insistent upon objecting without offering evidence that my argument is flawed or wrong. Your point about challenging MOS-AM is on policy and I am not alone. With Nihonjoe stating, "...if there is enough reliably sourced material to create a separate article, then it is perfectly acceptable to do so. MOSAM should not and can not prevent this as this is enwiki policy and guidelines." Furthermore as I pointed out, MOS-AM does not require an article majorly about the original work, only to discuss the original in the introduction. My concise and broad overview of ALL the material which exists is what I want, there is far too much detail on the manga to warrant cramming everything onto the main page. Because it is so detailed I wanted it to have its own off-shoot, not necessarily to separate articles for the volumes, but a proper place to describe the work in detail, per WP:DETAIL. As for the 30+ titles meeting notability, many meet N or GNG, but for right now we don't even mention or discuss them in the existing articles. A clear coverage issue, but that is outside this DRN.

To Lucia Black: Your personal opinion does not matter as it is WP:OR and frankly, its incorrect. Reliable sources like the Anime Encyclopedia and the Production I.G. website use the terms "alternate universe", "re-imagining" and AE brings up the matter of questionable canon. As pointed out in my talk page post here. The "connection" is Motoko, Batou, Section 9 and theme, problem is even Motoko is not portrayed similarly in the media. And you do even note how distinct it is in this post. Yes the original manga deserves a mention for being the starting point of everything, but it is not important or tied to the manga for the majority of the content. The two films are, but those films are really single plots, and Innocence being a heavily adapted single chapter. Half a paragraph at most. And per WP:RELART, that would be acceptable. To put your mocking me from before, its "in accordance with WP:CFORK" and the majority of your policy arguments are flawed. Need I bring up how you 'countered' my argument with: "OTHERSTUFFEXIST is an essay but in a nutshell, meaning commonly accepted." Honestly, Misplaced Pages is not about !votes and actions should be rooted in good policy and common sense.

And just in case if anyone thinks I 'have to be right' about things. I was engaged in a dispute earlier about a link, with Boblv's arguments in opposition to my stance. I responded with this. I ended up striking my comment and going to 'neutral' with support for two issues tied to policy. When bested I have a history of striking my opposition and turning to neutral or support, because even if I don't agree, a good policy argument trumps my personal opinion. This content dispute is a concern for me because policy is being ignored for Lucia Black and Ryulong's preference. This DRN is to try and resolve this matter, but outside editors also are weighing in like this, but it is difficult and intimidating when the response that outside editors get. Typically with Ryulong's fury at the volunteer, Hasteur, trying to resolve this problem. Hasteur is volunteering his time to fix this dispute, its an act of charity and should not be treated so negatively for taking a 10 day old case and asking a simple question! And again, Hasteur, thanks for taking the time with this, and anyone else who decides to join the discussion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

But you don't bring good points. You just constantly list policies you THINK help your case. OR is based upon adding questionable info unsourced. That's not the case here. WP:SS actually helps our case aswell because we would be summarizing things to just the key features. You have this way of arguing that derails the main point or rather you use other methods to counter argue. We're not ignoring policies because there is no policy that is actually helping your case.

Splitting from the manga would only cause a duplicate of the main article because the spin offs/alternate tellings are based on the original manga "Directly". WP:REDUNDANTFORK.Lucia Black (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Chris, what you're doing is cherry picking policies and then listing off their acronyms in their arguments to try to get your way. I've attempted to compromise between Lucia's desire to have only one article and your desire to have two to have one nad a half but you will not let go of this idea that there needs to be a "franchise" page. And I was not "furious" but I lamented that Hasteur's only suggestion was to go back to a status quo that never worked well.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I am well aware of what WP:OR means and your claims of direct adaption is false. Reliable sources say otherwise, namely Production I.G. and the anime encyclopedia. From the I.G. Website to which Lucia actually dealt with, "Stand Alone Complex takes place in the year 2030, and it is based on the assumption that Major Motoko Kusanagi did not meet the Puppet Master in 2029. In other words, it stands as a separate parallel world to both Shirow Masamune's original comic and Director Oshii's movie. Motoko in this TV series uncompromisingly handles cases as the leader of Section 9, unlike her film version counterpart, who is portrayed as being insecure about herself." With SSS, "Instead of looking for easy compromises, the staff bravely picked up the on-going story of the S.A.C. series and built up an entirely new chapter from the continuity of that context."" Lucia, stop, just stop being disruptive with this. Your 'direct' issue fails because SAC is its own continuity. Reliable sources, not your opinion matter. You keep objecting to things, but you can not back them up and you argue for the sake of arguing. And Ryulong, if you think I am 'cherry picking' policies then that means you understand that my argument has a basis, because you cannot stand in the way of larger consensus. You complain that I do give details about what I want:

• I want a full overview and defined scope of the media. With each work receiving about 200-300 words on the matter and its relevant split to the full article. Stand Alone Complex as the largest continuity will receive a larger portion. I will use official documents in the top-level Ghost in the Shell article to properly connect the works and other academic works about GITS to cover all its media and cultural impact.

I do not claim to know everything about the topic, but once this little spat is out of the way I am sure that all THREE of us can easily expand the content as Lucia does do good work on individual games. The core of the dispute is the structure of the work, and while the entire series of media was horribly underdeveloped, my vision of a proper main page and a 50kb sub-topics like the manga, SAC and the movies will take time to build out. It may seem like a lot of fuss, but until this matter is decided GITS will not improve because there is no 'compromise' its Lucia's way (1 article) or Ryulong's way(compromise which makes two articles but fills out neither), or my way (Two articles, with concise topic level overview and a dedicated manga page). I want to work together, but this ideological dispute has really taken a toll on all of us. I'd be willing to contend with a dangerous compromise on my part, if the topic-level Ghost in the Shell article fails to produce any results by the end of the month, then we go back to Ryulong or Lucia's suggestion. I'll need both of Ryulong and Lucia's cooperation to make it work though, but I just want a chance without the immediate axing of anything I add. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You always add an additional word to my previous statement and use that against me. I'm saying all of these alternate tellings are directly related to the original storyline. HOWEVER that does not mean I'm saying they are direct adaptations. Gits film is a loose adaptation of the main storyline of the first manga, gits 2: Innocence is the film sequel loosely based on gits manga chapter "robot rondo". Gits video game is based on the manga's universe. Stand Alone Complex's main story altered heavily, however, still strongly related to the original. Being a "relative" isn't denying that it isn't directly related to the original manga. Example: some of the episodes are based on chapters of the original manga. And the stand alone complex tv film (solid state society) is based on the original plot of the manga.

