This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.
Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
The dispute must have beenrecently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.
If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.
Volunteers should remember:
Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.
Open/close quick reference
To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
There is a dispute on 2025–26 Manchester United F.C. season on whether to use a wikitable to display match results ( like here) or using {{Football box collapsible}} to do this (like here). For reference most other football season articles use the template; it is only Manchester United seasons which uses the wikitable (as far as I know). After the creation of that article there was a silent consensus to use the template, which was implemented a few months later. However, this was back-and-forth reverted by multiple users (no violation of 3RR, nor any action that I would consider edit warring). After that we were unable to reach a policy-based consensus on the talk page, which has at least a few "I just don't like it" arguments. I believe that the template should be used because we should provide a summary of the matches from an NPOV (as opposed to the wikitable, which does not include the opposition scorers) and that it includes some useful supplementary information, such as the venue and kick-off time.
Note: I have not included KyleRGiggs and Steveo1980 as an involved users as they did not participate beyond the initial silent consensus in June. This is also my first time using DRN, so sorry if I didn't use it correctly.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I am willing to try to act as a mediator. Please read DRN Rule A. If I understand correctly, the issue is whether to use a wikitable to display the results or a template. Are there any other issues? I am asking each editor to state whether they would prefer the wikitable or the template.
Personally, I prefer the table format, but I am the editor responsible for having created most of the Manchester United season articles using that format, which might mean I'm a little biased. Nevertheless, I still think the table format is better than the template format. Happy to elaborate if you need. – PeeJay13:59, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your understanding is correct; this is the only issue. I prefer the {{footballbox collapsible}} template, as it is easier to use for newcomers and gives more information (in addition to opposition scorers). Also I don't think many of the concerns of the template applies, and I'm willing to give more deatils if required. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the only question is whether to use the football box template or a wikitable to display the season results. Either method is permitted. Consistency with related articles is a consideration, although not the only consideration. It appears that in 2024-25 and 2023-24, a table was used. Is that correct? Is it correct that the box template provides more information than the table? Providing more information is a consideration, although not the only consideration. I would like each editor to state, in one paragraph, which format they prefer and why. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that most Manchester United season articles are written with the table format, while most' other season articles of other clubs (e.g. 2024–25 seasons of Liverpool, Fulham or Barcelona) are using the box template. I still agree with the box template format, because of consistency with other clubs and I consider the template box to provide more than the table (This is technically part of the dispute, since other editors disagree what is "necessary", but I consider the venue/location of the match to be important.). Another reason is that by not including oppositon scorers (which the table format does not, and space is a limiting factor to include that in the table), we would have a fan point of view rather than a neutral one. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, only the filing editor has stated their view. User:PeeJay requested to be pinged, so I am pinging them. Do the editors who are participating agree on which format to use? Are both editors willing to agree to the table format? Are both editors willing to agree to the template box format?
At this point, the filing editor wants to use the collapsible template box format. User:PeeJay wants to use the wikitable format, and wants to be pinged, but has not responded in this discussion for about seven days. At this point the table format is in use. I will say that PeeJay has given silent assent to the use of the collapsible template box format, and that the filing editor may change to that format. I would prefer to have discussion, but the absence of discussion is the absence of objection. If the change to the template is then objected to or reverted, we can resume discussion.
I have given no such assent. My opinions on this are well documented and I have nothing to add to this discussion beyond them. I asked to be pinged if you wanted to hear them again, but you gave no indication that you actually wanted to hear them again. First, there is no valid reason to change to a new format when the current format is well established in this series of articles. Second, the collapsible template uses space far less efficiently and includes information that is not necessary in these articles, such as the specific identities of opposition goalscorers. I tried to compromise by adding the identity of the referee, but my changes were reverted by User:Elegant vodka. – PeeJay23:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that we have disagreement that is not being resolved by discussion. We will need to obtain the rough consensus of the community with a Request for Comments. I will prepare the draft RFC within 24 hours, and will ask for comments by the participating editors, and will then activate the RFC. Are there any questions before I work on the draft RFC?
It appears that we have disagreement that is not being resolved by discussion. We will need to obtain the rough consensus of the community with a Request for Comments. I will prepare the draft RFC within 24 hours, and will ask for comments by the participating editors, and will then activate the RFC. Are there any questions before I work on the draft RFC?
