Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Categorisation of birds by location

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Categorisation of birds by location

[edit]
Editors involved in this dispute
  1. Jameel the Saluki (talk · contribs) – filing party
  2. Couiros22 (talk · contribs)
Articles affected by this dispute
  1. Common hill myna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  2. Category:Birds by location (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Issues to be mediated

[edit]
Primary issues (added by the filing party)
  1. What is an appropriate method of categorising birds by location?
  2. Current methodology appeared adequate. Couiros22 applying a new methodology with numerous issues not addressed
  3. Application of new methodology not following the basic guidelines of categorisation with regards concurrent parent/grandparent entries Wikipedia:Categorization
  4. Not reasonably objective, somewhat ad hoc, with apparent inconsistencies
  5. The need for explanations and references to be introduced on category pages given that the method is too subjective not accepted
  6. Explanatory - Although Couiros22 may have a valid methodology, after one month's discussion I am not much nearer to understanding the reasoning behind it and thus unable to properly assess the merits of it objectively. On the face of it I see a host of problems and inconsistencies which Couiros has dismissed as unimportant.
Additional issues (added by other parties)
  • Additional issue 1
  • Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

[edit]
  1. Agree. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree. --Couiros22 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

[edit]
  • Reject. Fails to satisfy prerequisite for mediation #8, "No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums." The unclosed and unexpired RFC currently pending on this matter, noted above, is a dispute resolution proceeding. Even if that had not been the case, however, I would have rejected this request under prerequisite #9 with a recommendation that you take this to dispute resolution noticeboard first (though you will need for the RFC to expire or be closed first there as well). For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]