They all share the exact same characters, and the exact same story elements and setting. So all of them are still directly related to the manga enough to mention in the manga article IF it were to resplit. And that's the issue. Splitting the manga will only make a nea duplicate of the main article.

It seems wrong to base weight on article size. Especially when these articles are covered in their respected article. Its just too redundant.Lucia Black (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, god damn it can we stop arguing over canonicity? This is not fucking important.

Chris, your suggestion that we go back to your preferred two article model of the franchise article (no matter what you call it this is what you want) and an article solely dedicated to the manga, and if it does not work out, then we revert to the merged form is not how Misplaced Pages works. We have to work together to get to a compromise, but at this point of time you still will not budge. You keep insisting that there has to be an article just on the print adaptation when that is not done anywhere else on the project in regards to any work of fiction that has had multiple media forms. You are right that this "franchise" option works in most places, but it does not look like it will work for Ghost in the Shell. There is just not enough out there to justify having an entirely separate article for the original manga, particularly when the discussion of the manga is still central to the discussion of all of the anime forms (regardless of whether one version is canon to another). You two need to stop arguing and picking over the production details and story elements to just look at what's necessary to present this topic.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, characters may be the same but portrayals are different. Same as Star Trek the film and the original series, does not make them direct adaptations. Word choice is important. Keep spouting words, your view is not held by the makers of SAC and I proved that. Ryulong, more words that say nothing. I think this part of the lede for Motoko Kusanagi is enlightening, "Kusanagi's various incarnations in the manga, movies, and TV series all portray her differently. Since each of these series have an independent storyline, Kusanagi's physical and mental characteristics have been modified in different ways to reflect the focus of each respective story." You may not like having a place for the original work, but it does not belong at Ghost in the Shell, its proper place is Ghost in the Shell (manga). All this time you object without evidence or even refuting my arguments. It IS stupid to argue over canon and other things on a topic about structure of a page, but is a example of classic red herring. Lucia Black cannot counter any of my arguments and instead relies on logical fallacies to try and address it, the same as you did. Compromise works for many things, but as already made clear, the attempts thus far are a hijacking. If someone tries to hijack your car you don't "compromise" by sharing the vehicle. Every argument brought up to avoid a proper balanced page is terribly flawed. Let's go through the list

• Lucia argued the franchise was non-notable
• Ryulong and Lucia argue MOS-AM and proper merge, MOS-AM does not save it.
• Ryulong and Lucia argue they are too related, disproven by the makers.

Honestly, its about time this stops, and for good. The 'compromise' is that the manga gets to have 50kb of content on its own page and gets tied into the main page as the original work in discussion. Somewhere about 1k words and a proper split as per policy. Any issues of 'oh that's redundant' is stopped by WP:RELART and WP:DETAIL because the introduction for a split article should be about one half the lede. Specifically, "The parent article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in child articles and in articles on specific subjects." and "The summary in a section at the parent article will often be at least twice as long as the lead section in the child article. The child article in turn can also serve as a parent article for its specific part of the topic, and so on, until a topic is very thoroughly covered.". Okay? A "franchise" or "parent" or "top-level" article for Ghost in the Shell is acceptable, especially if we have 20 different articles to branch off to. Also, Akira (manga) and Akira (film) despite the Akira film being based on the on-going manga with its own ending. Also, it is cyberpunk and its anime. GITS was supposed/is the sci-fi successor of Akira. GITS has far more different media, plots and original works then Akira did. Now please stick to policy and arguments, I hate seeing strawmen, red herrings and other logical fallacies from you two. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as you refuse to address any of my concerns I will no longer be participating in this dispute resolution until another uninvolved party attempts to read through this essay of yours. I mean, I don't understand why the hell you won't accept Ghost in the Shell and List of Ghost in the Shell chapters as they are now. There are two articles. One's dedicated to discussing the manga and the other isn't. You just want the locations to be the other way around.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You ask for policies, but policies don't even help your case. You don't use WP:UNDUE correctly, and you think WP:SS supports your claims for a split (but somehow ignore. It when we use it). The policies only confirm a split is generally possible under the right circumstances. However we still have WP:REDUNDANTFORK, which splitting an article would be too redundant. You always bring up size as a relevant point, but its not relevant at all.

Your comparison to Star Trek and Akira aren't solid at all. First of all, Akira manga/film articles only prove that the manga and anime shouldn't be merged. But that's not the issue. (Also the structure and organization is bad. A "live-action" film and "video games" are all linked to the film mainly over the original with no reasoning). They're both sci-fi doesn't merit a good comparison. When has genre ever affected an article's structure?

Here's the difference between Star Trek, and possibly every franchise ever released (Except Tenchi Muyo! But that article also needs work and maybe some merges). Star Trek has several spin offs unrelated to the original. Sure similar universe, but different time, different characters, etc.

Ghost in the Shell, on the other hand, are all alternate tellings of the original (with Arise being the only one that's a prequel). All spin offs are directly related to the original manga (except for the spin off media based on the original spin offs). Example, IF the manga would split, its loose film adaptation (its sequel), its playstation video game, the Stand Alone Complex, and Arise will still have to be mentioned in the manga article as all of those were inspired and also based on the original manga.

You try to use the differences as to what makes them unique, and what you consider similar is not enough. But what makes them similar is the core and what makes them related to the original manga directly. Example: If Star Trek had its franchise solely based on "allternate tellings" having loose adaptations, alternate story, yet also has the exact same characters and same universe, then Star Trek: The Original Series would be forced to mention those in its article aswell.

