Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Jiangxi |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 17:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Symane TALK |
Comment | Presumed dead by participant. |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Jiangxi]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Jiangxi]]
The first map on the head page.
I suggested using a globa perspective map of Jiangxi on the head page in order to facilitate people to locate Jiangxi at the first sight. However, two users, one of whom still prefers this map in an aesthetic view, expressed their opposition with the only argument that there is a long-established consensus that the Chinese province format is an established format used for almost all "Chinese provincial divisions" articles. Meanwhile, the Response to my Third Opinion Request proclaimed that "there is no compulsorily reason to use the same type of map in all Chinese provinces articles", and I also sincerely think that articles work independently on Wikipedia, and there shouldn't and won't be rule to impose any obligatory format shaping them into the same monotonous pattern.
A more explicit map would be much better to be placed on the head page because it enables people to seize the first information of the region, thus I suggest changing back to the global view map.
After days long talk, I find it impossible to make some users understand there is no such a "consensus" they keep on pretending, backing by the response of the Third Opinion. They ignore it and seem to have finesses as they start to accuse me of vandalizing or edit warring. Therefore, I make a request here in hoping that you may clarify to them the existence of a "consensus" that they expect.
A few things:
Let's try something.
Pros
Cons
That's the first impressions I get from reading the discussions. If there are any points I've overlooked, feel free to add them. {{ Sonia| ping| enlist}} 10:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Two things:
Unsolicited Third Opinion - I have reviewed all the other province articles, and they all use the same map type to locate the province within the borders of China. Each map shows the borders of all of the provinces, indicating the province in question by showing it in red. Please don't forget that Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, and that individual articles like those about the provinces of China need to be evaluated as a group as well as individually. I feel that there is a great deal of value in the amount of information that is conveyed by the set of maps depicting the locations of each of the Chinese provinces. If there were a set of maps with the global perspective that Symane advocates, but also with the additional information that the existing map set provides, there would be an argument to be made for switching, but without the additional maps and province border indications, switching just one of a set of maps removes more worthwhile information than the global perspective contributes. This is not an issue of forcing a particular format, but one of consensus among not just the editors of this particular article, but the editors of all of the articles about each of the provinces within China. Come up with an entire set of maps, one for each of the provinces, with province borders for all provinces on every map, and my vote, for one, will be different.
Bobzchemist (
talk) 18:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Is this mediation still live? If so, where is it taking place?
Hipocrite (
talk) 13:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Jiangxi |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 17:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Symane TALK |
Comment | Presumed dead by participant. |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Jiangxi]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Jiangxi]]
The first map on the head page.
I suggested using a globa perspective map of Jiangxi on the head page in order to facilitate people to locate Jiangxi at the first sight. However, two users, one of whom still prefers this map in an aesthetic view, expressed their opposition with the only argument that there is a long-established consensus that the Chinese province format is an established format used for almost all "Chinese provincial divisions" articles. Meanwhile, the Response to my Third Opinion Request proclaimed that "there is no compulsorily reason to use the same type of map in all Chinese provinces articles", and I also sincerely think that articles work independently on Wikipedia, and there shouldn't and won't be rule to impose any obligatory format shaping them into the same monotonous pattern.
A more explicit map would be much better to be placed on the head page because it enables people to seize the first information of the region, thus I suggest changing back to the global view map.
After days long talk, I find it impossible to make some users understand there is no such a "consensus" they keep on pretending, backing by the response of the Third Opinion. They ignore it and seem to have finesses as they start to accuse me of vandalizing or edit warring. Therefore, I make a request here in hoping that you may clarify to them the existence of a "consensus" that they expect.
A few things:
Let's try something.
Pros
Cons
That's the first impressions I get from reading the discussions. If there are any points I've overlooked, feel free to add them. {{ Sonia| ping| enlist}} 10:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Two things:
Unsolicited Third Opinion - I have reviewed all the other province articles, and they all use the same map type to locate the province within the borders of China. Each map shows the borders of all of the provinces, indicating the province in question by showing it in red. Please don't forget that Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, and that individual articles like those about the provinces of China need to be evaluated as a group as well as individually. I feel that there is a great deal of value in the amount of information that is conveyed by the set of maps depicting the locations of each of the Chinese provinces. If there were a set of maps with the global perspective that Symane advocates, but also with the additional information that the existing map set provides, there would be an argument to be made for switching, but without the additional maps and province border indications, switching just one of a set of maps removes more worthwhile information than the global perspective contributes. This is not an issue of forcing a particular format, but one of consensus among not just the editors of this particular article, but the editors of all of the articles about each of the provinces within China. Come up with an entire set of maps, one for each of the provinces, with province borders for all provinces on every map, and my vote, for one, will be different.
Bobzchemist (
talk) 18:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Is this mediation still live? If so, where is it taking place?
Hipocrite (
talk) 13:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)