It continues to appear that we have disagreement that is not being resolved by discussion.
User:PeeJay writes: Why can't we just leave the article as it is? There is a clear standard set by all other articles in , and no strong argument to make a change. On the other hand, User:AlphaBetaDeltaLambda writes: For reference most other football season articles use the template; Is either editor willing to agree with the other editor on the format? If not, we will resolve the issue by a Request for Comments.
I have prepared a draft RFC for review and comments at Talk:2025–26 Manchester United F.C. season/RFC on Format. Please review it and comment on it. Put your comments here, in DRN. Do not vote in the RFC, and do not comment in the RFC at this time. I will move the RFC to the article talk page and activate it when we are ready.
A – Every article in Category:Manchester United F.C. seasons uses a wikitable. There's clearly no barrier to entry in terms of skill as many editors have managed to keep these articles up to date in their current format over the years. Furthermore, the wikitable is far more efficient in terms of its use of space, and it includes all the information necessary for an article like this, and it does so without needing to hide any information in violation of MOS:COLLAPSE. Some editors have argued that it fails to include the identities of opposition goalscorers, but I would respond that it doesn't need to, since these tables are meant to be a summary of Manchester United's season in each competition. No one is denying that the other teams have scored and will continue to score goals, and the specific goalscorers can be named in the article prose. I have tried to compromise by at least adding the names of the referees, but this has been reverted by User:Elegant vodka, who claims that most readers wouldn't actually care about this information, and I find it hard to disagree with them. Furthermore, I would argue that use of the collapsible template is detrimental to the creation of an encyclopaedia. Having looked through all 92 professional English teams' articles for this season, all but three use the collapsible box and they're just sprawling lists of statistics with little to no prose. This is not what Wikipedia is meant to be. No one seems to care about actually writing about what happened, just recording the raw data and moving on. This data can be found anywhere, in any number of formats. Let's actually make an encyclopaedia here, chaps! – PeeJay09:07, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
B, as the vast majority of the teams (including 89 of the 92 in the Premier League and the English Football League) use the template format to display the match results. There are arguments that we don't need to include the referee of the match of the names of the opposition scorers, because this is an article about Manchester United, but I would tell them that it needs to be included, as the section in question are titled 'matches', and should include a neutral summary of the match. I don't think there is a way to include this in the table without constricting the space. Also, the template is collapsed and it wouldn't bother anyone or waste article space (and digital space is infinite for editors' purposes). This is also purely supplementary information that should be accompanied by prose. If not, Wikipedia is a work in progress. Accordingly, this template does not violate MOS:COLLAPSE. Finally, I apperciate that most people can write wikitables, but I still think that the template is a bit more approchable and easier to use for users, as they don't need to remember which column goes where, or which colours to apply to the results. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument about referees is moot. I've offered that as a compromise and no one in this discussion is arguing against identifying referees in the table. I don't think it's 100% necessary, but I'm not opposed to it. Second, excluding opposition goalscorers from the table doesn't make it non-neutral. As you and I have both noted, people should be writing prose to accompany these tables; that is where the identities of the opposition goalscorers is most important. The fact that a certain opponent scored in a game is statistically irrelevant to an article about club X. Thirdly, even when collapsed, the template is ridiculously inefficient with its use of space; the amount of whitespace in and around it is totally unnecessary. Finally, if you look at the vast majority of the 92 teams in the sample, they don't have any prose whatsoever; if nothing else, this is evidence that the templates seem to discourage people from contributing prose - they seem to think that the job is done as soon as the template is filled in - and that in turn means that the templates do, in fact, violate MOS:COLLAPSE, since the information cannot be found anywhere else other than in a collapsed template. – PeeJay22:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said not to vote in the draft RFC. I didn't say to vote here in the DRN, because I meant to vote in the RFC after it becomes live. However, the votes here can be copied into the DRN when the DRN becomes live. The rule that I specified does say not to engage in back-and-forth discussion.
