Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
 |
|
This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button 
to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.
| Do you need assistance? | Would you like to help? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
|
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember:
Open/close quick reference
|
| Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
| Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film) | In Progress | SilviaASH (t) | 17 days, 17 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 1 hours | Barry Wom (t) | 3 hours |
| Second Amendment to the United States Constitution | New | DoctorEric (t) | 2 days, 6 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 2 days, 4 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 2 days, 4 hours |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Current disputes
[edit]Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film)
[edit]
– 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
Users involved
- SilviaASH (talk · contribs)
- Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs)
- Barry Wom (talk · contribs)
- BarntToust (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
User:Andrzejbanas is disputing the notion that Japan is one of the countries in which Sonic the Hedgehog 3 was produced, despite two reliable sources ([1], [2]) stating that it is. Andrzejbanas asserts that there is a contradiction in the sources as some of them state that both the United States and Japan were countries of production, while others only list the United States. Myself and User:Barry Wom are confused by this assessment; the two of us are in agreement that there is no contradiction at all; it's just that some of the sources mention Japan, and some of them don't. In particular, Andrzejbanas contends that as the Japanese media sources they are able to find only say that Sonic 3 is an American film, the matter is still in question, because, quote, Japanese sources allegedly wouldn't miss a beat mentioning that a film is a Japanese production
, a notion I disagree with as the national origin of a source seems irrelevant to its capacity to overlook something. The dispute has become protracted as a result of differing interpretations of what, for the purposes of Wikipedia, constitutes "contradictory sources", how a film's country of production is determined, and the policy on original research.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
- Talk:Sonic_the_Hedgehog_3_(film)#Japan_in_country
- User_talk:Barry_Wom#Japan_in_Sonic_3_article
- User_talk:SilviaASH#Film_nationality_discussion
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I believe the dispute over this issue has reached an impasse, as seemingly neither side is understanding the other's rationale, and a third opinion is needed.
Summary of dispute by Andrzejbanas
[edit]Two sources describe the film as American (Kinema Junpo, one of the oldest Japanese film publications), and Screen Daily, an American film magazine. Two other sources provided by that describe the film as both an American in Japanese co-production. The editors have brought up good points on the talk page that one of the main production companies is Japanese. For me personally this would be enough to clarify it as a Japanese film, but not by our wiki rules and standards. One of their own sources (Lumiere) states "Defining the nationality of a film is a complex task. There are no widely accepted international or even European definitions of the criteria to determine the country of origin of a film. This is both a legal and a statistical problem. Different national records and the statistics on which they are based can show the same film as having a whole range of nationalities." I believe ignoring the two sources that only state United States is a violation of WP:WEIGHT (Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.) or stating that since a company is Japanese, than the "American-Japanese" sources are the correct ones is a violation of WP:SYNTH ("A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article.). The infobox itself (Template:Infobox film), If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then list only the common published nations. Alternatively in the case of conflict, consider leaving this field blank and discussing the issue in the article. With the above, I have suggested following the rules, even if we add a hatnote explaining the discrepancy of sources between editors. This has led to a standstill. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Barry Wom
[edit]Marza Animation Planet is a production company that worked on the film, as confirmed by the film's credits and promotional materials. Marza is also a Japanese company. When Andrzejbanas was asked if they disputed either of these facts, the response was You both have stated that the company is Japanese. I don't know that, but the sources don't back that up
. SilviaASH then provided a source which confirmed that the company was Japanese. Along with the two sources I supplied which list Japan as a production country, this should have been the end of the discussion as far as I'm concerned.
There is no contradiction involved. This isn't a case of "one source says X and Y and another says X and Z". It's a case of "one source says X and Y and another says X". The source saying X isn't contradicting the source that says X and Y, it has just omitted Y. Andrzejbanas appears to be insisting on an explanation as to why sources that say just X don't include Y, which would be a virtually impossible task.
Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film) discussion
[edit]Comment Andrzejbanas and I have reached some common ground on this issue on the article's talk page. The discussion is not quite over, but we may be able to reach a resolution on our own sooner than I had anticipated. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Additional comment since my posting this, the discussion on the talk page has turned to a disagreement on how the topic specific guidance on Template:Infobox film and MOS:FILM is to be interpreted. While Andrzejbanas wishes to at some point in the future discuss the guidelines with the film WikiProject at large and suggest they be amended, I would hope for consensus to be reached on how we are to interpret the guidelines as they currently stand, in this case. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: would this be better suited for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film? - delta (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Sonic)
[edit]I am ready to act as the moderator in this dispute. Please read DRN Rule D. If this dispute is about an infobox, please be aware that infoboxes are a contentious topic. By agreeing to take part in this content dispute resolution, you will also be acknowledging that you are aware that contentious topic sanctions may apply. My zeroth question for the editors is whether you still want moderated discussion. If you are not sure, and want to continue discussion on the article talk page, please say so, and I will wait to see if there is still a dispute.
The purpose of content dispute resolution is to improve the article, so I am asking each of the editors, as the first question, to specify concisely what part of the article they want to change, or what part of the article they want to leave alone that another editor wants to change.
Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hey @Robert McClenon, I'm not sure if I can help out with the process of moderating, as while I have been wholly absent from this content dispute because of working on some other stuff, I am by vast numerics the primary contributor to the article. Also, I am thus leading the charge to get this article in question up at WP:GA, and am set to be corresponding with the dispute-involved editor SilviaASH concerning that.
- If you find any value on my humble input, please let me know. I'll be following the state of the article anyhow. Thank you for offering to take up moderation of this.
- Also, ping @Barry Wom, @Andrzejbanas, and @SilviaASH to answer for Robert's request for to them to
specify concisely what part of the article they want to change, or what part of the article they want to leave alone that another editor wants to change
(if you have not already). I have no clue the particulars of this debate are from trying my damndest to follow the long dispute on the article talk, or from looking here either. BarntToust 16:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)- Well, like I said below, I think that Japan should be included as a country of production, matching the sources, and that the article content and categorization should reflect that where relevant. I believe Barry feels the same and Andrzejbanas feels differently, but hopefully they can come and clarify that. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah to clarify we have some sources that only state one country as the country of production, and others of similar reliability that state two countries as the country of production. The standards in Template:infobox film (If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then list only the common published nations. Alternatively in the case of conflict, consider leaving this field blank and discussing the issue in the article.) suggest if there are discrepancies or contradictions, we should only list the common countries named. After a bit and back for discussing, I can't find any sources that goes into specific details on how they came to their conclusions on this, and we shouldn't make assumptions on how the sources came to these different conclusions. My suggestion is to follow the rules set out and only list the countries that are included in all the major sources (in this case, United States) found and potentially leave a hatnote stating that some sources included another country per WP:BALANCE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: Barry Wom has not edited since their last comment on the article talk page a few days ago. If they do not respond to the discussion clarifying their preference in a timely manner, will the dispute be closed, or may we proceed with only myself and Andrzejbanas? silviaASH (inquire within) 23:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry folks, currently on vacation and unable to take part in the discussion at the moment. I think I've made my position clear in any case. Barry Wom (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by editors (Sonic)
[edit]The dispute is about the film infobox, although it also implicitly impacts the categorization of the page, since the outcome of the dispute would ultimately affect not only whether or not to list Japan as a country of production in the infobox, but also whether or not to categorize the film under Category:English-language Japanese films and relevant subcategories. This has not been an explicit point of contention, however. Andrzejbanas has also floated the notion of whether or not to include the countries of production in the lead on account of their interpretation of one of the guidelines, although they seem unsure as to if this is a good idea. I personally do not see any cause for concern in the minor discrepancies in the sources that gave rise to the dispute, and think that Japan should be listed as a country of production in the infobox and the article should remain categorized as such, as is the case as of this writing.
I acknowledge Robert McClenon's statement. I have read DRN Rule D, and agree to abide by the conditions set forth in it. I have not taken this dispute to any other noticeboard or discussion venue, and I am unaware of any other active discussions on the issue elsewhere, if they should be occurring. (However, Andrzejbanas has come to my user talk page to discuss the guidelines they find issue with since I filed this dispute; I have linked that topic here for transparency and completion.)