The creators only confirmed how different they are, but their still directly related. Its like saying "lemonade isn't related to lemons because the maker added water and sugar." WP:REDUNDANTFORK. That's a good enough reason not to split.Lucia Black (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Ryulong, stop editing GITS, you removed 11,199 bytes of content altering the appearance of the page. I do not want a "list" I want a full manga page not your "compromise" of original manga focus and publication history on another. Lucia Black, your strawman arguments and your desire to merge everything is ridiculous. Lemon and Lemonade are distinct articles, REDUNDANTFORK only applies to DUPLICATION of content. Such as the numerous Boston Bombing pages that mention the exact same topics. I do not see how you can continue to argue such obviously false and distorted stances, while remaining ignorant of their intention. If there is a policy based reason for your objections, voice them. Otherwise, I think we are done here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing binding about this thing that doesn't mean I can't fix up the article in good faith while this is ongoing. What you can't do is constantly revert back to your preferred state of the article. More than half of those 11,199 bytes went to the list of chapters. The rest of it is unnecessary exposition on the various adaptations.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Chris will now not allow me to edit the article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

We are discussing this between ourselves now on my talk page. And are working toward a resolution, it seems we want the same thing but call and refer to it differently. My effort to preserve the original dispute, as my good faith edits were removed and prevented, which was the reason I brought this here. Anyways... I think this DRN may close as I see a solution in sight with Ryulong. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hi guys. Sorry about the delay in me attending to this one. I'm not quite up to speed with the whole dispute - what stage are we at with the discussion here? Has any progress been made? I also note that some of the conversation above has been heated above, so let's step back a bit and see what we can do to work towards a compromise. Steven Zhang 04:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

  No progress has been made because Chris is rejecting any compromise thrown his way that does not meet his personal ideas as to what should and should not be on the main article. He wants the scope of the article to cover everything that has been Ghost in the Shell in excruciating detail (while still having side articles) and will not allow it to be about the original manga first, with brief discussion of the other subjects. He wants a summary page for everything (the "franchise page") and a page solely dedicated to the original manga rather than the form I have instituted in my original merge where there is a page dedicated about 75% to the original manga, with the remaining 25% covering the other forms in brief, and a page dedicated to the extensive publication history that Chris found and wrote up.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Derwick Associates

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Derwick Associates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Justiciero1811 (talk · contribs)
• FergusM1970 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

FergusM1970 and I have been going back and forth on the page for Derwick Associates for over a month now. Derwick Associates has been identified as a money laundering operation for the Venezuelan government by a number of highly-credible sources (by Venezuelan standards).

These sources have been discussed here, here, and here. He is especially critical of information published by the Venezuelan investigative journalist César Batiz who writes for Últimas_Noticias.

FergusM1970 is insistent on removing all negative material—which is all sourced in RSs—and replacing it with self-published PR material about how the company is involved in charity work (although he posted the information without a source, the information can be found here on Derwick's website).

He is also intent on outing me as "Alek"

There is also a dispute over the Spanish word "sobreprecio". I am fluent in Spanish and I have translated a number of articles for this page. One of the articles is titled "Bariven compro con sobreprecio", which means " Bariven contracted with surcharge". FergusM1970, who does not speak any Spanish, insists on fighting me on this minor semantic issue.

There have been sockpuppet investigations, an RfC, and an ANI. I was advised by Dennis Brown to take it here. Justiciero1811 (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There have been several attempts to use other steps. RS/N and AN/I

How do you think we can help?

A third party taking a look at the page - including the Talk discussions and other attempted steps - would be very beneficial. The various Talk discussions and noticeboard posts break down many of the pieces of information and also detail the reliability of the sources used.

Opening comments by FergusM1970

I absolutely agree that a third party examination of the article's history would be useful. The original article was merely a thinly disguised attack piece. Repeated attempts have been made to return it to this state. Frankly the company is not at all notable; it seems to be of interest only to Venezuelan journalist Cesar Batiz, delusional blogger Alek Boyd and Justiciero1811. Practically all the media coverage has been generated by Batiz, and Boyd's blog makes it clear that he is far from rational on the subject. There doesn't seem to be any very compelling reason for Misplaced Pages to cover this company, but if it does it should be a balanced article and not a crazed rant.--FergusM1970 04:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to add to my previous comments, I don't think it's appropriate for an article about a company to be created when the sole purpose is to attack that company's integrity. If Misplaced Pages must have an article on Derwick then it should describe the company's activities with a note that there has been controvery, but when I found the article it was a hatchet piece. I'm particularly concerned in this case because Derwick's coverage on the internet is almost entirely negative, and almost entirely generated by a small number of people (in fact two: Batiz and a blogger, "Alek Boyd.") The article that Justiciero wants to see looks very much like part of a coordinated attack on Derwick. I note that the reporting from Batiz accuses THREE companies of being money-laundering vehicles for Hugo Chavez (who is now dead,) but Justiciero is focused entirely on ONE of them - Derwick. Frankly it smells.--FergusM1970 00:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of the article (as with every other article) is to accurately represent the media coverage of the company. The article that FergusM1970 would propose to create looks like it was written by Derwick's PR company. I have provided the diffs in previous discussions where FergusM1970 removed all negative information (even information from RSs) and replaced it with self-published material from Derwick's website that espouses their donations and involvement in charitable causes.

I'll try to keep my temper as I respond to your accusation that I failed to write entries for all three companies that Batiz accuses of corruption (the other two are OVARB and KCT Cumana). Frankly, I would be happy to do so, however, I don't think the other two companies would pass a notability test, so I'm not going to. Neither of the other two companies received as many contracts as Derwick, nor are they as large as Derwick. This is probably why Batiz focused exclusively on Derwick in his subsequent investigations on the subject.

You're clearly accusing me of something (to quote you above, "Frankly it smells"), but I'm not sure what. What exactly are you accusing me of? Justiciero1811 (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Derwick Associates discussion

Hello, I'm Merlinme and I'm interested in helping you resolve this. It would be helpful if you could summarise the main content issues. I've had a look at the talk pages and I don't think either deletion of the article or accusations of sock puppetry are positions which are currently sustainable. As far as I can see this is primarily a content dispute. So if you could summarise roughly what content you think the article should contain that would be helpful. Thanks, --Merlinme (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for getting involved. Personally I don't think the company is very notable, but if it has to have an article I don't think it's appropriate for it to be an attack piece of the sort it was originally. My main concern is that while the version Justiciero wants to see appears to be well sourced, in fact it almost all comes from one source, that being Batiz. While I'm happy to accept that he's an RS in general it does appear that he has an issue with Derwick that goes beyond objective reporting. I'm also concerned that semantics are being used to further slant the article, for example the "surcharges" thing. Overall I just don't think an article should exist simply to accuse a company of money laundering. That's not my understanding of what Misplaced Pages is for. If Derwick has an article it should concentrate on facts about the company and not issues like the prices they charge, which at the end of the day are just someone's opinion.--FergusM1970 16:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, Batiz is an investigative journalist who investigates corruption in Venezuela. He's won a number of awards for his efforts and he is about as credible as it gets in South America; he is not, as FergusM1970 fondly refers to him, "some Venezuelan hack." The main content dispute is over Batiz. FergusM1970 does not believe that he is a credible source and thinks we should ignore everything he wrote on this subject. I disagree.

