What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.
Primary issues (added by the filing party)
An entire section is devoted to one unofficial patch, which borders on a mod.
A simple passing mention of another patch should be allowed, given it is discussed on Steam, gog, and other sites.
Focus on a single fan-made modification in detail without allowing a single sentence mentioning another patch seems slanted and biased. There is bad blood between the makers of both patches and the fandom in general. Other editors have openly admitted to bias.
Ideal solution would be to allow the simple mention, as its very existence helped push development of the patch mentioned in the article.
Additional issues (added by other parties)
An entire section is not devoted to the patch. A paragraph within a section is.
There is no reason to mention the alternative patch. It is the work by Spahl that has gained notable coverage. The source added by CoolGamer to verify the existence of the alternative patch even notes that it was created using code stolen from Spahl, and that even when this was raised with the copier, it is still believed that they used Spahl's work to make their own easier. Again that is all in the source Coolgamer added. I can't say I'm an expert on either, but the information available (of which there is much for Spahl's work on several sites) suggests that "True Patch Gold" is literally just a patch to fix things. Therefore there is no need to mention it beyond some perceived notion that it is of equal stature to the Spahl work and so needs to be given some kind of prominence.
Focus on the single patch is based on the available information. Spahl's work has been covered on places like Eurogamer, Rock, Paper, Shotgun, and GamesRadar off the top of my head, and it's been covered extensively. It's not there because I care about Spahl's work or favour it, because I didn't even know where was some kind of apparently petty schism between groups over them. Nor is it bias because it isn't denigrating other patches or promoting Spahl's work as some untouchable, necessary work, it mentions it's criticisms. No editor I have seen during this has mentioned bias either so it seems weird to bring that up.
There is no need to mention the other patch. It's not a fan site, and we don't owe the makers of a rival patch coverage merely based on their existence. Patches on their own are not notable any more than standard marketing materials are.
Parties' agreement to mediation
If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.
This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is
accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or
rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.
Reject: Rejected under
prerequisite for mediation #9, that "the Committee has the discretion to refuse or refer back to other dispute resolution venues (e.g.
Dispute Resolution Noticeboard,
Third Opinion,
Request for Comment, or additional talk page discussion) a dispute which would benefit from additional work at lower levels of the dispute resolution process." With only two of you in the dispute, I'd suggest starting at Third Opinion then moving to DRN if that doesn't work. For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 21:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC) (Chairperson)reply
What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.
Primary issues (added by the filing party)
An entire section is devoted to one unofficial patch, which borders on a mod.
A simple passing mention of another patch should be allowed, given it is discussed on Steam, gog, and other sites.
Focus on a single fan-made modification in detail without allowing a single sentence mentioning another patch seems slanted and biased. There is bad blood between the makers of both patches and the fandom in general. Other editors have openly admitted to bias.
Ideal solution would be to allow the simple mention, as its very existence helped push development of the patch mentioned in the article.
Additional issues (added by other parties)
An entire section is not devoted to the patch. A paragraph within a section is.
There is no reason to mention the alternative patch. It is the work by Spahl that has gained notable coverage. The source added by CoolGamer to verify the existence of the alternative patch even notes that it was created using code stolen from Spahl, and that even when this was raised with the copier, it is still believed that they used Spahl's work to make their own easier. Again that is all in the source Coolgamer added. I can't say I'm an expert on either, but the information available (of which there is much for Spahl's work on several sites) suggests that "True Patch Gold" is literally just a patch to fix things. Therefore there is no need to mention it beyond some perceived notion that it is of equal stature to the Spahl work and so needs to be given some kind of prominence.
Focus on the single patch is based on the available information. Spahl's work has been covered on places like Eurogamer, Rock, Paper, Shotgun, and GamesRadar off the top of my head, and it's been covered extensively. It's not there because I care about Spahl's work or favour it, because I didn't even know where was some kind of apparently petty schism between groups over them. Nor is it bias because it isn't denigrating other patches or promoting Spahl's work as some untouchable, necessary work, it mentions it's criticisms. No editor I have seen during this has mentioned bias either so it seems weird to bring that up.
There is no need to mention the other patch. It's not a fan site, and we don't owe the makers of a rival patch coverage merely based on their existence. Patches on their own are not notable any more than standard marketing materials are.
Parties' agreement to mediation
If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.
This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is
accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or
rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.
Reject: Rejected under
prerequisite for mediation #9, that "the Committee has the discretion to refuse or refer back to other dispute resolution venues (e.g.
Dispute Resolution Noticeboard,
Third Opinion,
Request for Comment, or additional talk page discussion) a dispute which would benefit from additional work at lower levels of the dispute resolution process." With only two of you in the dispute, I'd suggest starting at Third Opinion then moving to DRN if that doesn't work. For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 21:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC) (Chairperson)reply