Unless there is a plausible objection, I will launch the RFC within 24 hours.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Some editors add lines about Safal Worker's Street Committee that was supposedly active in the 2025 Nepalese Gen Z protests. This group was supposedly formed the day after the protests started and only has a twitter page. This twitter page is cited by some other left-inclined websites but have no mention in any Nepalese sources in Nepali or in English and other reputable foreign English media. I do not believe that such a group should be given any mention in Wikipedia, since a quick search in engines will reveal that searching their group will give you either the Wikipedia page or other online forums which cite this Wikipedia page.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
All their sources lean politically left. The group has no mention in any non-leftist sources or in any Nepali sources. If they can prove the groups involvement is not limited online in a significant way, I will not oppose their inclusion. Hami Nepal was given as an example for why Safal should be allowed, but Hami Nepal's coverage has been extensive and detailed. Unless Safal has similar coverage, I do not believe that they should be mentioned in the article.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
My view is that Safal is more or less extensively covered by a number of sources, all of which satisfy WP:RS. These sources include, Diario Socialista[1], Organise [2], Freedom [3] and some others. It is true these are left-leaning sources, but WP:RS does not state that bias alone means a source cannot be used. (Freedom for instance has been noted as especially reliable, despite it's far-left bias[4]). Overall, though it is definitely smaller than other protest groups, I think enough RS' cover it or discuss it to merit its inclusion. And its inclusion also adds to give a more holistic view of the different forces that take part in the protest.
@Robert McClenon I'd also like to add that one of the editors mentioned, Emac07, was not involved in any discussion on the Safal Committee. I wonder if this was a mistake? But it should be brought up. Also I have notified Grnchrst on their behalf, but I am not sure if I should notify Emac since it's likely their being mentioned was a mistake. Genabab (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Nepalese protests)
I am willing to moderate this dispute. Please raad DRN Rule D. Then please read the ArbCom designation of South Asia as a contentious topic. By taking part in this discussion, you are acknowledging that you are aware of expedited procedures for disruptive editing, and that Nepal is in South Asia. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So I am asking each editor to state what the article content dispute is. What do you want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change? Or what do you want to leave the same in the article that another editor wants to change?
We have one statement from one editor who wants to include the Safal Committee in the infobox and the article. Please specify where in the infobox they want to insert a reference to the committee, and what text they want to insert into the article, in what section and paragraph. If any other editor disagrees, please state the disagreement, and state what if anything else you want. If there are no other statements, I will close this case.
So for the infobox I want to add Safal COmmittee to the infobox under Hami Nepal.
Then I want to add it into the body for 9 September saying:
"Workers and independent Communists in Nepal formed the Safal Workers' Street Committee to defend protestors from violence in reaction to the killings of 8 September.[1][2][3][4] Their demands included the arrest of the government, the disarming of the state, the expropriation of enemy property, the arming of the Nepalese population, the dissolution of parliament and the election of worker assemblies.[3]" Genabab (talk) 10:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have one statement from one editor who wants to include the Safal Committee in the infobox and the article. Do any of the other editors disagree? If so, please state the disagreement concisely.
We have one statement from one editor who wants to include the Safal Committee in the infobox and the article. The other editors have not commented. I will suspend the rule against editing the article to allow Genabab to make the edits that they have requested, and will keep this case open for a few days. If the edits are reverted, please discuss them here, and on the user talk page of the reverting editor.
@Robert McClenon I am not sure what the exact procedure here for something like this is, but it hasn't escaped my notice that PenGear has violated WP:Canvas, by notifying another user to come and support their claim here.[5]. Not sure what this would mean specifically in terms of this Dispute Resolution but it seems I should bring it up. Genabab (talk) 10:07, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am still against adding this content. The source is biased and nobody mentions Safal Committee at all. Searching for them brings up Wikipedia. If that's the standard wikipedia wants to keep then great, perhaps all hearsay and social media posts can be added as sources. This committee has not been mentioned in any Nepali sources at all, but if western leftists want to create propaganda, what can I say. I concede. PenGear (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was just reminded of this thread and I'm sad to see PenGear is still assuming bad faith of other editors. As I said above, I don't think we should be assigning this group undue weight by placing it in the infobox, when there's no indication it has played any substantial role in the protests. But I also don't see the problem with including a short mention of it in the body of the article, limited to what reliable, secondary sources such as Freedom have said. I think this is a perfectly fair compromise between PenGear's position on removal and Genabab's position on inclusion. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not a fair compromise. This group does not exist and is only active online. There's no inclination anywhere that this group was even in the protests. But because of a tweet cited by biased sources it needs to be included? PenGear (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that there are other editors who have opinions on the mention of the Sahal Committee besides those who took part in this discussion. In particular, it appears that there is disagreement about whether to include a mention of the Safal Committee in the infobox, and disagreement about whether to include a mention of the Sahal Committee in the text of the article. Is that conclusion correct? I am asking each editor who is viewing this discussion, whether or not they are a named participant, to answer whether they want to mention the Sahal Committee in the infobox, and whether they want to mention the Sahal Committee in the article. If there is disagreement, it does not appear that we are about to resolve the dispute by discussion, and so an RFC will be in order.