As far as accusing me of using semantics to slant the article, I don't know how I can make it more clear: "Sobreprecio" means "surcharge". Here is the exact text from Wordreference: "sobreprecio SM (=recargo) surcharge;" There is no distinction between the two words. Anyone native Spanish speaker (from Central or South America) will tell you the same thing.Justiciero1811 (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

What "Sobreprecio" means is irrelevant. This is ENGLISH wikipedia and "surcharge" is not an appropriate word to use, because we aren't talking about surcharges; we are talking about prices that a journalist thinks are too high, and that is something completely different. If I used a German-language source to edit the English Misplaced Pages article on computers would it be OK for me to call PCs calculators, just because the German word Rechner means both computers and calculators? No, of course not. That's what you're trying to do here. A surcharge is an additional charge, not an inflated price. I haven't seen any evidence of surcharges here. As for the rest of the article, it is supposed to tell readers about the company. It is not supposed to deal entirely with Batiz's allegations against it.--FergusM1970 19:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your responses. Please could we try to keep the discussion as civil as possible. I understand tempers have got heated in the past, but please try to avoid point scoring here. Let's not get sidetracked on the issue of what a particular Spanish word does or does not mean in English; there is almost certainly a different way to phrase the same thing, it seems a very minor issue to me.

The fundamental question is surely whether Derwick Associates is "just a Venezuelan power company". If they were just a power company, then presumably they wouldn't have an article in the English Misplaced Pages. The main reliable source suggesting otherwise in the article is currently Batiz. I don't have a problem with using Batiz as the major source, but there should be additional reliable sources backing him up, especially if we are making serious allegations, and definitely if we are making serious allegations about living people.

SandyGeorgia has questioned on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard whether www.wikianticorrupcion.org, soberania.org, elvenezolanonews.com, entornointeligente.com and law.com are reliable sources. Unless you are prepared to make an argument defending those sources, I'd suggest that they're removed from the article, and that we then see where we are in terms of sourced content. If you wish to support statements in the article using different (more reliable) sources that's fine. A quick reminder of the guidelines on Reliable Sources: context is important, but in general websites without clear editorial policies (for example, how do you get a correction made?) are not considered reliable sources. We also have to be extremely careful with allegations regarding living people. It's probably fine to report court cases (using Reliable Sources), but please be careful to stick to Neutral Point of View.

Once we've sorted out the sourcing we can discuss the content and any weight issues. Thanks, --Merlinme (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, looking at the additional sources seems like a good place to start. My concern with several of them is that while they appear to back up the main allegations by Batiz, many of them in fact are Batiz. The same person saying the same thing on two sites is a single source as far as I'm concerned.--FergusM1970 13:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Merlinme. I happen to agree with SandyGeorgia that sources should not be used for contested facts. Actually, I was the one who asked her for her input because I know first hand how difficult it is to sort out government-funded media from the free press in Venezuela. When I added information from the sources in question, I didn't realize that many of them were non-RS. I asked every user on Wikiproject Venezuela (including SandyGeorgia) for their input and I was fortunate enough to get several responses, all of which supported Batiz, and spoke against soberania.org, entornointeligente, and primicias24.

I should note that Batiz won the IPYS award in 2011 (The English translation of this organization is "Press and Society Institute") for uncovering the corruption in Venezuela, including Derwick Associates. In spite of what FergusM1970 seems to think about Batiz, he is not a "hack" or a "nut". He is a highly credible investigative journalist in Venezuela who has uncovered numerous cases of corruption in Venezuela. Hell, the guy's Misplaced Pages page says a lot of it: Justiciero1811 (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

However when the potentially unreliable sources are removed the allegations against Derwick look increasingly like they're coming from a single source, and even the best investigative journalists get on hobby horses from time to time. I really don't see the justification for an article that's almost entirely about corruption allegations, especially when it's a) mostly from a single source and b) the targets of these allegations are not just alive but actively fighting the allegations in the courts. Seems like asking for trouble really.--FergusM1970 21:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

An Bord Pleanála

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• An Bord Pleanála (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sun Ladder (talk · contribs)
• Blue-Haired_Lawyer (talk · contribs)
• RashersTierney (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article is about a state institution that is quasi-judicial. In effect it is the highest 'court' in Ireland for planning matters. I added a section outlining a recent High Court judgment which found a recent decision of the institution had been biased. Quite a serious and significant finding by the High Court against another state institution.

That section was added in August 2012. It has citations.

Almost immediately User:Blue-Haired_Lawyer tried to delete the section claiming "POV and soapbox". That deletion was reverted and apart from some very questionable edits by a new user called User_talk:Pleanala which were all reverted the section was left alone.

That is until 10 April 2013 when User:Blue-Haired_Lawyer has started to delete the section again. This time he claims its because WP:UNDUE.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I started a discussion on the article page

How do you think we can help?

by providing an outsider's perspective

Opening comments by Blue-Haired_Lawyer

An Bord Pleanala is an Irish administrative tribunal which hears appeals from local councils concerning planning decisions. It hears thousands of cases a year. While the Usk decision was quite controversial, its current billing on the article is completely out of proportion. There was no issue of systemic bias, just one particular decision where the board ignored the directions of a High Court judge on how a case was to be considered after the initial decision had been struck down.

