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

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, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266

This page has archives. Sections older than 72 hours may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 1.

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

{{DRN archive top|Closed as probably resolved. There seems to be agreement on how to refer to where the army was before the battle. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 06:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)}}

Closed as failed. This dispute was reopened because one editor said that they disagreed with the resolution. After this case was reopened, that editor has not stated what they want, probably because they are on travel. We can't keep a dispute open for weeks until an editor resumes editing. There seems to be consensus, with one objection, to say Skadar (modern Shkodër. If anyone disagrees and is willing to explain why they disagree, they can explain on the article talk page. Do not edit-war. Either accept the resolution, or use some other method of dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 11 December 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. Filed by Aeengath on 11:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC).[reply] Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Battle of Maritsa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Aeengath (talk · contribs) Botushali (talk · contribs) Himaldrmann (talk · contribs) Donner60 (talk · contribs) Edwin Herdman (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This concerns a place name in a sentence describing where an army assembled in 1371 before a battle. When I expanded the article, I wrote it as "Skadar (modern Shkodër)" following the two English sources that narrate that specific event. Another editor later changed it to "Shkodër" which started the dispute. The question is which form fits best Wikipedia’s naming practice. My view is that, per WP:PLACE and WP:V, the article should mirror what reliable English sources use for the event being described followed by the modern name. The other editor prefers a later or modern form taken from broader regional works that do not narrate the 1371 battle directly. A version using Scutari (Shkodër) with a note for Skadar was suggested as a compromise, but that seems to apply the name from a later period to an earlier event. The variation arises because over the centuries the city changed hands multiple times with each period using a different historical form. A Third Opinion request was discussed but not closed and the editor handling it has been inactive since 28 October. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Battle of Maritsa#Skadar vs. Shkodër in 1371 context How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Input from uninvolved editors or a moderator on how WP:PLACE and WP:V should be applied here would resolve this. Specifically we need clarification on whether the event-specific usage found in cited English sources (Skadar) should take precedence over later or broader forms (Scutari, Shkodër) when describing this 1371 battle. This would help establish a consistent approach for articles covering this period as well as other historical ones currently being worked on. Summary of dispute by Botushali [edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Himaldrmann [edit] Both "Skadar" & "Shkodër" are used in relevant sources: "Skadar" is (a) a name definitely used at the time in question (i.e., it is not anachronistic), and (b) more common in English-language sources that deal specifically with this battle/campaign. However, that is only two or three sources total, IIRC (user Aeengath will know the exact count)—it's rather niche—and so I attempted to look around a bit more... but found that: "Shkodër" is (a) not anachronistic either, and (b) (possibly: see below) more common in English-language sources that deal in general with the area at roughly the relevant time-period. However, this is a slim lead (& my attempted survey was not exhaustive). It seemed to me that "Skadar (modern Shkodër)" is maybe the more informative option: as it appears that neither "Skadar" nor "Shkodër" would be anachronistic, and are similarly prevalent in the sources, why not throw 'em both in?... ...however, user Botushali raised good points in that the letter of the guidelines would seem to suggest going with the local (/ local historical) name in such a case as this (i.e. one wherein no toponym has a definitive lead in English); and that using "Shkodër" + a footnote would be similarly informative. I, personally, am fine with this suggestion too. I'm not sure which standard ought be used in assessing English-source-usage: "sources dealing with this particular battle/campaign" vs. "sources dealing with the medieval Balkans in general". Admin Rosguill suggested that, in general, the more specific category ought be used—but that this might also depend on how natural/significant that category is, which may here be questionable (see: their Talk page under "WP:UEGN"). [Note: Apologies for my failure to close the "Third Opinion"; I am just really not sure what the best solution is! But I will try, if closing would be useful still.] Cheers, Himaldrmann (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by Donner60 [edit] I think the parties agree on the guideline or guidelines to be used in determining the names of the battle and more importantly in this case, the place where or near which it occurred. The dispute is about which of the many names for the place over the years, and even today, which is best used under the guidelines. The problem has seemed to me to be that there are only a few sources and they are not consistent. Also, the omission of one or more might not present a clear picture. So I think this is an unusual case where multiple names should be mentioned even though a primary name should be used in the body of the article. My only contribution was to propose a compromise under which all the names would be mentioned in some fashion with an explanation of the differing sources and perhaps an alternative or two mentioned in a footnote to the primary one, or perhaps even two with one in parenthesis, which should be used in the article. I consider this a rather unusual case. I am not sure any precedent would be set but I think it is a legitimate matter of concern that the proper guideline be followed, even in an unusual or difficult case. I have no absolute preference for a result. My thought is that the naming should be the best or most accurate under the guidelines. I see no problem with secondary explanations at least in a footnote. I think mentioning the various alternatives over the time period is probably helpful for identifying the location in this article. I will be satisfied with whatever conclusion is made by the moderator and/or the consensus of commentators who state their reasons. Donner60 (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Battle of Maritsa discussion [edit] Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Notification on the user talk page is required when posting to anyt noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Robert McClenon Thanks for the reminder. I’ve now notified all involved editors on their user talk pages. -Aeengath (talk) 08:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Battle of Maritsa) [edit] I am ready to act as the moderator if the editors want moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule D and the designation of Eastern Europe and the Balkans as a contentious topic. If you participate in discussion, you are known to have read about the contentious topic. Are there any article content issues other than the names of Shkodër? There is a link in the article from the name of the city to the article about the city. Is there a reason why this article needs information that goes beyond the article? I am asking each editor to state exactly what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thank you @Robert McClenon. Here is the information you requested. There is no content dispute other than the place name in one sentence describing where an army assembled. The article does not need any extra information about the city. The only question is which name to use in that one sentence, following the sources that support it. The specific change I request is to restore the name used in the English sources that describe the 1371 campaign. Both sources that narrate the event (Fine 1994; Shopov 2006) use Skadar, so the sentence would read: “His army was in Skadar (modern Shkodër) preparing for action when Uglješa summoned him.” No newer or event-specific English sources use a different name. This follows usual WP:PLACE practice of “historical name (modern name)” and meets WP:V since the wording reflects what the reliable sources actually say. No further issues from my side. I am happy to proceed under moderated discussion. –Aeengath (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Zeroth statements by editors (Battle of Maritsa) [edit] Thanks for your time, @Robert McClenon! The argument is solely over what place-name to use in the sentence quoted by @Aeengath. I believe @Botushali wanted something like the below, citing (a) a WP:UEGN guideline to use local names when there is no clearly-widely-accepted English name, + (b) concern that the "modern-day Shkodër" parenthetical may imply that the city was not also known as Shkodër at the time: [...] His army was in Shkodër[a] preparing for action when Uglješa summoned him. ^ Also called Skadar; better-known in English by the later name Scutari. So long as we either use both names in the main body, or have an explanatory footnote, 'sall fine by me!¹ ¹i.e., I'm fine with either—just wanted to round out the picture here in case Botushali can't, as he's on holiday. Cheers, Himaldrmann (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] I also thank @Robert McClenon for volunteering to moderate this discussion. "The summary of dispute by Donner60", above, sets out my contribution to the discussion and views about the outcome. I will only repeat the last sentence here: "I will be satisfied with whatever conclusion is made by the moderator and/or the consensus of commentators who state their reasons." My opinion is that this is a somewhat unusual and difficult question in the context of this article. Even though the guidelines are not disputed, as I understand the discussions, the application of the guidelines to this article are not agreed upon. I think it will be useful if some other opinions are expressed by other editors but of course, that is voluntary and may well not occur. Thanks to all who have proceeded in these discussions with civility and have backed up their conclusions with reasons. Donner60 (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] First statement by moderator (Battle of Maritsa) [edit] I am asking each editor to state exactly what they want the article to indicate as the name of the city. I am also asking each editor who wants additional information besides the name of the article about the city why that information needs to be in this article, rather than being in the article about the city. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] First statements by editors (Battle of Maritsa) [edit] Thank you @Robert McClenon, answers below: The city should appear in the article as "Skadar (modern Shkodër)" on first mention and as Skadar in later mentions. This is the form used in the English-language sources that support that sentence. No additional information about the city is needed in this article. The modern name in parentheses should be enough for reader clarity. I am of course open to a brief footnote explaining that the city has appeared under different names in different periods if other editors find it helpful to readers. -Aeengath (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] I prefer "Skadar, also named Shkodër then" based on review of policy and relevant RS, which I summarize in about 1350 characters (that would answer your second question also). As an uninvolved editor who hasn't had a chance to review this until today, and considering related discussion is ongoing, may I add that summary? --Edwin Herdman (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Second statement by moderator (Battle of Maritsa) [edit] Two editors have said that they want the article to say that his army was in "Skadar (modern Shkodër)". Is there any disagreement? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Second statements by editors (Battle of Maritsa) [edit] I support using "Skadar (modern Shkodër)" in the article. That wording reflects the English sources supporting that sentence. I have no further issues. -Aeengath (talk) 08:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Third statement by moderator (Battle of Maritsa) [edit] There appears to be agreement. Unless there is disagreement, I will close this dispute. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] The whole reason why this was brought to this forum was because there was no consensus to use ‘Skadar’ in the article. Apologies for the late and short response but I am away on holidays - on the original TP discussion, most parties consented to ‘Shkodër’ + a footnote as a compromise, save for Aeengath. I don’t understand why that’s changing now? Botushali (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Third statements by editors (Battle of Maritsa) [edit] No further questions from me. The wording "Skadar (modern Shkodër)" reflects the sources and has consensus here so I support closing the discussion. Thank you for moderating. -Aeengath (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Fourth statement by moderator (Battle of Maritsa) [edit] I have reopened this dispute because one editor disagrees with the resolution. The issue appears to be about where to say the Serbian army was. Some editors have agreed that the article should say that it was in Skadar (modern Shkodër). So I am asking each editor, again, to say where the article should say that the Serbian army was. If there are any other content issues, please state what they are. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Fourth statements by editors (Battle of Maritsa) [edit] 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.