Ideally, I would want it to be included in both the infobox and the body, but at this point I am willing to accept Grnrchst's suggestions on just putting it in the body and not the infobox as a compromise.
No to infobox, maybe to article (depending on due weight). If an RfC takes place, I will not be participating in it. I'm sick of being badgered and having accusations of bad faith thrown at me over a content dispute I never wanted to be involved in in the first place. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a draft RFC at Talk:2025 Nepalese Gen Z protests/RFC on Safal Committee. Please review and comment on the draft RFC. Please do not vote in the draft RFC at this time, because it is not a live RFC. Please do not put your comments in the draft RFC itself. Please put your comments about the draft RFC here, in DRN. When we are more or less in agreement as to what the RFC should ask, I will move the RFC to the article talk page and activate it, and then it will be a live RFC.
The RFC looks good to me as well, but I do have to ask once again at the risk of repeating myself, but what about the WP:CANVAS concerns raised earlier? How should that factor into the DR or the RFC? Genabab (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One editor is asking about canvassing by another editor. DRN is a content forum. The purpose of discussion here is to improve the article. The canvassing issue appears to be an issue about the conduct of another editor. From a content issue, the involvement of other editors in a discussion about content may result in more eyes and brains on the article, and is not an immediate problem, if it is a problem at all.
So my immediate question is whether any canvassing has impacted the development of an RFC, which is intended to determine the view of the community.
An editor can report the canvassing issue to WP:ANI, which will cause this DRN to be failed. A report at WP:ANI is likely to be dismissed as of little import. The RFC is ready to be launched anyway, regardless of how this DRN is concluded.
DRN has usually welcomed the inclusion of more editors in a discussion of article content. So I am not sure whether there is a problem, or what if anything to do about it if there is a problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^Sykes, Cristina. "Nepal: Parliament torched after police kill 19 protesters". Freedom. Retrieved 14 September 2025. Parliament and government buildings were torched, the prime minister and home minister have resigned, and the ban has been scrapped. The newly formed Safal Committee went further, calling the massacre of protesters "the first shot in a class war" and demanding disarmament of the police, dissolution of parliament and arming of the masses.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A collection of disputes regarding the warbox that has been ongoing between me and another user for around a week. Includes whether flags should be displayed on the wikibox in the units and commanders section, which units (such as the Free French Battalion and the Third Indian Motor Brigade) and countries (such as Free France) should be included, etc. Progress has been incredibly slow (Although some progress has been made, Free France was allowed on the war box). A request for a third comment was tried, but achieved little. Repeated reverting coming close (but not entering) an edit war. Another user has sometimes refused to discuss the issue, or stated they will not be continuing to discuss the issue, yet still reverts, making the discussion very hard. It seems hard to resolve without outside help. Thank you!
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I am willing to serve as a potential volunteer on this case; however, @Pencilceaser123:, can you please notify TurboSuperA+ about this filing, since they have engaged in discussion at Talk:Operation Sonnenblume by providing a WP:3O, by posting a message on their talk page about this DRN request? Also, I would like to remind all parties that infoboxes are a contentious topic. Also, I advise all parties to cease reverting edits as there appears to be a slow revert war going on. I have requested the page be protected at RFPP for now. [11]~delta(talk • cont)03:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only answered a specific 3O request regarding a single aspect of this discussion (flags in infoboxes). I have no opinion on the matter beyond the one I gave. I recommended that they ask for input at WP:MILHIST, because those are the editors who deal with military conflicts. TurboSuperA+[talk]03:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict
So I would guess by a strict textual definition a couple extra flags on the allied side may be allowed but only if it improves reader comprehension.