Sun ladder seems intent on making a false inference that because: 'he Board is supposed to be unbiased in 100% of its cases. Being biased in just one case is an incredible perversion of justice by the highest "court" on planing matters in Ireland. It raises questions about the fairness of every other case decided by the Board.' It doesn't and as it stands the article gives undue weight to this particular controversy. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by RashersTierney

What ever happened to User:Lapsed Pacifist? RashersTierney (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

An Bord Pleanála discussion

 DRN Volunteer Note: One party was left off of the list of participants I have added RashersTierney (talk · contribs) to the list. please note I am not taking this case. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hello every one I've had a chance to read over the talk page, and familiarize myself with the article. Provided no one has an objection to me assisting with this dispute I'm going to open this up for discussion. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Cameron. Thanks for taking this case. I'm not really sure of the procedures here. What do you mean by opening this up for discussion? I think we've all kind of set out our stalls. Do you have a view on the dispute? Sun Ladder (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I probably could have been more direct in my opening statement, my apologies. Before I give my views, I would like to hear from blue haired lawyer on why they think UNDUE applies. I think it would be helpful for me to fully understand where both editors are coming from. In the mean time would you care to enlighten me on why you think the information should stay (if you could include relevant policies it would be helpful for me to see where your views come from)? My goal is for both editors to develop an understanding of each other's point of view and then develop a compromise. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 17:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Please remember, you approached me as a 'third disputant'. RashersTierney (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I approached you because I noticed you had recently contributed to the article or on the talk page, if you do not wish to participate you are under no requirement to do so. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding. DRN volunteers usually ask if recent editors would like to participate. If you are willing I would like to hear your perspective on the issue. Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• An Bord Pleanála is a powerful state institution. It is the 'court' that has the final say on all planing matters for the entire country.

The Irish High Court found that ABP had made biased decisions based on unfathomable reasoning. That is an extremely important and very troubling finding by the High Court against a state institution that is supposed to be entirely impartial, unbiased and fair to all citizens, 100% of the time.

I added a two sentence section with reliable, verifiable, archived citations highlighting the High Court's finding.

Straight away Blue Haired Lawyer deleted the section, giving one reason (POV and soapbox). After being restored the section stayed intact for 7 months until recently when Blue Haired Lawyer again, unilaterally decided the section should be deleted, this time for an entirely different reason (UNDUE).

It would seem that Blue Haired Lawyer just doesn't like the negative section. And his unilateral deletion appears to be censorship.

The manner of the deletion, unilateral, with various different excuses at different times, with out the courtesy of a discussion on the article's Talk Page, or notifying the editor whose work he was deleting also compounds the perception of censorship. For whatever real reason, he just doesn't want the negative section in the article.

Both censorship and not liking and are not valid reasons for deletions on Misplaced Pages.Sun Ladder (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

@Sun Ladder, I am going over your response right now, I will wait to comment until we have heard from Blue Haired Lawyer (their last edit was the 26th of April so I will give them A few days to respond)--Cameron11598 (Converse) 01:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) I probably should have added the tag ages ago. My reason for the deletion of the section remains the same. It picks out one (admittedly fairly significant) controversy giving it undue prominence relative to the subject matter as a whole. While the section is verifiable, its presentation is selective. Yes the board were found to be objectively bias but it was just an issued regarding how the board should determine cases where it is asked to "re-decide" a decision which had previously been quashed. There was no issue of systemic bias. The bias was that the people who had previously decided the case decided it again. Moreover "objective bias" sounds worse than it is. There was no finding that the board were biased, just that there was a reasonable apprehension that they could have been biased. I could edit the section to reflect these points but it would, IMHO, get us past the undue point so I just deleted it. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blue-Haired Lawyer Would you be willing to compromise and support the inclusion of that section if it was rewritten so it reads similar to the way you phrased it?
• Sun Ladder would that be an acceptable compromise to you? --Cameron11598 (Converse) 18:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• If this is unacceptable to either of you do you have any suggestions on how a compromise might be reached? Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

16:10

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• 16:10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Indrek (talk · contribs)
• HGJ345 (talk · contribs)
• Solarra (talk · contribs)
• QAQUAU (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is about the reliability of the sources used in 16:10#Industry moves away from 16:10 in 2008 to 16:9, and possibly other sources used elsewhere in the article (as one of the editors involved in the dispute has removed them, claiming they're unreliable). The dispute may also be about whether or not the article misrepresents the opinions and viewpoints taken from those sources.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I posted a request for WP:3O, which was answered by User:Solarra, but she appears to be inactive now.

How do you think we can help?

You can help reach consensus by assessing the reliability of the sources used in the article and whether or not the article represents and summarises the sources fairly and accurately.

Opening comments by Indrek

In my opinion, the removal a number of sources and related content (for the inclusion of which there was existing editor consensus prior to the dispute) from the article by User:HGJ345 and User:QAQUAU constitutes a violation of WP:NPOV. I'm also not satisfied with the reasons they have given for the removal of the sources, which don't seem to have any basis in actual Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and instead seem to be based on said editors' personal interpretation of the truthfulness of the sources, as well as a possible bias on the subject as a whole. Overall, the quality of the article has suffered as a result of their edits. Indrek (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by HGJ345

Opening comments by Solarra

• As User:Indrek said, I was brought into this issue regarding a dispute between three editors. Two felt that some of the sources Indrek has used in the article did not meet WP:RS. Though technically not a WP:3O issue, I responded to see if I could resolve the dispute nonetheless. As I said on the talk page of the article in question and appear to be written as blog entries, even though one is written on Engadget, it still is a blog entry on that site and to me does not meet WP:RS. The third entry here is written as an editorial piece as to the negatives of one aspect ratio over another, and while informative is an editorial and that individuals opinion. Misplaced Pages would not allow an editorial on World Net Daily claiming 'proof' Barack Obama was born in Kenya on Misplaced Pages, this situation is no different, editorials do not meet WP:RS. Looking over the edit history of the article and the individual users as well as the talk page, the other 2 users seem to agree with me on all three of these points. I suggest we work collectively to find sources that meet WP:RS and source the information that Indrek clearly feels is important to the article. ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 01:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Just a small correction - User:QAQUAU didn't become involved until later; when I filed the 3O request the dispute was between just me and User:HGJ345 and therefore qualified for WP:3O. Indrek (talk) 10:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by QAQUAU

16:10 discussion

List of Kirby: Right Back at Ya! episodes

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• List of Kirby: Right Back at Ya! episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Vaati the Wind Demon (talk · contribs)
• 173.49.121.149 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

173.49.121.149 keeps changing official English Dubbed information on an English Wiki to information revolving around a unofficial fansubbed Japanese version of the Anime. I told him on his talk page that since this is an English Wiki, we go by the English version of the Anime. But he ignored all three of my warnings.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Other than reverting his edits in the proper 24 hour time frames, I've given him three warnings already. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:173.49.121.149

How do you think we can help?

This is the first report I have ever written, so I'm sort of not keen on asking what to do, but it would be nice if you could get him to stop changing official information to unofficial information from a fansubbed version.