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed. An RFC is being used to try to resolve this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:01, 15 December 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. Location of dispute Tetris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 3df (talk · contribs) Oknazevad (talk · contribs) Maplestrip (talk · contribs) Noleander (talk · contribs) Vacant0 (talk · contribs) Man-Man122 (talk · contribs) Binksternet (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is a dispute over whether Tetris should be defined in the lead as a video game with multiple versions/variants or a video game series. Although it seemed the dispute was resolved by RfC back in June, recent activity resulting from a now-withdrawn FAC has proven otherwise. Furthermore, the dispute on what to define Tetris has manifested on the List of video games considered the best and List of best-selling video games talk pages for years, long before the dispute started on the Tetris talk page proper. To keep the user list concise, the users I have listed either reviewed the GAN or FAC nominations, as both nominations ignited the dispute in the first place, or participated in the latest discussion on the talk page. What to define Tetris in the lead poses a serious dilemma. On one hand, the vast majority of sources refer to Tetris in general as a video game due to the gameplay usually being consistent across Tetris games, which multiple users have likened to chess. Since WP:DUE recommends emphasizing the majority view and Tetris being a video game is the majority view, some could argue that the lead should refer to Tetris as a video game. On the other hand, the Tetris article currently serves as WP:broad-concept article, encompassing multiple Tetris games that would generally not be considered a "version" of the original Tetris gameplay. Since those games are more akin to entries in a video game series, some could argue that the lead should refer to Tetris as a video game series. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Tetris/GA1, Talk:Tetris/Archive_3#Pre-RfC_discussion_on_definition, Talk:Tetris/Archive_3#RfC_on_definition_of_Tetris, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tetris/archive1, Talk:Tetris#The_article's_lede How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would like help in resolving this dispute, either mediated consensus-building, a compromise, or a new RfC with a clear closing comment. Summary of dispute by 3df [edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I was the GAN reviewer. During the review, I mentioned that the article was ambiguous as to its subject and recommended that it be made explicitly about Tetris as a media franchise. A third editor raised concerns about this change and the question of what the article’s subject was – a video game with many versions, or a video game series – was brought to RfC. I have no opinion regarding this question and did not participate in the RfC, but it informed my review. After it was closed, I found that the article did meet criteria and passed it. I would not have found consensus if I had closed that RfC, but I also did not anticipate the question being raised again. 3df (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by Oknazevad [edit] Tetris is somewhat unique among video games because it's not a series as conventionally used in the subject field (like say, Mario, Sonic, Call of Duty or any of of the thousands of series) where each game is treated as a distinct creative work. Tetris is pretty consistently treated in sources more as a game genre like solitaire, poker, or minesweeper, where there's a general concept and mechanic that is consistent across all versions yet each release has its own particulars, but unlike those generic games, Tetris is a particular bit of still-copyrighted and trademarked intellectual property (can't actually be called Tetris without a license). And then within the whole shebang there are actually specific series of versions, like the Tetris: The Grand Masterseries, but they're still considered versions of Tetris as a general description. The issue here is that no matter which version on whatever platform is being played, reliable sources and common vernacular all say the person is "playing Tetris". We should follow the sources and do the same. oknazevad (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by Maplestrip [edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. "Tetris" is three things. It is a 1985 video game for an old soviet computer. It is a series of video games that share many elements with that original game (many of which are also just called "Tetris"). And it is an archetype of a game; a genre if you will. Tetris is like Poker, Tennis, Minesweeper, or Snake: a single game with many variations. Our Wikipedia article conflates the series and the archetypical game, and we struggle with how to phrase the result. If I make a flashgame that is Tetris, and call it Tetris, people will point to it and say it is Tetris, but it is not part of the Tetris franchise. It is very atypical for Wikipedia to refer to any video game in the way that we may refer to poker or tennis, because we approach them more as creative works like films with a clear singular release. The only other example like this that we have is Minesweeper as listed above, but that article isn't about a franchise. Sources seem to approach Tetris as a singular game with many variants, but they may also approach it as a licensed series of works. Which perspective should Wikipedia take? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by Noleander [edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Tetris was nominated for FA. I volunteered to review it, and observed that the lead was very confusing to lay readers. And I said so. I have no opinion on the ideal scope of the Tetris article (sources clearly use the word "Tetris" in several conflicting ways). I have nothing more to contribute here in DRN. Noleander (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by Vacant0 [edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I'll keep it as short as possible. I was a reviewer at FAC and found the article to be written weirdly. Anyone familiar with how video game articles are supposed to be written would know that the Tetris article is not stylised like a standard video game article, but as a series. The lede, however, did not reflect that (the lede read like Tetris was a single video game). My issues were resolved during the review by the nominator, but the changes were quickly reverted. I don't think that the article is ready for FAC in its current state mainly because of this. The average reader won't understand what the article is about by reading the current lede. I do not have any other opinions on this issue besides this one. Video games that feature same or similar gameplay (eg., FIFA) are treated as a series on Wikipedia therefore I don't see a reason why would Tetris be treated differently. Summary of dispute by Man-Man122 [edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. To keep it brief: There's a dispute as to whether the lede for the Tetris article should describe it as a series or as a game. Despite how some may (with reason) see this point of view with skepticism and confusion, the fact is that the majority of sources, although there's some confliction, seem to describe Tetris as a game with a multitude of variants, rather than a series. In my view, the article's lede ought to be kept that way, in keeping with said sources. Other volunteers here seem to think that another RfC should take place and that it'd do some good. This seems like the most reasonable place to go from here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Man-Man122 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by Binksternet [edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Premature venue jump. This dispute can be solved with a new RfC on the Tetris talk page, with a slightly tighter focus aimed at whether the game should be described and classified primarily as a series. Yes or no. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Tetris discussion [edit] Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - Is this discussion being brought here for assistance in formulating an RFC, or is there some other reason why this request is being made here rather than continuing to discuss at the article talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Robert McClenon: Sorry, this is my first time here, so I'm not sure what the norms are. I brought the discussion here because I'd like the dispute to be resolved by any means necessary, and the recent discussion wasn't leading to a clear consensus. I think that's partly my fault, as I might've WP:BLUDGEON'd it without me realizing. In any case, I am worried that even if discussion dies down with Tetris remaining in whatever state it's in, if I ever nominate it for FAC again, the dispute would just reignite like last time. I am open to another RfC, as that might be the best way to resolve it, though resolution will heavily depend on the closing comment. The prior RfC had a closing comment that didn't make it clear what the ultimate consensus was. If you or any other volunteer is willing to assist in formulating a new one, I'd greatly appreciate it. Lazman321 (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Tetris) [edit] I am ready to act as a moderator for the purpose of discussing whether a new RFC is needed. It appears that that is the concern being raised by the filing editor. Please read DRN Rule A, which will govern discussions here, but discussion will be limited to whether any RFCs should be formulated, unless an editor states that there is an article content dispute. I will not moderate or mediate any dispute about Featured Article status, because that should be done in accordance with the Featured Article procedures. I am asking each editor to state concisely what they want to accomplish by discussion here. In particular, please state whether you think that a new RFC is needed. Any editors who do not respond to this request will be assumed to be declining to take part in this discussion, but may join later if they wish. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Zeroth statements by editors (Tetris) [edit] I think a new RfC is needed. Users from both sides participated in that RfC in similar numbers, and the closing comment didn't really pick which side had the stronger case, saying that the consensus was "a bit mixed". The closer did say that a majority of the participants supported defining Tetris as a video game, but that majority is very slight, and consensus is determined by the quality of arguments, not a vote. I think a problem with the RfC that led to the unhelpful closing comment is that only three options were proposed: defining Tetris as a game, a series, or a genre. Each option, as prior discussions have demonstrated, have inherent problems, meaning any RfC on this matter should leave room for discussing potential compromises in order to mitigate said problems. Lazman321 (talk) 06:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] I share Lazman's view on the necessity for a new RfC. Man-Man122 (talk) First statement by moderator (Tetris) [edit] I see that my question of whether each editor thinks that a new RFC is needed was insufficient. I am asking each editor who thinks that a new RFC is needed to specify exactly what is the purpose of the new RFC and what the new RFC should ask. Should the new RFC ask the community to rank the choices of a video game, a video game series, and a genre? Should the new RFC ask the community to choose between a video game and a video game series? Try to be clear as to why a new RFC is desired and what a new RFC will ascertain. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] First statements by editors (Tetris) [edit] Ah, apologies. I believe that the new RfC should be put forth to determine whether or not Tetris is referred to as a game or a series in its article. I personally think that the RfC should ask the following: Should Tetris be defined as a video game or a series of video games? Simple enough, in my view. Although I do think that it's still susceptible to the kind of deadlock of the last RfC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Man-Man122 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] I agree that, because this is such a binary decision, and because I don't imagine it would be easy to convince "the other side" in either direction, a binary vote would be the best way to handle this issue. I would like to hear if people think that isn't acceptable, or if people think there's a third option here. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] I have had a brief read over this dispute and have found myself disappointed. Since WP:DUE recommends emphasizing the majority view and Tetris being a video game is the majority view, some could argue that the lead should refer to Tetris as a video game. No, if there is a dispute in sources, we are obliged to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Describing it in wikivoice as one or the other is engaging the dispute. This should not go to an RFC, especially if what is presented is a binary "treat it as this or this", and we are trying to establish which side has the stronger case. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 08:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Do we have any reliable sources discussing this issue directly that we can refer to? That would be helpful. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure. I found your comment that sources "approach Tetris as a singular game with many variants, but they also approach it as a licensed series of works" compelling, can you provide sources that you were referencing to support it? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 08:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Here are several Web-sources describing Tetris as a singular game with "versions": NYT, Polygon, Verge, Retro Gamer, as examples. I'm actually struggling finding sources calling Tetris a series or a franchise, but here's an example: Denofgeek. Here's a source that refers to both "Tetris games" and the "Tetris brand" (in the context of Tetrisphere), but it's not very useful I think IGN. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] I would be looking at WP:BESTSOURCES to make such a determination. That being said, if these sources are representative, I would only think the characterization of Tetris as a franchise due for a footnote at most. As presented it is barely if even a minority view. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 11:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] An RfC like the one Man-Man122 and Maplestrip propose would be the simplest, but given the deadlock, I believe the RfC should also provide a potential compromise option. Perhaps a footnote at the opening sentence, but I am open to other suggestions. Lazman321 (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] I'm inclined to believe that a footnote would be the best compromise option. I was actually about to suggest that on the talk page, but the message I was replying to was replaced with the other one about being cautious about bludgeoning while I was typing. I don't think I have any other compromise suggestions. Man-Man122 (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] So, is that that? Do we just start a new RfC? Man-Man122 (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Judging by prior DRN threads, usually it's Robert McClenon who drafts and starts the new RfC. Lazman321 (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Second statement by moderator (Tetris) [edit] The reason why I usually draft and launch RFCs is that I have experience in wording them neutrally, and non-neutral RFCs are troublesome and sometimes have to be discarded. However, at this time, it would be useful if each editor would propose the draft wording of the RFC that they think will be the next step toward improving the consensus about Tetris. Please propose an RFC (or more than one RFC, if you think that multiple RFCs are in order at this point). Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Second statements by editors (Tetris) [edit] Here's my proposal: How should Tetris be defined in the opening sentence? Option 1: A video game Option 2: A video game, with an endnote describing the sources that consider it a video game series Option 3: A video game series Option 4: A video game series, with an endnote describing the sources that consider it a video game Any thoughts? Lazman321 (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Alright. I think this works the best. I do worry a bit that the wide range of options could lead to further deadlock, but I'm confident that the compromise options will serve their purpose. Man-Man122 (talk) 12:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Third statement by moderator (Tetris) [edit] Do we need to provide the options with and without endnotes? Why can't see limit the choice to the two forms with endnotes? That will reduce the likelihood of a deadlock. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Third statements by editors (Tetris) [edit] There is a chance some people could object to the compromise. After all, per the middle ground fallacy, if one option is correct and the other is incorrect, a compromise between the two is still incorrect, which is an argument someone could invoke during the RfC. That's why I included the non-compromise options. However, if all of you believe the non-compromise options should be excluded, I won't object. Lazman321 (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Robert McClenon: Given that a bot has attempted to archive this thread twice now, would you prefer I just start the RfC now with only the compromise options regardless of what I just said, or do you want to discuss the potential RfC further? Lazman321 (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Fourth statement by moderator (Tetris) [edit] If another editor has prepared a draft RFC, I would like to review it to verify that it is neutrally worded. Otherwise I will prepare the draft RFC. Please let me know where the draft RFC is. I have inserted a Do Not Archive date. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Fourth statements by editors (Tetris) [edit] I back the draft RfC that was presented by Lazman, and I have no further questions.Man-Man122 (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Fifth statement by moderator (Tetris) [edit] I have composed a draft RFC at Talk:Tetris/RFC on How to Define. Please review the RFC, and make any comments about it here, in this DRN discussion. Please do not vote in the RFC at this time, or comment in the RFC itself, because it is not a live RFC yet. I will launch it by moving it to the article talk page when we are satisfied. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Fifth statements by editors (Tetris) [edit] No objections to your draft RfC. Lazman321 (talk) 05:40, 7 December 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.