My first thought having read the article is that it does not appear to aid my comprehension in fact it may confuse readers who think the infobox is suggesting the Free French might be a major player in the battle when in fact it was a single company? If I am correct.
Now given that free french forces are only mentioned twice in the text of the article at least it does not seem to me that the french unit was notable in its participation in the battle beyond its size and may not warrant inclusion.
As a counterargument or at least a doubt that I have some pages do include very small participants;
Battle of Leipzig includes a British rocket artillery battery of some 200 men in a battle involving 100,000s. But the battery is notable I would assume for its novelty. (Perhaps it shouldnt include it im not sure)
Perhaps the conflict could be resolved while still including a free french flag in the infoxbox but a similar inclusion of any indian/Aus and any other nationality units.
Off the top of my head you might have Rhodesian's as they had company level units iirc in the KRRC.
The infoxbox might also need SA's at this time in 1941 most major SA formation were in east africa but there may well have been some company sized units I dont know about.
NZ too I know they had a rail logistics group active early on they might still be in theatre.
I raise these because they by setting the bar for infoxbox inclusion at company you risk having now a whole set of flags in the infoxbox, Indian, Aus, NZ, Rhodesian, and Free French.
Applying the same standard to subsequent battles in north africa you will include, greeks, czechs and poles in nearly every one.
Broadly my comment would be in general the allies of WW2 comprised many nations often fighting as coalitions. Infoxbox inclusion of every multinational force however small would lead to overload of what is supposed to be a quick reference resource to aid comprehension. Infobox non inclusion should not be taken as a sign of disrespect to anyone who served or any nation who contributed.
However if inclusion were to take place I would recommend you follow the Leipzig model and add a note at the very least specifying the size of any minor nation contributors for at least some clarity as you flood the infoxbox with 2-4 extra flags.
The free french contribution was larger than a single company, they had a battalion. The Warbox template suggests if you have alot of combatants, you limit the amount in the war box to around 3 or 4. So I think the free french, being the 4th biggest combatant on the allied side, should be included. But yes alot of pages include very small combatants, often they include ones with an extremely limited role, like only 2 planes or a warship in support. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah i had missed the 1 BIM in the Order of battle
Honestly given the scale of the Western Desert theatre (primary manoeuvre unit is brigades) my own thought would be to draw the line for inclusion in the major engagements - either at brigade or battalion level with no strong feeling for either one.. And at some level this is subjective. Company I do feel would be quite silly given the overall scale and the possibility to really crowd the infobox if applied.
I note that the BIM is smaller other contributors (Aus is division sized and the Indian Army unit is a brigade, but infobox crowding arguments dont really apply now.
alright ill do a request for comment on the hilhist board when I get time. In the meantime what is your thoughts on having flags in said warbox next to the commanders and unit names? Additionally should the Indian motor brigade, as it was fairly large and independent from the others be included in the unit list in the infobox? Thanks Pencilceaser123 (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I'm not sure
Either the standard for inclusion is divisions and up that were heavily engaged (noting the Italians arent listed)
But I can see an argument for including the indians they seem to have conducted some very independent operations as they withdrew.
@Keith-264, are you still willing to participate in the discussion here at DRN regarding the infobox? I noticed you have removed the talk page notification about the DRN case request but have not commented here. ~delta(talk • cont)11:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When Dying Light first released it wasn't clear if Harran was in Turkey or not. Now Dying Light: The Beast is released. It's the third game in the series but a direct continuation of the first game, Dying Light. The main character of the game, Kyle Crane, directly tells that Harran is indeed in Turkey when talking about the events on the previous game, Dying Light. Wikipedia article says it's in some random Middle Eastern territories. Well, it's stated now it is in Turkey and it should be changed. But an user disagrees without valid reasons. The involved user claims that further explanation of the lore shouldn't be included in the article like it can't be updated forever. User also tells that Turkey has no bearing on the rest of the plot and the Wikipedia article. I find it ridiculous because when it's stated that the place is in Middle Eastern territories, the user finds it has bearing but when Turkey is mentioned the user disapproves. I think it's personal to the user.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
The dispute needs a certain and noncontestable decision to prevent a revert war because more people will come and see it when they play the new game and want to change the article.