I have only one question for the moderator before the discussion begins. Regarding the following rule, Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. If the article is edited by a party while discussion is pending at DRN, the mediation at DRN will be failed
, does this rule apply to all edits to the article, or only to edits related to the issue of dispute (in this case, the film's country of production)? In other words, are unrelated edits to the article (for instance, technical corrections, copy-editing prose, answering other users' unrelated edit requests, or adding information otherwise not related to the film's country of production in the infobox) permitted, or are only minor edits permissible, or must all editing, related to the dispute or not, be entirely desisted from until the discussion concludes? (Whatever the answer, I will abide by the rule.) silviaASH (inquire within) 01:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
First statement by possible moderator (Sonic)
[edit]For the time being, I will ask the editors who are in the dispute not to edit any part of the article, until we have specific statements as to what the scope of the disagreement is. After the scope of the content dispute is defined, I may ease the rule about editing to allow edits that are non-contentious. I am again asking each editor to identify specifically what parts of the article, including but not limited to the infobox, you want to change, or that another editor wants to change that you want to leave the same. If you see multiple issues in different parts of the article, please provide a list, preferably in a bullet-point form. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- As I understand it as an uninvolved party, the scope of their dispute—about which countr(y)[ies] constitutes the country of origin of this film—lies with the infobox. At most, the disputed content could be included with a few words in the #Development section, like it could be "An American and Japanese co-production," or simply denoting it as an American film: but such an instance of content would be so minor that essentially all other editing broadly in the article would fall outside of the area of dispute. For example, if, say silviaASH was adding content about cinematography of the film, that would bear zero relation to the countr(y)[ies] of origin that this film is.
- And considering Barry is on vacation, hindering the editing ability of these other two on all matters until this content dispute is defined would not be the ideal path forward. @SilviaASH, @Andrzejbanas (and @Barry Wom, sorry to ping your vacay)—have I defined this well enough to @Robert McClenon? I'd hate to see everyone with temporary editing restrictions, but if I haven't gotten this dispute defined properly, let me know. BarntToust 13:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- I personally do not consider it to be a problem. I was only asking about the scope of the rule to make sure I completely understood it, not because I had anything else I urgently wanted to add to the article. I don't have any issue refraining from editing the article for a day or two while we wait for Andrzejbanas to make their statement on the scope of the dispute. If I get the itch, I have other articles to edit. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- But also, sorry, yes, to answer your question, I do think you have accurately understood the scope of the dispute. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Statement 1.1 by moderator (Sonic)
[edit]To answer an earlier question, the minimum number of editors required for content dispute resolution is two. If the filing editor lists two other editors, and one of them replies, moderated discussion can take place between those editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
First statement by editors (Sonic)
[edit]silviaASH
[edit]Robert McClenon, thank you for clarifying the rule. I will refrain from editing any part of the article until the discussion has appropriately progressed. Here is a brief summary of the dispute as I understand it:
- The dispute revolves around whether or not to state in the article that Japan is a country of production on the Sonic 3 film. All sources list the United States, whether by itself or alongside Japan.
- The position of myself, and Barry Wom, has been that the sources list both Japan and the United States, and that Marza Animation Planet, a Japanese animation and visual effects company, is credited for having assisted in its production, and therefore Japan should be listed.
- Andrzejbanas expresses the concern that as not all sources state Japan to be a country of production, and it is unclear why some sources do and some sources do not, we should not list Japan as a country of production without qualifying within the article (their proposed method is a footnote) that some sources only list the United States and some sources do not. They believe that this would be in line with WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE.
- My counterpoint to Andrzejbanas is that, as the sources do not outright state how they have defined what a country of production is, or declare how they have determined which it is, and they do not declare their reasons for excluding Japan as a country of production (if they have any) we do not know whether or not the sources that do not list Japan have consciously made the editorial decision to exclude it from the category, or if they have simply overlooked the involvement of Marza. Therefore, I believe that such a footnote saying this would give the impression of an explicit disagreement between the sources when none is known to exist, violating WP:NOR, and that it would be simpler to list both Japan and the United States, satisfying WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. I previously stated this opinion in this diff.
What I believe is best to do is thus as follows:
- The current version of the article lists both the United States and Japan as production countries in the infobox, citing three sources (currently, they are Screen Daily (US), Lumiere (US+JP), and The Numbers (US+JP)). Andrzejbanas has pointed to other Japanese-language sources which only mention the United States, but they are not included in the current revision as of this writing. Accordingly, the article is categorized within Category:English-language Japanese films.