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Trie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ergur (talk · contribs)
• Katzrockso (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Myself and another user have spent spent more than the course of a month discussing whether the Trie article ought to use "pseudocode" (a non-standardised high-level description of an algorithm that resembles a programming language) or a proper Java implementation. This other user has justified this on the grounds of MOS:ALGO and WP:PSEUDOCODE, but as brought up by the WP:3O user involved, this alone does not bind every article to its supposed guidelines, and that my arguments should be addressed for their merits. Meanwhile, my arguments were that the Java implementation was sufficiently descriptive and simple enough for readers, fewer noise words, and can be backed up by actual demonstration by compiling said code. Then, this user began to consciously cease to respond to the talk page, despite being prompted for a response from both myself and the user from WP:3O, and as per the words of the WP:3O user, such actions were WP:STONEWALLING any changes to the article. After more than a week of silence from that user, as well as someone else who weighed in and gave an opinion favouring the other user but failed to substantiate or reason for said opinion, I invoked WP:SILENCE and proceeded with restoring my changes. However, said changes were reverted yet again, and I argue that this constitutes edit warring, as I had given ample time to respond and consistently requested actual justifications rather than deference to WP/MOS pages.

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

• Talk:Trie#Java implementation vs "pseudocode"
• A request at WP:3O

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like either the other user to be made to engage respectably and meaningfully with the discussion at hand, or cease entirely with the dispute. I feel as if I have reasoned extensively with the other reason and implored them to see reason or at least engage with discussion meaningfully, and they have WP:STONEWALLED every attempt to do so, and it feels as if they are deliberately delaying responses to the talk page to prevent an agreeable conclusion.

An IP editor rewrote all the code of Trie from pseudocode to Java and I reverted the changes. This lead to a discussion on the Talk page. It spanned a long time, but it was not productive.

I relied a lot MOS:ALGO which has a bias toward pseudocode, "when possible." Initially, I made my a case against Java, claiming it is noisy and that the implementation by the IP editor yields a weaker algorithm; One that only works on a specific alphabet. I made the point that this shows one benefit of using pseudocode, namely that it allows you to ignore the lower level details (such as mapping the alphabet to ${\displaystyle \{1,2,\dots ,n\}}$) and focus on what matters. The IP editor replied "How or why is this a problem?"; a reply I felt summarized the discussion up to that point.

At this point I felt the discussion was becoming more hostile than I wanted, so I didn't respond until they pinged me. I wanted to wait for more people to comment on the issue, but the IP editor wasn't on board.

In total, there were three people who replied to the proposal with a definite stance; all of them were opposed.