Dying Light takes place in "Harran" but no country is mentioned in the game and contemporary sources describe the setting as fictional, thus the plot description mirrors this. In the past, there have been a number of edits adding Turkey because there happened to be a real place with that name. While Dying Light: The Beast, released 10 years later, does mention Turkey, game plots are usually written in isolation and rarely incorporate lore information that did not exist at the time of release. Additionally, the country has no impact on the rest of the article, so its exclusion is no major loss. IceWelder [✉] 20:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So I am asking each editor to state, concisely and specifically, what they want to change in the article, or what another editor wants to change that they want to leave the same. I think I know what the issue is, but I would rather rely on concise statements from the editors than be mistaken.
Initial sentence: Harran is a fictional city located in Middle Eastern territories... Paramount change: Harran is a fictional city located in Turkey. Reason: This is also very important because when unrelated users use Google search to ask "Is Dying Light Harran in Turkey?". This sentence is highlighted by Google and shows false information that it is not. This is the core of the dispute.
1st secondary edit: In the very second sentence of the article, "...quarantine zone in a fictional Middle Eastern city called Harran." to either "...quarantine zone in a fictional Turkish city called Harran." or "...quarantine zone in a fictional city called Harran." and in the Setting subsection, "In the fictional Middle Eastern city of Harran..." to either "In the fictional Turkish city of Harran..." or "In the fictional city of Harran...". Reason: Since we know that the place is in Turkey there is no need to preserve older "Middle Eastern" adjectives. They should be replaced or removed. And it has no real usage neither by location or inspirations since the only inspirations from Europe, South Asia and South America. If it were a reproduction of Dubai we could have preserve it. Since it would be fictional Middle Eastern city.
2nd secondary edit: Harran is a fictional city in Turkey. It shares the name of the Harran that was an ancient city and currently a municipality and district located in Şanlıurfa Province, Turkey. Reason: 3D modelling inspirations mentioned in the article. Name inspiration may be useful. Readers will ask whether Harran is a real place or not and should know that it's not a made up name. Or the ones familiar with the real place will ask whether it's in the game or not. They should be aware of only the name comes from the real Harran. We already mention that inspirations are from Istanbul, Turkey and Mumbai, India. --TheDerebeyi (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that one editor wants to make two changes to the article to state that the setting is the fictional city of Harran in Turkey, and the other editor wants to leave it alone to state that the location is the fictional city of Harran in the Middle East. Is my understanding correct?
Can each editor please provide a reason, based on policies and guidelines why their request is correct?
I don't know how to correctly cite an in-game resource. But since it's just to explain the reasons I will link a YouTube gameplay with timestamp: Dying Light: The Beast gameplay (00:00:29). Main protagonist of the game, Kyle Crane, explains it the location is in Turkey while talking about the events on the Dying Light. This is a primary source. Further explained reasons are in my zeroth statement. It's not a contradicting new information. The first game didn't clarify the country at the time of the release. Someone worked in the game said something about it being somewhere on Middle East and Wikipedia article quotes it. Dying Light: The Beast is a direct continuation of the Dying Light and have the same protagonist. Since it clearly mentions the country we can't say it's in somewhere in the Middle East anymore. It's Turkey. --TheDerebeyi (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Limiting the information to the work being summarized is an established practice rather than a guideline. Still, according to MOS:VGPLOT, "The plot should summarise content that every player would be expected to see on a playthrough of a game.", which in my eyes excludes information from other games. IceWelder [✉] 15:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Middle East territories" doesn't included in the game. It's from external resources. They won't see anything about it in a single playthrough of the Dying Light. If you say that "Middle East territories" is okay to be part of it, you are contradicting with yourself. Another external resource, Dying Light: The Beast, doesn't say it's not in the Middle East. It reduces the scale to the exact location, Turkey. If one is okay to use I don't understand your reasons rejecting the other. A developer interview doesn't have a higher precedence than a direct sequel's briefing about the previous game. TheDerebeyi (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could argue that the general region is unmissable in a standard playthrough, regardless of whether it is mentioned verbatim, but I would not mind removing that qualifier. IceWelder [✉] 07:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Parag Jain is head of India's external spy agency. With such a high profile job, comes the nationalistic urges too. This is what has been happening on Parag Jain's article. Current article is all based on sources from Indian media, and all of them say the say thing over and over and all are based on sources, and were published after his appointment as the head of the spy agency. I edited the article to include his time as a lower level officer when he served as a Punjab Police officer and was accused of extrajudicial murder of a Police, and also his spy activities being discovered by Canadian spy agency in 2023. Notably, only my references are not from Indian media, and were published before his appointment as a head of spy agency, or contain material referencing his activities before his current appointment. This makes them more reliable than mere source based articles published after his appointment. My references allow for a better profile of Parag Jain to be made based on already scarce references.
