Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Castelseprio |
Status | closed |
Request date | Unknown |
Requesting party | Johnbod |
Parties involved | Attilios, Javits2000 |
Mediator(s) | HammerHeadHuman |
Comment | response written |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Castelseprio]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Castelseprio]]
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
Preliminary Response
The first thing that I should say is that it is not my job to slap your hands, I am not an administrator, and my role here as mediator gives no additional weight to my opinion except that it was solicited with the understanding that I have no former history or knowledge of these subjects. I will not address accusations of canvasing, nor will I speak here of wikiquette. My only interest here is that the article as it is now is not encyclopedic. The title and introduction are about the commune, but the vast majority of the body of the article refers to the art, and the archeology of the site. A search of "Castelseprio" on JSTOR revealed 139 links to academic articles related only to the art of Castelseprio. Granted, many of these may be duplicates, or reviews of the same books, but this goes to establish the importance of the history the art from the site and how much it has been covered. And this link points to an interesting website with a link to a text document at the bottom. I don't know how official the site is, but the text document talks extensive about the history of the site, not the commune itself.
It is clear to me that there needs to be two seperate articles. The art and the archaeological site are the more notable. In my opinion, it is that article that would be entitled to the title Castelseprio. The modern day commune would have to be moved to Castelseprio, Italy or Castelseprio (commune). I realize that this has been suggested before, and the outcome was not satisfactory to some parties. Though I think that this is the most logical solution, I'm sure that it won't please all. My only other solution is the classic mediator strategy of "if you can't please both parties, make sure neither leaves pleased": turn Castelseprio into a disambiguation page with a link to both Castelseprio (commune), and Castelseprio (frescoes) with a brief description of both. Either of these solutions should help improve all aspects of this article.
If you feel there is something that I have overlooked in the forming of this opinion feel free to comment below. - HammerHeadHuman (talk) (work) 05:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I will let the involved parties decide upon the correct names, I will only warn them to give the articles a title that people would be likely to search for. Perhaps Castelseprio (ruins), which seems to best convey the theme without getting more specific than the average searcher would. - HammerHeadHuman (talk) (work) 18:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the obviousity of being Castelseprio referring to the frescoes and Castelseprio, Italy to the commune. Is it Castelseprio the name of a fresco? Of the place containing it? What's the problem to have a large page entitled Castelseprio frescoes? I think we should think in encyclopedical way: is in the Britannica the article for the Tower of Pisa entitled Pisa at all, evne though it's clear that Pisa is mostly known only for it? Or, to make a more in the size example, does Farfa redirect to Farfa Abbey? There's at laeast a redirect between. If something a name refers to something, we should get stuck to the true meaning, not one often misleaded for it. This is my opinion. -- Attilios 18:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Have split article into Castelseprio and Castelseprio (comune). -- Javits2000 15:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No activity for almost a month. Closing. -- Medcabemail 22:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Changed status back to "new". -- Medcabemail 17:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Castelseprio |
Status | closed |
Request date | Unknown |
Requesting party | Johnbod |
Parties involved | Attilios, Javits2000 |
Mediator(s) | HammerHeadHuman |
Comment | response written |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Castelseprio]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Castelseprio]]
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
Preliminary Response
The first thing that I should say is that it is not my job to slap your hands, I am not an administrator, and my role here as mediator gives no additional weight to my opinion except that it was solicited with the understanding that I have no former history or knowledge of these subjects. I will not address accusations of canvasing, nor will I speak here of wikiquette. My only interest here is that the article as it is now is not encyclopedic. The title and introduction are about the commune, but the vast majority of the body of the article refers to the art, and the archeology of the site. A search of "Castelseprio" on JSTOR revealed 139 links to academic articles related only to the art of Castelseprio. Granted, many of these may be duplicates, or reviews of the same books, but this goes to establish the importance of the history the art from the site and how much it has been covered. And this link points to an interesting website with a link to a text document at the bottom. I don't know how official the site is, but the text document talks extensive about the history of the site, not the commune itself.
It is clear to me that there needs to be two seperate articles. The art and the archaeological site are the more notable. In my opinion, it is that article that would be entitled to the title Castelseprio. The modern day commune would have to be moved to Castelseprio, Italy or Castelseprio (commune). I realize that this has been suggested before, and the outcome was not satisfactory to some parties. Though I think that this is the most logical solution, I'm sure that it won't please all. My only other solution is the classic mediator strategy of "if you can't please both parties, make sure neither leaves pleased": turn Castelseprio into a disambiguation page with a link to both Castelseprio (commune), and Castelseprio (frescoes) with a brief description of both. Either of these solutions should help improve all aspects of this article.
If you feel there is something that I have overlooked in the forming of this opinion feel free to comment below. - HammerHeadHuman (talk) (work) 05:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I will let the involved parties decide upon the correct names, I will only warn them to give the articles a title that people would be likely to search for. Perhaps Castelseprio (ruins), which seems to best convey the theme without getting more specific than the average searcher would. - HammerHeadHuman (talk) (work) 18:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the obviousity of being Castelseprio referring to the frescoes and Castelseprio, Italy to the commune. Is it Castelseprio the name of a fresco? Of the place containing it? What's the problem to have a large page entitled Castelseprio frescoes? I think we should think in encyclopedical way: is in the Britannica the article for the Tower of Pisa entitled Pisa at all, evne though it's clear that Pisa is mostly known only for it? Or, to make a more in the size example, does Farfa redirect to Farfa Abbey? There's at laeast a redirect between. If something a name refers to something, we should get stuck to the true meaning, not one often misleaded for it. This is my opinion. -- Attilios 18:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Have split article into Castelseprio and Castelseprio (comune). -- Javits2000 15:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No activity for almost a month. Closing. -- Medcabemail 22:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Changed status back to "new". -- Medcabemail 17:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.