I have been accused of WP:SILENCE and WP:STONEWALLING. I fail to see how the prior could possibly apply; There is clear evidence of disagreement. The latter, I think, is because I kept telling the IP editor to read MOS:ALGO. I did this, however, because the case for pseudocode was made well there and I saw no point in copy/pasting it into the discussion. The IP editor did not counter the points made in MOS:ALGO, they only cherry-picked quotes from there that agreed with them.

I have tried to assume good faith from the IP editor so far, but at this stage I am ready to claim they have been filibustering. At no point did they directly reference the code they wrote; Most of their arguments can be boiled down to "Java is more descriptive than pseudocode." Also, some of their other points would fall under WP:FIXFIRST. — xo Ergur (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this discussion at the third opinion noticeboard, where I commonly give third opinions. I have no technical expertise or any substantive knowledge of coding or programming languages, so I did not provide an opinion on the merits of the question, but I commented on the process of the discussion. I pointed out that the editors opposing such a change did so almost entirely based on the manual of style, specifically, MOS:ALGO, and that MOS:ALGO merely points to a consensus within a Wikiproject (Wikiproject Computer science), but provides no requirement that any given page follow the local consensus from that Wikiproject There are no universally accepted standards for presenting algorithms on Wikipedia. On that basis, I objected to arguments that consisted solely of appealing to the Wikiproject consensus with no significant engagement with the points made by the IP (now temporary account) editor. By appealing to the wording of MOS:ALGO where it states the "consensus within the wikiproject", I alleged that some of the editors were WP:STONEWALLING, because they did not engage with the specific arguments put forth by the TA editor. WP:STONEWALLING states Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good-faith discussion. I don't believe that referring back to MOS:ALGO's declaration of a WP:LOCALCON without engaging with the points raised constitutes "good-faith discussion" or "a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions". If editors from Wikiproject Compsci want to elevate their local consensus to a project-wide requirement, that is certainly a reasonable proposition and I personally would not oppose (or support) such a motion. But until that is the case, I don't think it is right for editors to appeal to the local consensus of a Wikiproject when a good-faith objection to the content of an article exists and reject it on those grounds. The Wikipedia WP:MOS consists both of hardline "this is the correct way to write this on Wikipedia" requirements and softer "this is the recommended way to write this on Wikipedia" suggestions. MOS:ALGO's bias towards psuedocode is the latter, and objecting to a change away from the recommendation cannot be based solely upon appealing to that recommendation, as it is not a strict hardline requirement.Katzrockso (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Volunteer Note - It will be difficult to conduct moderated discussion if the filing party has a changing temporary account. Can the filing party either register an account or at least maintain the same temporary account for the duration of discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being, I will use this temporary account. Thank you for volunteering. ~2025-36699-87 (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the talk page as an independent opinion. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to each of your claims. ~2025-36699-87 (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gave an opportunity to respond to each of my responses, and this was spurned, and deferred to the age-old "third parties have disagreed with you, but still refuse to elaborate on why". I'll bring up again that just because I can get a thousand people to spam "Norway is located in the Southern Hemisphere", it does not compel any change unless there is truly undeniable evidence that this statement is in fact true. It's quite telling that no one who has disagreed with me has actually made any attempt to engage the comprehensive arguments I have given, and even those that have always seem to defer to MOS:ALGO or WP:PSEUDOCODE (which as explained earlier, does not silence my points). ~2025-36699-87 (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to act as the moderator in this case. Please read DRN Rule A. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Are there any content issues other than the programming language to be used to illustrate the algorithms? If so, please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave unchanged, or what you want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. If you have an issue about how to illustrate the algorithms, please state concisely what your view is.

Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think it should be mentioned that, since filing here, the IP editor has presented a counterproposal on the talk page. — xo Ergur (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the unregistered editor taking part in this moderated discussion, or not? They say, on the talk page, that they will implement their counterproposal if there is no objection to it. If there is moderated discussion here, there should not also be discussion on the article talk page.

Is there agreement to the counterproposal?

Is the unregistered editor taking part in this discussion, or are they discussing separately on the article talk page?

Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They have implemented the idea in their counterproposal and there is not agreement. I reminded them of this discussion. — xo Ergur (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to mediate this dispute.

There is no agreement on the counterproposal or what a "revised" edition should look like.

I have no further questions, but if there are any additional details please do remind me. ~2025-36699-87 (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to first bring attention to my counterproposal. The issue of contention was that pseudocode has a "wider appeal" (this is questionable as "pseudocode" does not refer to a standardised way of expressing an algorithm as there are numerous distinct ways to write "pseudocode", each with different syntax and keyword styles, etc.), and wishing to resolve the dispute as soon as possible I was willing to cease to force my implementation (in Java) in favour of a "pseudocode" (which was more neutral, supposedly). My own written form syntactically resembled Java, but did NOT use keywords or language constructs that made the code necessarily Java (rather, my intention was to write a version that had C/C++-style syntax with object-oriented programming characteristics), with included documentation comments that would make it very obvious to any reader, even those without programming knowledge, precisely what was going on. I wish to note that there is nothing less syntactically clear in Java, as the constructs are still identical. Observe the following algorithm which retrieves the largest element in a list:

findLargestValue(list):
    if not list or list.length == 0 then
        raise IllegalArgumentException("Array is empty")
    end if
    largest := list[0]
    for i in list do
        if list[i] > largest then
            largest = list[i]
        end if
    repeat
    return largest

Meanwhile, in Java:

public static int findLargestValue(int[] list) {
    if (list == null || list.length == 0) {
        throw new IllegalArgumentException("Array is empty");
    }
    int largest = list[0];
    for (int i: list) {
        if (list[i] > largest) {
            largest = list[i];
        }
    }
    return largest;
}

The logic is expressed in exactly the same way. There are no Java-specific quirks in the Java snippet. Just because it contains the keywords public (which means that it is a publicly visible method) and static (which means that it belongs to no specific instance of any class) does not somehow make the code "inaccessible" to readers. This is the same example using Java streams, and the logic has changed completely.

import java.util.Arrays;

public static int findLargestValue(int[] list) {
    return Arrays.stream(list)
        .reduce((a, b) -> a > b ? a : b)
        .orElseThrow(() -> new IllegalArgumentException("Array is empty"));
}

In my revised proposal on the Trie page, I removed keywords that were particularly contentious, such as public and static, and agreed that these are more structurally related concepts rather than algorithmic, and could be omitted.

However, it seems that this proposal was not acceptable. Apparently this proposal was somehow misconstrued as Java (despite me indicating very clearly that it in fact, was not), and I begin to suspect that the only "acceptable" pseudocode style for my colleague is a pseudocode that resembles Python or Ada. Nonetheless, my proposed compromise still did precisely as I had declared that it would do on the talk page, which were:

• Continue using "pseudocode" (i.e., not any specific language), with the following changes:
  • Add types to the code, for clarity
  • Avoid useless scoping keywords that can be easily represented with braces for scope, such as repeat, end if, etc. There will be no need for access specifiers such as public, static, etc.
  • Define in the code a constant for the alphabet size, but it does not have to be specified as 26. This can intentionally be left as a comment.
  • Use syntax quirks that do not belong to any language. Right now I am drawing attention to string slicing syntax which is obviously Python-inspired, but is not universally obvious.
  • Replace x in the parameters with something like this or self.

~2025-36699-87 (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked whether the unregistered editor and the registered editors are taking part in this moderated discussion and whether they agree to the ground rules. I haven't gotten an answer to that basic question. Although the unregistered editor filed this request, they then continued discussing on the article talk page. This has caused confusion. So I am starting this discussion over. Please read DRN Rule A again. Is each editor taking part in this moderated discussion? If you agree to take part in moderated discussion, do not also discuss on the article talk page.

If an editor agrees to moderated discussion, please also state what you see as the article content issues. What do you want to change in the article, or what do you want to leave the same in the article? It appears that either the only issue or an issue is how to specify the algorithms. If there are any other issues, please state what the other issues are. If the type of code or pseudocode to be used is an issue, please state both how the algorithms should be defined, and why you think it is important that your choice rather than another editor's choice be followed.

If at least two editors agree to moderated discussion but have different opinions on how to specify the algorithms, then we will continue with moderated discussion.

Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I agree to take part in this moderated discussion.

I want the code in the article to remain as pseudocode and I think the pseudocode should follow the guidelines in MOS:ALGO. This is the best way to make the article accessible and neutral. Choosing any specific programming language (either to follow or mimic the style of) will introduce keywords and concepts that are not needed to express the ideas of the algorithm; Even a simple keyword like int is not universal in programming. — xo Ergur (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to take part in this moderated discussion. If there was previous discussion at the article talk page, I agree to cease it.