- I believe, in essence, that these aspects should stay as they are, per my arguments.
- The infobox should continue to list both the US and Japan as production countries.
- No footnote pointing out the discrepancy between the sources should be added.
- The English-language Japanese films category would stay on the article.
- As such, additional relevant categories of Japanese films, such as Category:Japanese sequel films, would be permitted.
Please feel free to ask if there is a need for me to further clarify my position. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Second statement by possible moderator (Sonic)
[edit]The filing editor wants to list both the United States and Japan as countries of production.
The issue appears to be that some sources list only the United States, and some sources list the United States and Japan, and the issue is whether and how to note this discrepancy. Are there any other content issues?
The other participating editor has made an opening statement but has not made a follow-up statement. I would like each editor to make a brief statement as to what they think should be in the infobox and how their view is supported by guidelines, and a brief statement as to whether they think that any changes are needed to the text of the article. If you have already addressed these questions, you may say that you already addressed these questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Second statement by editors (Sonic)
[edit]To my knowledge there are no other content issues with the article. I believe I have already thoroughly argued my position and how it is supported by policy, and I am not currently seeking any changes to any other part of the article.
@Andrzejbanas: Are you able to make a follow-up statement on your position? silviaASH (inquire within) 00:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
In the sort-of-distant past, the only thing that could have been a content dispute (but wasn't serious enough for DRN) there were questions about whether a company, that was credited as an "in association with" party to the production of the film, should be placed in the infobox as a production company. This bit was resolved with a consensus to not credit the company as such, with an edit notice being successfully implemented to alert other users about this. However, that one was just routine talk page chatter: This dispute, about the "Japan question", would be the first bona fide content dispute to befall the article in its history. While I have had zero involvement in this content dispute and honestly couldn't care less about what is being fought about, and am only here because I am self-interested in doing whatever I can to ensure this article is stable enough for WP:GA, I can say that the scope of the content dispute between Andrzejbanas and Barry Wom + SilviaASH has been defined fully well to my knowledge. I hope to see this dispute resolved and will offer my disinterested input wherever fitting. Thanks to Robert for handling this. BarntToust 16:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
To follow-up, this is my only issue with the article. My main issue currently is that by adding the other country to the infobo, it would be ignoring the established rules I've stated from template:Infobox film about how to handle multiple sources when they disagree on the nationality of a film. While editors have provided interesting points, none have been shown to me as solid proof of how production is handled. As two Japanese sources and one American ond I've presented do not display japan as a production country, I'm not convinced they were just "missed" by the sources in question. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Third statement by possible moderator (Sonic)
[edit]I will try to summarize the issue concisely. It appears that the underlying content issue is that some sources list the United States as the only country of production, and some sources list the United States and Japan as countries of production. No source explicitly states that Japan was not a country of production, or that the United States was the only country of production. So the question appears to be whether to list one country in the infobox, or two countries. Is that correct? Is there also an issue about the body of the article, or is there agreement that the details can be explained in the body of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Seems that the one-two country system is what they're disputing about. Like I mentioned somewhere, when it is decided whether or not Japan is recognized as a country of origin, if it will be, that would do well to be in the body as "A Japanese and American co-production..." or something like that.
- If the disputing parties would like to offer concurrent or dissenting opinions on my understanding of this, please speak. BarntToust 23:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- For my part, I do not think I would choose to list the information in the lede. It would likely lead to confusion as clarification as to how the film qualifies as being produced by one or both countries would then be required, and it does not seem necessary to aid a reader's understanding. Listing the companies and countries in the infobox for the benefit of any especially curious readers would to my mind be sufficient. silviaASH (inquire within) 01:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, the nationality of the film could be noted in #Development, where the production companies are listed. BarntToust 01:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- And maybe noting the nationality in the lede would be done like how it's done in, for example, Wild Tales (film). Does not require a lot of drawn-out explaining. BarntToust 01:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Well, in any case I think I am ambivalent on how this would impact the article body. I will leave that up to others to decide after the dispute is resolved. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- And maybe noting the nationality in the lede would be done like how it's done in, for example, Wild Tales (film). Does not require a lot of drawn-out explaining. BarntToust 01:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, the nationality of the film could be noted in #Development, where the production companies are listed. BarntToust 01:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- For my part, I do not think I would choose to list the information in the lede. It would likely lead to confusion as clarification as to how the film qualifies as being produced by one or both countries would then be required, and it does not seem necessary to aid a reader's understanding. Listing the companies and countries in the infobox for the benefit of any especially curious readers would to my mind be sufficient. silviaASH (inquire within) 01:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Third statement by editors (Sonic)
[edit]I have read the text from Template:Infobox film which Andrzejbanas has cited as justification, and I don't see how the suggestions on the documentation page back up their arguments. For one thing, Template:Infobox film/doc is not a policy or guideline, it is a list of general suggestions for editors regarding how to fill out the infobox. Secondly, the phrases conflict of information
and common published nations
are vague and do not indicate an explicit definition of "conflict" or "common", and I feel that I could just as well interpret those words in support of my own position. As I said, I do not see an explicit conflict between the sources, and Japan is commonly listed as a country of production- there are two sources saying that it is, as mentioned earlier.
It is true that determining film nationality can be complex for the reliable databases. As the documentation page says, the value of this parameter is seldom found in the primary source (the film) and often involves original research
, but it says this in the context of giving guidance to editors as to what reliable sources to look at; For reasons explained below preference is given to reliable databases
(which would have performed this research). It does not suggest that the onus is on editors to perform this original research ourselves.
I find the arguments that neither I nor Barry have been shown to me as solid proof of how production is handled
and I'm not convinced they were just "missed" by the sources in question
to be irrelevant here. We do not need to know exactly how a reliable source came to its conclusions before citing it. Weighting our use of a source based on such unknowns, or editorially constructing the impression that the sources disagree on the issue when it is not known that they do, seems to me to constitute original research (Take care not to go beyond what the sources express
and Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources
). I still also do not quite understand how the nationality of a particular source is relevant here- Japanese or American sources are equally capable of making mistakes or overlooking information. American publications have made factual errors in covering American films, as have Japanese publications in covering Japanese ones.
We have sources which state that Japan is a country of production, and there are no sources that say that it wasn't, and that is all that we need to verifiably list Japan as a country of production in addition to the United States. Any speculation about editorial inconsistencies between these sources is not relevant here unless compelling evidence can be presented that one or another source has performed a mistaken or incomplete assessment, which so far has not been the case.
Additionally, both sources provided by Andrzejbanas which do not list Japan in the country of production field ([3], [4]) still correctly state that Marza Animation Planet is a production company. Just as it can be argued that these two sources perhaps missed or chose not to acknowledge Japan as a country of production, it could equally be the case that it is their editorial standard to only list the primary country of production, or that they simply did not consider it that important. We do not know, and I feel that to assume their reasoning and weight our editorial decisions based on the assumption of an unknown and unstated view when we have reliable sources confirming Japan as a country of production based on Marza's involvement is, again, original research. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Fourth statement by moderator (Sonic)
[edit]It appears that the issue comes down to the interpretation of the documentation for the {{Infobox film}}. It states: If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then list only the common published nations.
So it appears that the first question is whether the listing of one country by some reliable sources and two countries by other reliable sources is considered a conflict. The second question is whether, as a compromise, the field can be left blank, or filled with a note, and the nationality discussed in the body of the article. Am I correct that the editors disagree as to the answer to the first question, because one editor thinks that the situation is not a conflict, and one editor thinks that it is a conflict?
Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
Are the editors willing to agree to a compromise?
Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
Fourth statement by editors (Sonic)
[edit]Although Andrzejbanas has cited Template:Infobox film in their most recent arguments, they have previously also cited the essay Wikipedia:Conflicting sources, which I also find to not enhance their case for not listing Japan as that essay also does not helpfully define "conflict" in a way that would be meaningfully instructive for this situation, and much of what I have already argued about the Template guidance applies to that essay as well.