After I included these references, Pasados edited them, I put them back and Umar_Choudhary8 removed whole sections of criticism, but thankfully the edit got reverted by some other editor. Now that user is just going in circles and I stopped responding since it's just the same point over and over. Meanwhile, some IP address comes and edits the articles and sensing an opportunity Umar_Choudhary8 removes sections again. Pasados is now preventing edits of the article and has not reverted the article to previous state.
Can this dispute be resolved please. Thank you for your time and effort.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please restore the balance in the article and include me references. I have three references which contain only material which allows for a complete profile to be built. They are not from Indian media, and are before the timeperiod of Jain being appointed the spy agency's chief.
Pardon my late response, I’ve been a bit busy in personal life, First, I was not actively participating in this discussion, so I’m not sure why I was brought into it. However, let me try to put things into perspective.
There is no disputes here; this was simply a case of non-compliance with WP:V and the use of unreliable sources. I edited the controversial section and added a [citation needed] template in the hope that better, more reliable sources would be provided, as the entire section was largely based on two local community websites Voice Online and The Bureau News, both of which do not meet the standards for reliable sourcing, and claims were not verifiable. However, the burden of evidence lies with the editor adding the content. I asked the user to provide reliable sources here, but none have been provided to date.
Both users have been engaging in a rather aggressive discussion on the article’s talk page, without fully assuming good faith, as encouraged by WP:AGF.
I reminded the user (Blued20) many times that, per WP:GOODFAITH, if they wish to further discuss the reliability of "Voice Online" or any other source, the appropriate venue is the WP:RSN.
I should have removed the poorly sourced content from the beginning. However, since both users were actively discussing the issue on the talk page, I held off. Unfortunately, the discussion has now dragged on for over two and a half months without the presentation of any reliable sources.
As this involves a Biographies of Living Persons issue and no reliable sources have been provided, the content in question and unverifiable should be removed.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
In my view the edits of the editor Blued20 should not be included in the biographic article page of Parag Jain because it is contentious and also wikipedia has strict policy regarding contentious articles for BLP. Throughout the whole debate on the article's talk page. My view point is that the claims which Blued20 wants to add in the article are poorly sourced and is self publish content. When I asked them to improve their source quality or include high quality sources which are independent, not biased to any specific ideology and has been included in mainstream media to support their claim. But the editor rather than having a healthy and respectful debate is writing responses which are completely emotionally driven and is also trying to create false allegation on me and to another experienced editor who also has similar view like mine that we are supporting pro Indian government bias which is absolutely not true without any evidence of anything.
If you go through the sources provided by Blued20 you will follow a pattern that all of these listed source have similar content which is primarily sourced from The Bureau which is a self proclaimed investigative Canadian news media organisation. And the primary source of The bureau article according to them is their so called leaked Canadian Intelligence Agency which in itself has no credibility because if the report was really leaked then the same claims which The bureau wants to show could have also been supported by other Canadian Media organisations and there would have been an official statement from the Canadian Government side on this report. But there is nothing happened neither Canadian government made statement on it nor any of the Canadian media organisation supported it. And another thing the editor Blued20 is creating false accusation on me that I reverted his edits from the article's page using a random IP address which is again not true because if I really wanted to that then why would I had such a longer debate with them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Umar Choudhary8 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I am asking each of the editors to specify concisely what you want to change in the article, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was reviewing the article Gol Maal when I noticed the poster is not appropriate for the film. There are several flaws in the poster:
The old poster is not the official poster
It is not aesthetically pleasing.
A supporting actress occupies the main space in that poster, while the two main characters are pushed to the side.
It is also quite difficult to make out who the actors in that poster are as the poster is (badly) handdrawn.
I think it misrepresents the movie completely and should be removed.
I replaced the poster file with another imagethat I thought served the purpose better.
But the original editor, user @Kailash29792, reverted the change with a bad-faith curt comment, "No way".
I started a discussion on the user's talk page (now copied to article's talk page: here) and mentioned the flaws I found. I also mentioned that their comment was not constructive.
But the user stated that my poster was a DVD cover (I don't know how they reached that conclusion). When I pointed out that WP:FILMPOSTER states that DVD covers are acceptable, the user said that they should not be used when a theatrical release poster is available. But the point is that the uploaded theatrical release poster is 'not official! It's a third-party creation.
The user then created a different new file (not sure why). The new poster is quite similar in content to the old poster and hence has the same flaws.
I feel that the image I uploaded is valid for fair-use rationale and also suits the article given its prominence in popular culture. I sincerely believe that either my old image or this image (from a source mentioned by WP:FILMPOSTER) should be used.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Resolve by deciding
a) Whether my change was invalid in the first place
b) Whether my change should have been reverted
c) Whether the creation of a new file is valid
d) Whether WP:FILMPOSTER could use with an additional guideline on when old posters can be replaced
I do not understand why Kingsacrificer opposes the current poster. You cannot expect perfect posters from a pre-computer era. Moreover, the latest one I uploaded was the best quality one I could find, quite obviously digitized. But KS uploaded a DVD cover of extremely low resolution and quality. I asked Manick22 for his perspective, and he supports me (no canvassing intended, just consensus). Kailash29792(talk)09:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closed without prejudice as premature, and as inadequately filed. As Mesocarp has noted, discussion on the article talk page has not reached an impasse. Also, the filing unregistered editor has not listed all of the editors who have taken part in the discussion. The filing editor is strongly advised to register an account if they want to take part in dispute resolution. It is difficult to communicate with an editor whose IP address changes. Resume discussion on the article talk page. A new case can be filed here if discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, and if all the involved editors are listed. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The dispute centers on the use of a four-image gallery in the lead section of the Hanfu article, instead of a standard infobox with a single image.
Editor A (an IP user) argues that the current layout is a clear violation of Wikipedia's Manual of Style. My main points are:
1. Policy Violation: The layout contravenes both MOS:LEADIMAGE, which recommends a single lead image, and the more specific rule at MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY, which explicitly prohibits lead galleries for articles about large human populations (like the Han Chinese).
2. Mobile Readability: The large gallery pushes the lead text far down the page on mobile devices, creating significant readability issues.
3. Inconsistency & Lack of Infobox: The layout is inconsistent with the vast majority of well-developed articles. It also omits a standard {{Infobox clothing type}}, which is best practice for providing key, at-a-glance information.
Editor B (GuardianH) argues that the layout is acceptable. Their main points are:
1. Policy Inapplicability: They contend that MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY does not apply because the article is about "clothing" (a thing), not "people," drawing an analogy to haircuts or food items.
2. Subjective Assessment: They state that the gallery looks fine on their mobile screen and that an infobox is not mandatory.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
A request was filed at WP:3O, which resulted in conflicting opinions from two other editors (one supporting each side), so no consensus was reached.
Note: I am editing as an IP user. The talk page of the other involved editor, User:GuardianH, is semi--protected, so I am unable to post the required notification there.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
A neutral moderator is needed to provide a definitive interpretation of the relevant Manual of Style guidelines (MOS:LEADIMAGE and MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY) in this context. The core questions are:
Does a gallery in the lead of an article about a major ethnic group's traditional clothing violate the spirit and/or letter of MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY?
Should standard practice, mobile readability, and the utility of an infobox take precedence over the current non-standard layout?
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Note from another involved participant (Mesocarp): I'm one of the two editors that arrived via the 3O page. I don't think discussion on the talk page has reached the point where DRN is necessary yet, since the four of us have had little opportunity to discuss together and so far things seem reasonably cordial and productive to me. As a note to the opener, myself and Icannotchoosemyuser are also involved now and weren't notified on our talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesocarp (talk • contribs) 22:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– Discussion in progress.
– New discussion.