I have gone into length in the section above, about why I am in disagreement with @Ergur's choice of depicting pseudocode, so I will not re-state everything again in the interest of keeping this opening statement short and sweet. If there is any point missing from here feel free to go back there and read it. But, fundamentally, I believe that:

• There is nothing "wrong" with using a C/C++-style syntax if the actual algorithm itself is still made abundantly clear by it
• That using object-oriented features (such as this) are not inherently destructive or without merit, especially when they can be used to simplify or otherwise bring specific meaning to the code
• That certain parts, such as types, which may or may not be depicted with keywords like int (that @Ergur brought up earlier), depicts valuable information which should not be omitted
• That at the present, the currently depicted pseudocode uses constructs that are not universal, already. I've explained earlier that the current pseudocode apparently resembles Python or Ada, whether that's "because the syntax is the most neutral" is another debate to be had, but I am simply pointing this out.

I will also point out that @Ergur proposed alternate rewrites of their own, which seem to resemble more plain-English than using code constructs as it currently stands. While that certainly is more "clear" (and in the interest of making the article "accessible and neutral" as they have put it earlier), it makes the depiction of the algorithm less concise, when programming constructs are certainly well-defined or specific enough to refer to something. I also believe it is reasonable to expect a basic familiarity with control flow and basic/universal imperative programming syntax from a reader seeing as it is a computer science topic. ~2025-36699-87 (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I would like the editors to discuss their preference for how to represent the algorithms, in the section marked Back-and-forth discussion. Be civil and concise. In particular, be concise. See whether you can reach an agreement, and, if not that, see if you can each write a concise explanation of why your preference will be the most useful for the readers.

Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and there are no questions from me. ~2025-36699-87 (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing "wrong" with using a C/C++-style syntax if the actual algorithm itself is still made abundantly clear by it

I have nothing to say to this directly and only include the point for completeness. You are just begging the question.

That using object-oriented features (such as this) are not inherently destructive or without merit, especially when they can be used to simplify or otherwise bring specific meaning to the code

I assume "destructive" is in reference to my earlier comment [1] on the talk page. I have already clarified that your initial edit is "destructive" because it removes things. Namely, your Java implementation is strictly inferior to the current version; It has the wrong time complexity and only works for a restricted alphabet (a-z). I would love to hear how they simplify anything.

• this. All this does is rename a variable. The first thing you then do in the methods is rename it back to x.
• Generics. You use the C++/Java style syntax for generics (Trie<T> for a trie with data of type T). How is this any different from what the current version has? In the current version there is mention of the data have some type Data-Type, but it doesn't have the potentially confusing angle notation.

That certain parts, such as types, which may or may not be depicted with keywords like int (that @Ergur brought up earlier), depicts valuable information which should not be omitted

Why should they not be omitted? What confusion could arise in the current version? I would agree that adding a description of the arguments to the code would be an improvement (this is mostly what I did in my first suggestion [2]).

That at the present, the currently depicted pseudocode uses constructs that are not universal, already

As far as I can recall, this is in reference to a single use of a Python-style slice. No one has disagreed with removing, so I don't understand why you are mentioning it here. Neither of my suggestions include it and the only reason I haven't removed it from the current version of the article is because the article should not be edited while in DNR.

I've explained earlier that the current pseudocode apparently resembles Python or Ada, whether that's "because the syntax is the most neutral" is another debate to be had, but I am simply pointing this out.

I fear you have the causal direction flipped. This style of pseudocode is older than Python and Ada. Python and Ada look like pseudocode. Also, the claim of neutrality comes from MOS:ALGO.

To avoid the previous confusion, I will include some points from MOS:ALGO:

• Pseudocode is completely language agnostic.
• Pseudocode is more NPOV with respect to programming languages in general.
• Pseudocode provides far more flexibility with regard to the level of implementation detail, allowing algorithms to be presented at however high a level is required to focus on the algorithm and its core ideas, rather than the details of how it is implemented.
• Suitably high-level pseudocode provides the most accessible presentation of an algorithm, particularly for non-programmers.

— xo Ergur (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I still intend on responding to this. I have been tied down with some real-life obligations at the moment, but will resume shortly. ~2025-36699-87 (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again @Ergur, and thank you for your patience. I am now ready to address your points:

I am not as I have demonstrated earlier that the control flow is precisely the same. Any observer will be able to remark that the two snippets of code have precisely the same logic.

This is the first time you have brought up "having the wrong time complexity" in the entire course of this discussion. If this were really a problem I'd have assumed you would bring it up earlier, such as on the talk page, yet alas this is the first time I've heard this problem be raised and haven't heard any other person mention it. But go ahead and demonstrate where the "wrong time complexity" is. If I made a mistake I'll own up to it.

As for the "restricted alphabet", this is just rehashing the same argument from earlier about me explicitly writing a constant directly in the class for the alphabet size, and frankly bringing this up doesn't bring anything new to the conversation. In practice code for accessing the index of the array of Tries is going to look something like that, not directly by accessing the contained element by plugging the letter of the alphabet into the array as you seem to insist on. That doesn't make anything clearer. Meanwhile, using the lowercase English alphabet (i.e. writing a line like int index = key.charAt(0) - 'a';) demonstrates the layout of how the array appears (by associating an explicit numeric index with each entry, and demonstrating how it is accessed), which in practice is what an application of a Trie looks like. If anything, omitting it accomplishes nothing at all other than just expecting the reader to "imagine" the alphabet.

Why am I using the keyword this? Because it is explicitly used to denote the current instance of the structure. It gets renamed back to x so that reassignment during iteration (i.e. assigning it to one of its children) makes sense rather than assigning the current context to its child.

All you've done by writing Data-Type is hard-coding the type into the example.

You ask why types like int, etc. ought not to be omitted. As I have stated before and I am stating again, because they convey directly in the code the type of the parameter and how it interacts with the algorithm. This kind of argument could just as easily have been turned on its head by asking what words like function and algorithm add - nothing. It is inherently obvious that we are depicting a function or algorithm because this is what we have told the reader in the paragraph above.

If anything, repeating the same points from MOS:ALGO: that "pseudocode is language-agnostic, therefore it ought to be used", etc., is "begging the question". ~2025-36699-87 (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However, all this being said, I would like to address in specific, your proposed rewrite. I am not opposed to the examples you demonstrated on the talk page, as I do not oppose a more plain explanation of the algorithm, which that rewrite seems to do. In such a proposal there is no need to use types either. That being said, I would also like that the structure be renamed from "Node" to "Trie" to be more obvious that that structure itself is the Trie in discussion. ~2025-36699-87 (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. I will take my suggestions for another spin (as I promised to do and then didn't). Renaming it from "Node" to "Trie" is a great idea and a definite improvement.

Which of the two suggestions do you prefer? [3] Personally, I like the idea of doing it recursively (like in Suggestion 2) since it fits with the mental model of a tree. This can of course also be done in Suggestion 1. — xo Ergur (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that there has been any progress toward agreement. Has there been any progress toward an agreement on how to represent the algorithms?

I have tried to be neutral, but I still have a question for the unregistered editor. I don't see a significant reason for departing from the guideline that recommends the use of pseudocode rather than a language. Since there is a guideline, and we don't have agreement, I would suggest that a tie goes to following the guideline. However, I will not act as a decision-maker and will not close this discussion arbitrarily. Can the unregistered editor state concisely why they think that a C-like syntax for the algorithms will better serve the interests of the readers?

If there is no agreement, I will prepare a Request for Comments to ask the community to decide. I would prefer not to use an RFC, because it uses community time, which is a limited resource, but I will launch an RFC if there is otherwise no agreement. I have another three-part question for each editor:

• 1. Would you agree to use the pseudocode versions of the algorithms, either to avoid an RFC or because you think that is advantageous?
• 2. Would you agree to use the C versions of the algorithms, either to avoid an RFC or because you think that it is advantageous?
• 3. Is there a compromise that you will agree to, either to avoid an RFC or for any other reason?

If there is no agreement, we will have to resort to an RFC. I think that an RFC will probably result in a rough consensus to use pseudocode as per the guidelines, but that is only my opinion.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Francis Amasa Walker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Gramix13 (talk · contribs)
• Smellyshirt5 (talk · contribs)
• Sdkb (talk · contribs)
• Concordhistory (talk · contribs)
• SecretName101 (talk · contribs)
• Melchior2006 (talk · contribs)
• Robminchin (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The locus of the dispute is about using Anne Hyde's book Born of Lakes and Plains: Mixed-Descent Peoples and the Making of the American West in Francis Amasa Walker § Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Discussion on the topic was sporadic on the talk page from 2022 to 2023, leading to a {{POV}} template being placed on the article without resolution to the dispute. The article was recently brought to Good Article Reassessment due to this dispute remaining unresolved as compromising the article's GA status under WP:GACR6#4.