I shall note that the previous two films (Sonic the Hedgehog and Sonic the Hedgehog 2) are listed as American-Japanese co-productions by the British Film Institute (BFI), which is noted within Template:Infobox film/doc as a reliable database with which to source the country field. ([5], [6]) The infoboxes of both films' articles reflects this finding. This does not have any immediate bearing on the outcome of this dispute, as the BFI does not yet have an entry for Sonic the Hedgehog 3 in their database, but given that the same companies produced all three films, I have little doubt that when an entry for it on BFI's database does emerge, the same conclusion shall be drawn about Sonic the Hedgehog 3. I assume that Andrzejbanas personally considers BFI reliable for this use case, as they cited it in an edit to the article on The Corpse Bride in that film's infobox's country field.
I do not think a note should be left in the field, as this would violate WP:NOR. I also do not think leaving the field blank would be acceptable. I also am not certain if the nationality can be discussed in the body of the article, as it is not discussed in depth in any sources, to my knowledge- all we have are the reliable database sources listing the US, or the US and Japan, as production countries, and as stated before, they do not clarify how and why they came to that conclusion. (Saying Sonic the Hedgehog 3 is an American...
or American-Japanese...
film in the lede would be acceptable, although there has been edit-warring over whether or not to list the nationality in the lede in the past and I'm not sure if that would place an undue emphasis on the film's nationality, but again, I will leave that up to BarntToust and others.)
If we cannot come to an agreement on whether or not to list Japan with the available sources, then I believe the only reasonable policy-based resolution is simply to omit Japan from the country field of the infobox until and unless additional sources become available and a consensus to use those to list Japan is attained. In the interest of allowing the article to become stable so that BarntToust can continue their work to help the article attain GA status, I would agree to this outcome.
@Andrzejbanas: Do you have anything to add or clarify? silviaASH (inquire within) 05:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator (Sonic)
[edit]If we are otherwise unable to resolve the infobox content dispute, I see two more ways to resolve it. The first is an inquiry at WikiProject Film to ask how they interpret the documentation for the infobox template. I plan to post an inquiry at the film project within 72 hours unless a compromise is reached here (and I don't expect that it will be, so I expect that I will ask at the film project). The second is a Request for Comments. That takes 30 days, and so should only be done if the project inquiry is inconclusive. However, that can be done while the work is underway to bring the article up to standards for a Good Article nomination. In any case, resolving this issue should be done prior to or concurrent with the Good Article nomination as further verification that the article is stable.
Are there any other questions or comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- So yeah I think Robert's suggestion to the folks in dispute makes sense. I think it's worth saying that this dispute really ought not take place at the centre of the Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film) article. The nature of the dispute is what to do when some RS says the country of origin of a film is one, and when others give one and another. It's not really about the article itself; the article happens to be one of—I'm sure many—that have this dilemma of sourcing. If the axis of the dispute could revolve around the principles of what is being warred over, and take place at Project Film based on policy, that would be most amazing.
- Thank you to Robert and SilviaASH for keeping the article's prospective GA in mind when discussing this dispute. BarntToust 17:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- At this juncture, I think asking at the film WikiProject would be the most productive way to resolve the issue, given how slow progress has been towards a resolution here with essentially only myself and Andrzejbanas repeatedly reiterating our positions with not much movement on either side. I have no objections to taking the matter there. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Fifth statement by editors (Sonic)
[edit]I think I have exhausted everything I have to say about the issue for the time being. If Andrzejbanas does not make any further comments that require a response, then I support moving discussion on this issue to the film WikiProject and/or to an RfC as appropriate. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Popping back just to say that I don't really have anything to add here. SilviaASH has summarised the situation in enough detail already and I support their position. Requesting input at WikiProject Film might be useful, as I'm sure the issue has been discussed in the past (I seem to recall the Marvel movies being an example). Barry Wom (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
[edit]
– New discussion.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
I offered a suggestion to improve the opening section of the article on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Only one editor has responded so far, and he disagrees with my proposal. We've exchanged comments back and forth a couple of times, but I don't think we will reach an agreement. I let him know we needed to have a third party mediate our dispute.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Redundancy_in_opening_section
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
The dispute is over the format of the opening section of the article. There is no dispute over content, just where to include what details. I believe the other editor and I have clearly stated our positions. I hope that a neutral third party can offer guidance on which format for an opening section is preferable.
Summary of dispute by Avatar317
[edit]Second Amendment to the United States Constitution discussion
[edit]- Volunteer Note: To request a third opinion, please follow the steps listed at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)