Opening comments by 173.49.121.149

List of Kirby: Right Back at Ya! episodes discussion

• Hi, I'm Steve, a volunteer here at DRN. I've had a look over the article and I can't see any references for any of the content. Is there anywhere that the information can be found? If the information that was already in the article is not referenced to somewhere, then a case can't really be made that it is official information. Could you please provide more information? Thanks! Steven Zhang 07:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • For official English version information; http://www.youtube.com/user/PaperMario15/videos?flow=grid&view=0. --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 11:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That is a link to infringing content and it is not an official account. It cannot be used. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Are these alright; http://www.tv.com/shows/kirby-right-back-at-ya/episodes/; http://www.ovguide.com/tv/kirby_right_back_at_ya.htm; http://epguides.com/KirbyRightBackatYa/; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnMr7aHtThE; this video to the left showcases some Official English titles from the Offical Kirby TV Nintendo Wii Channel. The video was also shown on an official Nintendo Website http://www.officialnintendomagazine.co.uk/28167/kirby-tv-video-shows-off-new-wii-channel/. --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The list is in terrible condition and it needs to be completely redone. I will do this now.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm starting to believe that either the IP in dispute is some sort of bot or is a completely purposed editor, he's recieved warnings from me and a notification from a Misplaced Pages Official Bot about this dispute form and yet he hasn't even made the effort to come here nor even reply at all, he just made another edit on the said page so I do not think he's even interested in reasoning or listening at all, now what do I do guys?; http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Kirby:_Right_Back_at_Ya!_episodes&action=history. --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

  What exactly is the issue here? That the IP keeps changing things without answering you?—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

He keeps changing official English information to fansubbed Japanese information, even if the subs are accurate or not, what's official is official and on an English Wiki, the English names are used just like how a Japanese Wiki would use Japanese names also. --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

According to the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles#Article_names_and_disambiguation, articles must use the most commonly used English language names. An official name is not necessarily the most common one, but in this case, the official English names are more common than the ones taken from a fansub created by online hobbyists.--xanchester (t) 05:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Space Ghost

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Space Ghost (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Yonskii (talk · contribs)
• Alucardbarnivous (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Alucardbarnivous keeps reinserting an unsourced section into the Space Ghost article. The article is about the character Space Ghost himself. Alucardbarnivous keeps adding a section title "Rogues Gallery", which is merely a list of every villain Space Ghost encountered in the shows Space Ghost (TV series) and Space Stars. Some of these characters were only used in one episode. I do not feel that the article is an appropriate place for this sort of information, as it is unsourced and more relevant to the actual TV shows than an article about a specific character. Unless he can find more sourced info on how SG's relationships with these characters are relevant to who Space Ghost is in any way, it should be removed. My suggested compromise would be a List of Space Ghost characters article, with proper sourcing of course.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have explained that this section is inappropriate here.

How do you think we can help?

I want an Admin or User with in depth knowledge of whats encyclopedic and what's not, what's appropriate where in regards to context, and a better understanding of the MOS and Wiki's rules than I to help us reach some sort of consensus.

Opening comments by Alucardbarnivous

The issue of rogues gallery sections for characters in comic books, animation, and film has been one frequently discussed for some years on Misplaced Pages. These discussions have to this point been that it appears so often that the general community must have a desire to see their inclusion and that even if a ruling was made and enforced to take them down, they will likely return regardless. So, the resolution thus far has been to leave them alone because it doesn't cause any great harm to the articles and would be difficult to enforce. In terms of the specific case for the Space Ghost article, when the user in question frequently deleted the section without discussion, the issue was brought to this board to resolve. Only a single user entered the discussion with a dialogue that largely enforced what was present to remain. Though, officially, the issue went unresolved. The user in question who brought this issue to the board's attention abandoned the debate last year and waited for the discussion to die down over several months and proceeded to delete the section again without discussion. When efforts were taken to put the content back up, the user deleted again without discussion. Only after I commented to discuss the issue did he refer to the Talk page and he brought the issue to this board for a second time. I'm open to the community to reopen this debate with hope that it receives more attention. Simply put, because this is only a smaller aspect of a larger issue, it likely went unnoticed when it had lasting effects. Though we are discussing the issue of Space Ghost retaining a rogues gallery section, what we are really debating is if the rogues gallery section should be rethought for the entire encyclopedia. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Space Ghost discussion

2013 Bahrain Grand Prix

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• 2013 Bahrain Grand Prix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs)
• Mohamed CJ (talk · contribs)
• Gruesome Foursome (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The race was controversial, as it is supported by a government that is currently engaged in a civil uprising with its own people. The dispute centres on how this controversy should be represented in the article. Some people believe that the controversy is significant enough to merit inclusion in the article lead; the other school of thought holds that since the protest movement was not as active as it was in 2011 or 2012, characterising the race as "controversial" in article lead puts undue weight on the issue, and that covering them further down the page would be the most appriopriate way forwad. Where the protests in 2011 led to the cancellation of the race, and the protests in 2012 were so widespread that they have their own article, the protests in 2013 did not actually affect the race in any way shape, or form; therefore, relative to the events of previous years, it can be argued that the controversy is not significant enough to be mentioned in the article lead.

Conversely, the opposing point of view suggests that because there is a large number of media sources describing the race as "controversial" (though it should be noted that some of the sources are simply reprinting an article originally run by a news agency like Reuters), the controversy merits inclusion in the article lead, and that the events of previous years have no bearing on the content of an invidivual article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There have been several attempts to resolve the dispute through the article talk page, but to no avail. I decided to bring the issue to DRN because of this message on my talk page, cautioning me against edit-warring, which came from the person I was on the verge of edit-warring with - which made me feel as if it was an attempt to force me out of the discussion.

How do you think we can help?

By answering this question: do related articles influence one another, or do they exist in isolation? Although the individual races took place twelve months apart, the protests that affected them are a part of the same movement. As this is an article about the race first and foremost, how do we best represent the issue: in the lead because of the secondary sources, or further down the page because the impact of the protests was less than in previous years?

Opening comments by Mohamed CJ

First time here! First I would like to clarify that the issue is not only with using the term "controversial", but with mentioning the controversy (the race going ahead despite ongoing protests and human rights violations) in the lead. The exact sentence being challenged is: The controversial race went ahead despite ongoing protests which had been taking place since the cancellation of the 2011 event.

