Wikipedia:Resolving disputes contains the official policy on dispute resolution for English Wikipedia. Arbitration is generally the last step for user conduct-related disputes that cannot be resolved through discussion on
noticeboards or by
asking the community its opinion on the matter.
This page is the central location for discussing the various requests for arbitration processes. Requesting that a case be taken up here isn't likely to help you, but editors active in the dispute resolution community should be able to assist. |
Arbitration talk page archives |
---|
WT:RFAR archives (2004–2009) |
Various archives (2004–2011) |
Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–) |
WT:RFAR subpages |
Archive of prior proceedings |
I've just filed a request for clarification, using the built-in process at WP:ARCA. The {{ Arbitration clarification request}} template tells you to remove certain lines if the request does not concern a specific case, but if you don't give a title paramater, it puts code in the section header, and if you create a title but remove the other two parameters, it auto-generates them anyway, meaning you have to remove them again after posting, as I just did. Seems like this could use some tweaking to make it more user-friendly. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
When was it decided that the number of edits needed to edit the talk page should be the same as to edit the article? It doesn't make any sense.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Edit 181.98.62.149 ( talk) 13:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The logs don't provide an answer to the question. Where is the discussion where the decision was reached to only allow extended confirmed users to participate on talk pages about the Arab-Israeli conflict? Joe vom Titan ( talk) 16:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangers_F.C.
In the article about Glasgow Rangers Football Club, the "Founded" date is stated to be March 1872.
This should say June 2012 to reflect the reformation of the phoenix club in 2012 when the original club were liquidated.
Similar articles such as Airdrieonians FC and Gretna FC show this date as being the date the new club was founded after a company liquidation occurred.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airdrieonians_F.C.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretna_F.C._2008
The change of name in Airdrieonians is not sufficient enough to state a new club was founded as this is evidenced by the Manchester United article where a name change from Newton Heath is stated at the foundation section, but the "Founded" date is still said to be 1878.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_United_F.C.
Therefore, the changing of a name is not regarded as being a foundation of a club with Man United, so therefore wouldn't be for Airdrieonians.
This therefore shows the 2002 date for Airdrieonians is not related to any name changes, but is in fact based upon Liquidation of the old company which owned the original Airdrieonians FC.
Therefore, as that is the case, for consistency, the Rangers FC article "Founded" date should say 2012, as that is when one company liquidated and a phoenix club was created which then had to apply for a new membership to the Scottish football pyramid system.
I have raised this in the "Talk" section, however, I feel the issue is dismissed as Rangers are a much more popular club than Airdrieonians and Gretna and the decisions are made differently to appease a larger fans base. I also believe the people deciding what is "correct" are likely to be Rangers supporters who wish to pretend liquidation of the old company didn't happen.
Please resolve this inconsistency to show a similar treatment for Rangers foundation date to clubs in a similar position like Airdrieonians and Gretna. 2A02:C7C:CA85:9700:BC15:5E83:CC:B3F9 ( talk) 13:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Per Barkeeps comment here, [2], and his later question, which requires a response, [3] I'm going to need a word-limit extension if I am to reply. I'm currently at just under 500 words I think. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Resolving disputes contains the official policy on dispute resolution for English Wikipedia. Arbitration is generally the last step for user conduct-related disputes that cannot be resolved through discussion on
noticeboards or by
asking the community its opinion on the matter.
This page is the central location for discussing the various requests for arbitration processes. Requesting that a case be taken up here isn't likely to help you, but editors active in the dispute resolution community should be able to assist. |
Arbitration talk page archives |
---|
WT:RFAR archives (2004–2009) |
Various archives (2004–2011) |
Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–) |
WT:RFAR subpages |
Archive of prior proceedings |
I've just filed a request for clarification, using the built-in process at WP:ARCA. The {{ Arbitration clarification request}} template tells you to remove certain lines if the request does not concern a specific case, but if you don't give a title paramater, it puts code in the section header, and if you create a title but remove the other two parameters, it auto-generates them anyway, meaning you have to remove them again after posting, as I just did. Seems like this could use some tweaking to make it more user-friendly. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
When was it decided that the number of edits needed to edit the talk page should be the same as to edit the article? It doesn't make any sense.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Edit 181.98.62.149 ( talk) 13:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The logs don't provide an answer to the question. Where is the discussion where the decision was reached to only allow extended confirmed users to participate on talk pages about the Arab-Israeli conflict? Joe vom Titan ( talk) 16:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangers_F.C.
In the article about Glasgow Rangers Football Club, the "Founded" date is stated to be March 1872.
This should say June 2012 to reflect the reformation of the phoenix club in 2012 when the original club were liquidated.
Similar articles such as Airdrieonians FC and Gretna FC show this date as being the date the new club was founded after a company liquidation occurred.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airdrieonians_F.C.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretna_F.C._2008
The change of name in Airdrieonians is not sufficient enough to state a new club was founded as this is evidenced by the Manchester United article where a name change from Newton Heath is stated at the foundation section, but the "Founded" date is still said to be 1878.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_United_F.C.
Therefore, the changing of a name is not regarded as being a foundation of a club with Man United, so therefore wouldn't be for Airdrieonians.
This therefore shows the 2002 date for Airdrieonians is not related to any name changes, but is in fact based upon Liquidation of the old company which owned the original Airdrieonians FC.
Therefore, as that is the case, for consistency, the Rangers FC article "Founded" date should say 2012, as that is when one company liquidated and a phoenix club was created which then had to apply for a new membership to the Scottish football pyramid system.
I have raised this in the "Talk" section, however, I feel the issue is dismissed as Rangers are a much more popular club than Airdrieonians and Gretna and the decisions are made differently to appease a larger fans base. I also believe the people deciding what is "correct" are likely to be Rangers supporters who wish to pretend liquidation of the old company didn't happen.
Please resolve this inconsistency to show a similar treatment for Rangers foundation date to clubs in a similar position like Airdrieonians and Gretna. 2A02:C7C:CA85:9700:BC15:5E83:CC:B3F9 ( talk) 13:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Per Barkeeps comment here, [2], and his later question, which requires a response, [3] I'm going to need a word-limit extension if I am to reply. I'm currently at just under 500 words I think. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)