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

Talk:Francis_Amasa_Walker#Work_as_Commissioner_of_Indian_Affairs Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Francis_Amasa_Walker/1

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I'm looking to reach a consensus on the dispute to save the article's GA status, and I hope that having the participants of both discussions talk out the issue here will help to come to a consensus.

Thanks for bringing this here, Gramix13. I've never had a chance to do a deep dive into Walker's legacy (apologies), but I came across his removed bust at the MIT Museum, discovered that his article at the time was out of alignment with the description of his reputation there, and added a bit to address that, along with the neutrality tag in case there was more. I'm willing to leave it to others to judge whether additional tweaks are needed to address the posthumous shift in his reputation, and happy to see the tag removed if nothing else is needed. I've copied the description from the MIT Museum below in case it's hard to read from the photo.

Sdkb ^talk 16:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll definitely look more into depth into this matter if I find time to become further versed. My contribution to this particular article has so far been only in the realm of formatting, as far as I can discern. Such as adding an infobox to its lede. So I have not really versed myself with literature dedicated to its subject.

Excuse the length of my initial response here:

I have not looked overly-deep into Walker's life and relevant yet. At this point, I would presume it would be against the interest of neutrality to make no or too-little mention of the more critical takes offered by Hyde's newer work (which was authored a notable and reputed academic author, published by an established publisher, garnered praise from outlets such as the New Yorker). However, there could very much be an interest in avoiding reshaping the entire article to align with Hyde's takes. Particularly where Hyde's conflicts with earlier-published works on Walker are not persuasively/relatively equivocally debunked by her. Where both Hyde's newer takes and older takes both hold genuine merit, it may be worth incorporating both in to offer more more diverse take on Walker. Also, even where Hyde's has debunked previous accounts , it may be worth that there were long commonly-held understandings that have since shifted due to recent literature and re-analysis.

A cursory look at the current article does reveal that it seems Hyde is not entirely alone in (relatively) recent revisiting of Walker's attitudes and ideology on race with Leonard's 2005 and Mae's 1999 journal articles; Garfinkel's 2021 article; and Malcolm 2022 news report being cited for this as well. I have not read those works yet, though.

I would imagine it is possible that there may have been a extended gap in new substantial literature on Walker. If this is so, a lot of previous scholarly analysis of him was written in a very different eras from today, and may hold biases more common of such eras.

@Concordhistory: did note that they believed a number of Hyde's characterizations were inconsistent with Walker's words and actions. I definitely would flag this as (if it is with merit) an important concern. It is very much possible^[a] for Walker to have both at times demonstrated a friendlier attitude towards indigenous people, and at other times demonstrated a more virulent attitude towards indigenous people. And if so, appropriate note can and arguably should be made in the article.

I will note that there is a a service in accurately-summarizing and contextualizing the life and work of prominent individuals. Sometimes a new work emerges on a figure, and changes our modern understanding of who that person more-fully was, and what the influence their work/actions more-fully was.^[b] I would definitely like to see if other academics largely praised any new takes Hyde brought about and the research she cited, and/or whether there has been compelling academic criticism of her book.

If the article does ultimately make more additions aligned with Hyde's work, I urge Concordhistory to bring up individual points of concern as they arise. When they see an addition they think is a mischaracterization or is missing context, I'd love it if Concordhistory or others will bring to the talk page their arguments for what such additions may be getting wrong (as well as the sources they have used to conclude that), and proposals for tweaks and additional context to remedy such concerns. (and please ping me). That could aid in getting things right, and is the collaborative community-based approach this project ideally wants articles to be shaped by. Where substantial and merited division of thought on a subject exists, no Wikipedia article should be exclusively-shaped by any one individual's viewpoint.

SecretName101 (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks, I'm willing to help moderate this discussion if desired. Something I do want to say at the outset is that Hyde is a serious and notable contemporary historian who specializes in this subject area, plus her book on this topic is quite recent, so that makes it an ideal source for the article in question here (see WP:HISTRS for common views on history sources, views which I share). There's really just no solid basis for excluding her position from the article outright because of that, whatever her views are. We can weigh how to couch the material from her book and how much prominence to give it and so on, but I don't think we should really focus on the question of whether or not it should be included at all—it definitely should per NPOV and I think the GAR reviewer made the right call there.

So, basically, my approach to moderating this discussion will be to focus the conversation on how we should represent her book in this article, as opposed to whether or not we should at all. If that isn't the sort of conversation y'all want to have, I can withdraw and someone else can take over. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 02:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the offer to moderate the discussion, Mesocarp! I must confess that I haven't read any of Hyde's work relating to Francis Amasa Walker, so I don't have anything additional to contribute when it comes to what specifically to draw from the source. I do agree with SecretName101's statement that we should also consider including other contemporary sources on the subject, aside from Hyde's work. 83 of the 143 citations currently in the article (roughly 58%) come from Munroe, James P. (1923). A Life of Francis Amasa Walker. New York: Henry Holt & Company. (I am guilty of adding some of these citations myself when trying to ensure the article was fully cited per the GAR) That source, while fairly comprehensive when I was skimming it over, is over a century old, which might not reflect the knowledge we have on Walker today. I'm not bringing up this source to derail this dispute on the merits of this source, rather I think it emphasizes the need for more current and recent scholarship on Walker to ensure the article meets the GA requirements we have today. I don't have any arguments or further suggestions on what other sources aside from Hyde to include, but SecretName101's list might be a good starting point if others here have taken the time to read them. I am also not sure if bringing in all of these sources will be necessary to ensure the neutrality of this article, but I do hope that perhaps Hyde's work will be sufficient in this regard.

In short, I would be supportive of the approach you laid out here to discuss how to represent Hyde's book in the article provided that there are no raised objects about using her work in any capacity. Gramix13 (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gramix13, I appreciate your comments. I'll note that I think the age of the Munroe source is a totally reasonable point to raise, speaking generally—American historical methods have changed immmensely since the 1920s, and as you point out contemporary historians are likely to have access to primary source material someone back then might not have had. Contemporary historians are also best-equipped to judge how far to throw the work of older historians; past a certain point even the work of historians from days gone by becomes primary source material in its own right and we shouldn't put much weight on it directly. Since the case here was started with a specific focus on Hyde, we should probably just stick to that question here, but in terms of how to couch her work I think it is important to note the work of other historians that echo her points, because it suggests that those points deserve more space and prominence in the article than they might have otherwise. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 04:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm totally fine keeping this discussion directly focused on Hyde's work then, and letting others include sourcing of more recent sources if they so wish outside of here. I'll leave it to others to comment on her work then since I have nothing else of insight to offer here. Gramix13 (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over two weeks since my last reply here, and sadly no other editor has responded. At this point, I don't see this DRN forum as succeeding in not only getting a consensus but also getting the relevant material onto the article if necessary. I'm not quite sure what to do going forward. On the one hand, I could consider starting an RFC and notifying the listed participants of this discussion as well as each of the wikiprojects listed on the article's talk page about the RFC in an attempt to achieve some form of resolution and consensus that can be acted on. My concern with that option is that I'm not sure if the minimal discussion so far warrants the big step of calling for an RFC. On the other hand, without any resolution, that may mean that the article might have to lose it's good article status if no one can come to an agreement on the neutrality of the article (I don't currently have the time nor means to access Hyde's work myself to do this, unfortunately), although I do think that losing good article status would be a net negative to the encyclopedia all because of editor inactivity in addressing the dispute. Gramix13 (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed without prejudice. There doesn't appear to be an active content dispute. Four days after the parties were asked if they want moderated dispute resolution, two editors have responded negatively, and the other editors have not responded. If there is a dispute, discuss on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new report can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 16 December 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. Location of dispute Panties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Swiftiefromthemid (talk · contribs) Meters (talk · contribs) Plasticwonder (talk · contribs) Plenthy (talk · contribs) ~2025-32017-63 (talk · contribs) added to report by Meters (talk) Mlkj (talk · contribs) added to report by Meters (talk) Fermiboson (talk · contribs) added to report by Meters (talk) Onorem (talk · contribs) added to report by Meters (talk) Dispute overview There is a disagreement over the expansiveness of the language in the article. I think it should be expanded to include men and non binary folks. The others disagree. It seems to have crossed into a personal dispute--and I'll confess to being frustrated--beyond just a technical disagreement. I am hoping that dispute resolution can help find compromise. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Panties#Recent_edits How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Hopefully a neutral moderator can help us hear each other better and find a good agreement that is satisfactory to all parties. Summary of dispute by Meters [edit] I see no need for dispute resolution. This is a minor content dispute about a wording change made multiple times by a TA (not listed above by Swiftiefromthemid, and warned by an editor not listed above) and Swiftiefromthemid. The change has been repeatedly removed, including by one editor not listed above. It has been discussed on the article's talk page, including by one editor not listed above, with no consensus for the attempted change. I will add the other four editors to this report. I see no evidence of "a personal dispute" other than perhaps Swiftiefromthemid's attempt to paint this as "an issue of gender bias" and accusing opposing editors of "refusing to engage in good faith". Summary of dispute by Plasticwonder [edit] I really don't think there is a dispute here. It seems to me that there is consensus to leave disputed parts of the article as is seeing all 3 of the editors tagged here are in agreement with each other with the only exception being Swiftiefromthemid, and this thread is, with all due respect, not necessary at this time. Respectfully, as this is not an article I contribute to, I have no further comment, and would advice the filer of this to learn how to live and let live when consensus goes against them, which even tenured editors have to accept. Thanks. Summary of dispute by Plenthy [edit] From what I can tell, nobody other than Swiftiefromthemid supports the proposed changes to the article. I felt that their arguments were weak and did not give any reasoning as to why the use of the phrase "typically worn by women" would not suffice. When their arguments were challenged, they simply stated that they disagree and offered no meaningful counterargument. Summary of dispute by ~2025-32017-63 [edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Mlkj [edit] I'm sympathetic, but I think the lead should be short and to the point. We can add more nuances and caveats in the rest of the article. We can have expansive language and include all notable groups that may sometimes wear panties besides women in the article. The lead should highlight the main idea, and that can mean losing a little bit of nuance. But the current "typically worn by women" language seems appropriate to me. I would have liked to see more discussion and attempts to convince others before dragging everyone to WP:DRN. As it stands the consensus seems to be against this change, so I would advise trying to convince others to your side first. You can't force a change by escalating more and more without consensus. Summary of dispute by Fermiboson [edit] I have no wish to take any stance on the issue, except for WP:BRD. Summary of dispute by Onorem [edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Panties discussion [edit] Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Zeroth statement by volunteer (Panties) [edit] I am ready to act as the moderator if there is a content dispute. I have a two-part question. First, do each of you think that there is a content dispute? If so, please read DRN Rule A and state that you agree to the rules. Second, the purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. If you want moderated discussion, please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave alone, or what you want to leave alone that another editor wants to change. We will have moderated discussion if at least two editors want moderated discussion and at least two editors disagree about article content. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Zeroth statements by editors (Panties) [edit] Again, I see no need for dispute resolution. This is one editor who simply refuses to accept the apparent talk page consensus, which is even stronger now than it was when this DRN request was opened. Meters (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] I could in principle see a content dispute separate from other questions, but I'm not sure I can properly commit to rule A at the moment (between my home Internet being out and holidays I might not be able to reply quickly). I see the filing party hasn't edited since the 9th earlier this week. I could be dragged into an argument if we must, but I'm hoping we can end this dispute and move on instead. Mlkj (talk) 10:32, 13 December 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.

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Pizza effect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Gotofritz (talk · contribs)
• DonBeroni (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have added a clarifying paragraph, with sources, another editor keeps removing it no mater what because he doesn't like the sources which are perfectly acceptable in other articles.

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

I argued my case in the article's Talk page as well as the other editor's Talk page

I also informed the other editor of the dispute, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pizza_effect#c-Gotofritz-20251204135000-DonBeroni-20251204134200 but for some reason User:Robert_McClenon decided to close it becase "I didn't inform the other person" even thought the link was RIGHT THERE.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

1. Don't close the dispute again - I HAVE informed the other person, you'll see it at the bottom of their talk page 2. Prevent DonBeroni from editing that page

• Note - Notice of a filing must be on the other editor's user talk page. The previous notice was only on the article talk page. This notice is on the user talk page. DRN is not a forum to prevent an editor from editing a page, but to discuss the editing of the page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pointless bureaucracy which only caused everyone to waste extra time, but fine, I put the notice in the place The Procedure demands this time 🙄

What exactly is the point of a dispute if the outcome is not enforced? What if the outcome is that the admins agree the edit should stay but the other editor ignores it and just keeps on deleting it? Gotofritz (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The filing editor asks what is the point of dispute resolution if it cannot be enforced. I will reword their question as how can the resolution of a dispute be enforced. DRN is a forum for discussion. Sometimes the conclusion of a DRN is to publish a Request for Comments (RFC). An RFC can establish binding consensus. DRN cannot prevent an editor from editing an article, but it can lead to an RFC that may establish consensus. I don't open a DRN case with the objective of preventing an editor from editing the article, but I will open a DRN case with the objective of resolving the content dispute, if the other editor replies. (There are other procedures if the other editor does not reply, but they are an experienced editor, and I expect that they will reply somehow.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor has not replied, seven days after they were notified of this discussion. DRN is voluntary, and they can be assumed to have declined to take part in DRN. I could close this discussion as declined, and tell the editors to resume discussion on the article talk page, but the filing editor has asked about how to reach a binding consensus on the content dispute. If I were to close this dispute and leave the dispute unresolved, edit-warring would be more likely than agreement, and avoiding edit-warring is one of the reasons for having DRN. So if either editor will state concisely what they think is the content dispute, I am willing to formulate a neutrally worded RFC. Please state what changes you want to make to the article that another editor disagrees with, or what changes you disagree with that another editor wants to make to the article. If an editor provides me with a useful concise statement as to what the content dispute is, I will draft an RFC.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• The Protomen (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Pingnova (talk · contribs)
• IzzySwag (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Sources say that The Protomen (2005 album) uses multiple elements from George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, including a direct quote that is central to The Protomen's narrative. The Protomen has a similar moral (popular revolution vs relying on a hero figure), its setting is an Orwellian city, and multiple interviews with the band include them listing the novel as an inspiration for the story. Because of that, I think that the page belongs in Category:Works based on Nineteen Eighty-Four or Category:Music based on Nineteen Eighty-Four (whose description says "Music inspired by George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four or its adaptations"). IzzySwag removed the category because "inspired by and based on are different things" - however for the purposes of Wikipedia categories I argue that is not the case. IzzySwag argued that The Protomen doesn't fit in the category because the other works in the category are "literaly adaptations of the book or have elements directly taken from the book". I demonstrated that The Protomen directly quote the book as a core lyric repeated in multiple songs. I asked CfD for input on whether the category name should be changed from "Works based on Nineteen Eighty-Four" to "Adaptions of Nineteen Eighty-Four" to clarify the scope and CfD declined - so this is not a category strictly for "literal" adaptions of the book either. Many members of the category also have even less relation to Nineteen Eighty-Four than The Protomen has, suggesting that the criteria is rather flexible regardless. The Music based on Nineteen Eighty-Four category also uses the word "inspired by" in its own description. Izzy and I discussed this here &I updated the page with more references talking about the Nineteen Eighty-Four elements in The Protomen but we were unable to come to consensus.

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

Talk:The Protomen (album)#Relationship to Nineteen Eighty-Four Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 24#Category:Works based on Nineteen Eighty-Four [4]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Does The Protomen (album) belong in Category:Works based on Nineteen Eighty-Four or Category:Music based on Nineteen Eighty-Four? If not, what does "based on" encompass if it is not strictly adaptions based on CfD consensus and does not include "inspired by" based on IzzySwag? Do many of the other pages need to be removed from those categories for not meeting the category requirements, if The Protomen (album) does not qualify even with a direct quote?

I feel like Pingnova summed up my thoughts quite well but I'd just like to note that nearly every other article in the category takes a direct element or character from 1984 rather than just having inspiration. There's inspiration in The Protomen certainly, but not enough to qualify it being based on it. I'd also argue to remove "music inspired by" from the music based on category as being based on something means taking direct elements from it, not just taking inspiration.

I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute if the editors want moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. Please state what changes you want to make to the article that another editor does not want, or what changes another editor wants that you want to leave alone. If this is a dispute about categorization, please state what category the dispute is about and whether you want to include the article in the category or to exclude the article from the category. If this is a categorization dispute, please also state concisely why the article should or should not be in the category.

Are there are any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed as abandoned by filing editor. Four days have elapsed since the filing editor was advised that they could either request a review of the draft at the Teahouse or notify the reviewers and discuss the draft here at DRN. The filing editor has not edited in the past four days. Filing a DRN and then becoming silent is not useful. Resume discussion at the article talk page. Request comments from the editors at the Tea House. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:39, 18 December 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. Location of dispute Draft:Moebius Syndrome Awareness Day (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved MoebiusTim (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I am requesting a dispute resolution regarding the most recent AfC decline of Draft: Moebius Syndrome Awareness Day, specifically concerning whether the review process was applied in a reasonable manner. The most recent resubmission was declined less than five minutes after submission. The decline stated that the draft lacked sufficient references and was not Wikipedia-worthy. It also stated that LLM was used. The draft contained multiple inline citations throughout the article, including third-party news, academic, and institutional sources visible in the text and reference section. I stated to the reviewers in the talk page what they were seeing coming in as LLM was actually my lack of understanding on how to write a Wikipedia article. The article was written by my own hand. Given the length of the draft and the number of sources present, I am seeking clarification on whether the article and references could have been reasonably reviewed in full before the decline was issued, and whether the stated rationale accurately reflects the contents of the draft. If you look back on all of the drafts and all the talk pages you will see that I have been constantly listening to what the reviewers have told me i should do and make the changes in good faith on my own. I am not disputing that AfC has discretion to decline drafts, but I am requesting a neutral assessment of whether this review met procedural expectations for evaluating content and sourcing. My reasoning behind submitting this request is because the reviewer said it lacked references and was not suitable for Wikipedia. No reviewer has added that since my first two declines. If the reviewer had read through the article completely or had looked at the reasons the article was declined previously they would have known these were not the case. Thank you, MoebiusTim How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MoebiusTim How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I'm requesting a full non bias review of the article. If you look at the time the post was submitted and the time it was denied by the reviewer, I suspect you will understand my concerns. Moebius Syndrome Awareness Day Draft discussion [edit] Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - There are two problems with this filing. First, the filing editor has not listed any other editors. Second, this is not the sort of dispute that is normally discussed at DRN. This is a question about the non-acceptance of a draft. Questions about the acceptance of drafts are normally discussed at the Teahouse. I would suggest that the originator take another trip to the Teahouse and ask about the non-acceptance of this draft. I am aware that this draft was already discussed at the Teahouse. If the filing editor lists the other editors, we can have a discussion with them. In my opinion, a full non-biased review is something that one can get at the Teahouse, because DRN does not bring in new editors. Does the filing editor want to list the previous editors for a discussion with them, or does the filing editor want to request comments at the Teahouse? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 13 December 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.

– New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Antonin Scalia Law School (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Snaidemoc (talk · contribs)
• User:Iiii I I I (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The law's schools former name, which is a major source for its fame and national media coverage, was included in the description with high quality source. One editor, persistently reverted. Made unfound accusations of vandalism and also reported me for it. Made no attempt a resolution or discussion.Snaidemoc (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion started on talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antonin_Scalia_Law_School

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Allow the sourced edits. Take action against edit warring editor.

This is premature, since the talk page discussion was created six minutes before this. (I also wasn't notified of this on my user talk page.) --Iiii I I I (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed as apparently not discussed. I have been unable to find any discussion by the filing unregistered editor on any of the talk pages listed in the filing. Maybe the unregistered editor discussed the topics in October 2025 from an IP address, but that is neither recent nor accountable. The filing unregistered editor is strongly advised to register an account. It is not clear from this filing whether the filing editor is reporting a content issue or a conduct issue, but even if there is a content issue, there has been no recent discussion by the filing editor. The filing editor should register an account. The editors should discuss any changes on the article talk page. The filing editor has made changes to the article and has not discussed them on the article talk page. The other editors may consider requesting semiprotection of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:45, 15 December 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. Location of dispute Pointer (computer programming) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved ~2025-40797-91 (talk · contribs) Taylor Riastradh Campbell (talk · contribs) Vincent Lefèvre (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This has taken place at the following pages: Pointer (computer programming) Union type C data types At these pages, I made several various improvements to the page regarding wording and code formatting. However, in each of these, User:Vincent Lefèvre repeatedly reverted my changes, including those to other things, over a disagreement on the location that the asterisk for a pointer should be aligned (left or right). There are varying justifications for each, which I will not get into here. I have explained these already in the talk pages for those articles and believe I have given fair explanations for the merits of each. I first attempted to resolve the disputes on User:Vincent Lefèvre's talk page and have done my best to be civil and understanding. However, no matter how many times it was attempted to settle this dispute, first at WikiProject Computer Science (where we essentially got no consensus out of any users who gave input, as they all believed it was more effective to settle the disputes on the respective talk pages). At this point, we did and I used an RfC. The results were: On C data types, one person apparently misunderstood the RfC, the other (User:Vincent Lefèvre) supported right-alignment, while I supported left-alignment. Each time I waited for a new response, I did not receive any. At last I ended the RfC by WP:SILENCE. On Union type, I started a talk page but not an RfC. There was no response so I used WP:SILENCE. On Pointer (computer programming), another RfC was held and two people (me and another user) supported left-alignment, while again User:Vincent Lefèvre supported right-alignment. Consensus is seemingly favouring left and there was little response. Thus, I pushed forward with my changes. Later, User:Taylor Riastradh Campbell unilaterally undid these changes through claims of no consensus (which were false) and restarted the conflict. This user never participated in the talk. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Pointer (computer programming)#RFC on Pointer alignment in examples, Talk:C data types#RFC on Pointer alignment, User talk:Vincent Lefèvre#C/C++ pages, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science#C/C++ pointer asterisk and null checks How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please have these users cease with their continued disputing. The issues have been settled and I am tempted to even claim edit warring. I have chosen not to as I would like to not escalate issues more than necessary, but I do believe that they are blatantly edit warring at this point. Please further revert all edits made by these users who have done so unilaterally and against consensus. As per WP:SILENCE, they are NOT entitled to a delayed consensus merely because they made the conscious decision not to engage in the RfC when it was active, and are now engaging in edit warring now that their actions have been thoroughly demonstrated to in contradiction to Wikipedia policy. I would also like to note (as of about thirty minutes after this notice was posted) that User:Vincent Lefèvre has consciously received this notice, and has continued to engage in edit warring. They have engaged in deceptive edit warring on the following pages: Getaddrinfo Pointer (computer programming) Union type C data types Comment on content, not contributors. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Despite the consensus having been demonstratively against them. While I am more than tempted now to simply file an edit warring claim against this user who is so brazenly lying, even claiming that my attempts to restore the changes prior to their unilateral edits are "vandalism", I will continue with the dispute resolution board claim first. I would also like to note that while Getaddrinfo was not previously in the scope of this claim, I will be including it for the following reasons: The changes made there were generally to clean up the page. User:Taylor Riastradh Campbell deceptively claimed that those changes introduced bugs (which they did not) and used this as a justification to revert the changes. The previous revision is all-around inferior. The formatting of text is of inferior quality and the code seems to intentionally revert to a form of code that is ancient, by introducing space aligning that is not used, as well as for loops with no initialised variable (where a while loop is more applicable, etc.). Summary of dispute by Taylor Riastradh Campbell [edit] An anonymous editor has taken it upon themself to push unilateral style changes across various articles on C programming. They made changes that don't reflect the structure and intent of the C syntax[1] or usage in the latest C standard,[2][3] and they provided no evidence of common use in C, despite the support of the status quo by a variety of actively maintained C style guides from very different communities writing some of the most widely used modern C software including the Linux kernel.[4][5][6][7] After several such changes were reverted, they posted RfCs on at least two talk pages ((1), (2)) describing their personal style preferences.[8] In both talk pages, all but one response was opposed, and the one unopposed response was to note that another language, PL/I, does it differently. (It is undisputed that other languages, including common C++ style, do it differently.) At the WikiProject Computer Science talk page the consensus was plainly opposed to making these changes. When this anonymous editor moved forward against the consensus, I reviewed the record and reverted to reflect the consensus of the status quo for the style, and additionally made various other improvements along the way, including fixing a missing semicolon in example code and making the getaddrinfo prototype match the POSIX.1-2024 standard (3),[9] and citing a source for the structure of C syntax (4). I extensively documented the changes I made with comments more detailed than most of what I see on Wikipedia, which this anonymous editor says is deceptive. They then apparently took vocal opposition to mean WP:SILENCE despite the plain language "Consensus can be presumed until disagreement becomes evident.", and went against the consensus again to reapply their personal style preferences a third time. And now they accuse others of edit warring. Summary of dispute by Vincent Lefèvre [edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Pointer (computer programming) discussion [edit] Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. This is a coin-flip style preference. Wouldn't it be in good faith to use what is already being used in the article? — xo Ergur (talk) 08:28, 15 December 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.