The list of sources Prisonermonkeys mentioned above (full list here) deal only with the use of the word "controversial" to describe the event, but before that I also provided another set of sources (here), handily picked only from sports websites/sections that covered both the race and the protests. I also offered to provide over 120 sources when Prisonermonkeys said he didn't have sources for protest section . I reaffirm my argument that Misplaced Pages should give each view point the same weight that reliable sources do and I have provided many examples for reliable sources. The other party on the other hand have provided none so far, which led me to ask them to do that just Yesterday .

Also I would like to make it clear that I understand the controversy this year is less prominent than last year per reliable sources "One man died last year near the scene of the demonstrations, but this year there has been less attention on the race from rights groups and the protests so far have been smaller and less violent."Associated Press. But I also affirm that just like Prisonermonkeys mentioned, last year controversy was so big. It probably deserved a whole paragraph in the lead of the main article (i.e. 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix) and also it's own article (i.e. 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix protests). I don't see why should this mean that this year's controversy shouldn't get a mention (a single line!) in the lead. Yes, it is smaller than last year's, but it is still widely covered as demonstrated using reliable sources. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Gruesome Foursome

Prisonermonkeys edits are frankly indefensible. He simply keeps restating his personal opinions about what mentioning the controversy in the opening means, while completely and utterly ignoring the obvious reality as reflected in reliable sources - the protests were a significant aspect of the 2013 race. There is absolutely no reason why anyone should care about his personal view that because they were less than 2011 or 2012, that means they were insignificant. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 Bahrain Grand Prix discussion

I'm a volunteer here at DRN, and I'd be happy to help. Let me read through the article & comments above, and I will post some questions. --Noleander (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello @Noleander: thanks for taking the case. Waiting to hear from you. Mohamed CJ (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Erica Andrews article

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Erica Andrews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lightspeedx (talk · contribs)
• Little green rosetta (talk · contribs)
• Qworty (talk · contribs)
• Coffeepusher (talk · contribs)
• Braveyoda (talk · contribs)
• Absurdist1968 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am requesting for some help on the Erica Andrews article. It has been hijacked by 3 authors who refuse to collaborate or listen to reason. They do not appear to know the material well on this person and have disregarded arguments from me about information to be included in the article that adds depth to it. I realize some information may not be able to be sourced but it is information that is true about the person. An example is that Erica Andrews did appear in some music videos. I know this as I knew her before she passed away. She can even be seen in the music videos albeit a cameo/small role. Unfortunately unlike movies, music videos do not list their full cast. Another example if Erica Andrews appeared on Maury Povich's shows and she can be seen in YouTube videos of the episodes. I have cited according to Misplaced Pages AV Media guidelines and yet these authors have removed information - thus denying a reader of good information about Erica and her work. I have done extensive research on Erica Andrews and have deep interest in her work and her life. One author blatantly deletes information without regard for how it adds to the article. I have told him/her that if the information requires more citation, then please assist by doing research to find out more and add to the article instead of blatant information deletion which harms the article. None of them wants to listen and have decided somehow that my edits are unworthy no matter even if they are sourced information. Though I have listed citations according to Misplaced Pages standards which includes citing from a printed book, citing according to Misplaced Pages's AV Media guidelines, they have deleted information from the article without wanting to discuss with me. They have engaged in an edit war with me. The bulk of the article was authored by me before these 3 editors came upon it. Please assist or contact me to help me.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have written on the authors' talk page and the article's talk page to explain my views and to request for them to help by doing more research for content to add instead of rampant destruction. If a source isn't verifiable enough, then help to find more sources instead of deletion. They refused to listen and continue to revert all my changes even though the content is cited. There seems to be no other method but to reach out for dispute resolution and assistance for this article.

How do you think we can help?

Please review article, contact me if you have questions about the content. The article should not be the battleground for an edit war just because these authors have taken a dislike to me. From their talk pages - They seem to have a history of deleting content of other authors without contacting the authors or assisting politely.

Opening comments by Little green rosetta

Coffee pusher hits the nail on the head below. The sourcing is just not up to standards. What I hope this DR accomplishes is to educate Lightspeedx about what constitutes a RS on wikipedia.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Qworty

Opening comments by Coffeepusher

User:Lightspeedx has been adding information to the Erica Andrews article that is either poorly sourced or no source at all under the claim that it "adds depth" to the article. When I came to the article, due to a call on the biography of living person's noticeboard, major chunks of the article were sourced exclusively to primary sources such as playbills and myspace accounts, which is a violation of WP:BLP sourcing requirements. The three editors named above agree that proper sourcing should be maintained on a BLP, but lightspeedx thinks it is more important to insert information about local shows and cameo appearances than it is to source the article with WP:RS.

Myself and several other editors have tried to work with Lightspeedx concerning proper sourcing, on both personal talk pages as well as the talk page of the article. Based on the amount of discussion regarding this article I think this may be a case of WP:IDHTCoffeepusher (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Braveyoda

Opening comments by Absurdist1968

Erica Andrews article discussion

Hi, I'm User:Howicus, a (new) volunteer at DRN. I've read up on the dispute, but I'm not entirely sure what the content issues are. A few questions: Lightspeedx, does this revision of the article contain the information that you have wanted to add? If not, what is this information, and what references will you use to source it? And by the way, please don't accuse other editors of vandalism, as you did here , unless it's very obvious. WP:VAND is very clear on what is and is not vandalism, and what Little green rosetta did, isn't. --Howicus (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I notified User:Braveyoda and User:Absurdist1968, both of whom made edits to this page while the editing dispute was ongoing. Howicus (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

 Note to DRN volunteer: I have added Braveyoda and Absurdist1968 to the list of users involved, and have created an "Opening Comments" section for those users --Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Huizhou University, List of universities and colleges in Guangdong

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Huizhou University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of universities and colleges in Guangdong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• AndreGallant (talk · contribs)
• 113.67.113.216 (talk · contribs)
• 113.68.104.183 (talk · contribs)
• 216.151.31.21 (talk · contribs)
• Marco polo (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Contributor 113.67.113.216 (a former employee of Huizhou University) added unsourced and incorrect information on 26 April 2013, following a dispute over payment of a monetary bonus. User attempted to justify changes by stating the literal translation of a Chinese term into American English. User Marco polo initially agreed with user 113.67.113.216. Later, user AndreGallant restored the previous information, explaining the source of the difference between the English and Chinese terms used in the article. Argument began there. In the following debate, user AndreGallant demonstrated (using sourced material from the Chinese Ministry of Education) that his original content was factually correct. Since then, users 113.68.104.183 and 113.67.115.210 (the same user as 113.67.113.216) has repeatedly taken down the sourced information and posted trivial biased information in the form of links to images.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have posted in the TALK section my reasoning and sources, and asked user to please explain his sources. User 113.67.113.216 has not stated any sources other than personal experience, and continues to add changes to the page. User 113.67.115.210 also posted unrelated personal private information about employees of Huizhou University (see history of talk page)

How do you think we can help?

Page could ideally be reverted to a factual, unbiased state, and locked from further editing for some period of time.

Opening comments by 113.67.113.216

Opening comments by 113.68.104.183

Opening comments by 216.151.31.21

Opening comments by Marco polo

Huizhou University, List of universities and colleges in Guangdong discussion

Hi, I'm volunteering right now to help you out with your dispute. First of all, maintaining a neutral point of view is an essential part of any encyclopedic article.

Second, I checked out the school's website and it says "Huizhou University" on their logo and indeed it says it offers undergraduate degrees. Now, as for the dispute about how the school should be named, each country has different rules regarding the rights to naming schools "colleges" or "universities". The United States even has different rules per state. Putting that aside, your personal views regarding how a school should be named shouldn't be put in a Misplaced Pages article, nor should you include links to pictures complaining about the state of a building on Misplaced Pages. Should you wish for it to be on Misplaced Pages, get it published by a credible source. Read more on original research here. Also, please don't copy-paste text without quotes from one website to Misplaced Pages, as that could be considered plagiarism.

As for only 113.67.115.210 and AndreGallant, since you both claim to have been affiliated with the school in question (whether in past or the present) you are both in confict of interest. And when signing comments on talk pages, please remember to sign your post with four tildes (~~~~), so everyone knows who is talking to whom and when.

Don't add uncited commentary with NB. directly on the article.

And finally, continually removing content and re-adding can be considered edit warring, and could eventually result in a block. So, in the future if any of you disagree with any reverts made by someone else please don't revert it back again and discuss it on the talk page. (Unless it's vandalism, then don't even bother) Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 00:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I have never said that I have worked at the community college in question, and indeed I have not.

That is the projection of user AndreGallont, based on who knows what. A close of friend of mine has indeed previusly worked there and I have access to some of the material and some insider info because of that, but that is irrelvant for this discussion. User AndreGallant is putting forward silly claims that I am a certain individual (who, as far as I can see is in no way associated with Huizhou College, though I may be mistaken), and then he dismisses my constructive contribution to bringing two sides to the issue, prefering to only copy promotional material from the Huzihou College own pages, which is very unencyclopaedic, even though there is material proving my points (like about unqualified individuals holding positions of "professors" at this college with merely a BA -- that link stands for now while the article is blocked, but I am sure user AndreGalalnt will try to delete it if the article is unlocked.

Wht s/he is doing that, I have no clue, as s/he says that s/he does not work at the college "any more", assuming s/he has indeed worked there before. There are indeed several web pages which indicate that there was a certain Andre Gallant working there in the past (and possibly still), but the connexion of that person with user AndreGallant is dubious, to say the least. In any case, all I want is this to be kept from personal attacks, especially attacks against me as purportedly being a person I do not even know, and then deleting my edits for nothing.

Thanks.

User 113.67.115.210 —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Whether you were affiliated with the school in question or not is irrelevant, the point is that you do not project a neutral point of view as you do not seem fit for the school to use university as part of their name (proven by your continued use of Huizhen College instead of university. Also, insider info does not qualify as a credible source. If you would like information as such to be included in a Misplaced Pages article, get it published by a credible source. As AndreGallant says, LinkedIn profiles are personal and can be edited by anyone, therefore don't qualify as credible sources.

While I agree that copy-pasting content from one website to Misplaced Pages should not be done (unless short quotes are used). The idea can still be used as long as written in their own words.

Since they use "university" as part of their name on their official website, that would be the name to use on this Misplaced Pages article. The Chinese government also recognizes it as such.

Now, Misplaced Pages is not a primary source used to expose school conspiracy. Get it published first, then you can post it here. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 00:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Gun Control

Declined while RFC is open. Amadscientist (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Church of Scientology

All DR/N requests require extensive discussion before filing. Please continue to find common ground on the article talk page. Amadscientist (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sanctions Against Iran

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Sanctions Against Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• NPguy (talk · contribs)
• KhabarNegar (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is no single issue in dispute, but a seemingly unending series of issues, which will be evident by looking at the article's history and discussion page.

I have tried to edit the article so that it is factually correct, supported by reliable sources, and balanced. I have explained every edit in the description and often on the talk page. Though I have tried to meet KhabarNegar halfway and work with the valid substantive elements of his additions, he/she has repeatedly reverted my edits and insists on having every word exactly as he wants it. And he typically adds insult to injury by reverting my edits and then adding further dubious content.

I have the impression that few if any other editors look at this page or, if they do, they have given up because of the seemingly intractable dispute.

I also have the impression that KhabarNegar has limited English proficiency, as many of his/her edits and comments on the discussion page are ungrammatical and he/she often seems not to understand what I am saying.

Finally, i have the impression that he/she is motivated by a strong political bias - taking the side of Iran against the United States.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to resolve on the discussion page, to handle things step-by-step. For awhile it seemed like we were making progress, but the dispute has returned to a standoff.

How do you think we can help?

First, review the history and provide an independent view of the dispute. I hope you will conclude that KhabarNegar is being unreasonable, uncivil, and has violated Misplaced Pages standards of conduct, and I hope you will make this clear to him/her. Ultimately, if he/she refuses to budge, the only solution may be to block him from further edits.

Opening comments by KhabarNegar

Well, Above you see a 1754 character insults from first line till the last line without a single link of what is really going on.

FIRST OF ALL, the biggest lie he is telling is the last line which he is telling.

That is so unfortunate which instead of relying on the facts he makes this discussion USA Vs. Iran discussion, This points of view and injecting national patriotism in to the articles is I think the core problem that above user have,... & its obvious to anyone by using the last line he is trying to make a team to influence the article by his patriot views.

Mr. NPguy instead of insulting and trying to just put views of some current U.S administration foreign policies in to articles try to know the facts from reliable international sources.

If anyone see the history, you can see what he is doing, deleting the reliable sources for example like Al Jazeera & The Christian Science Monitor...KhabarNegar (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sanctions Against Iran discussion

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution