Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Dook

Questions before we proceed:

-Why was the previous medcab not allowed to run its course? I don't know much about these proceedings, so forgive me if that's an ignorant question.
-What is the desired outcome of this mediation? Is the intent to ban nicknames in general, or is the intent to limit the inclusion of certain nicknames? I don't think the notability of them is disputed, or am I mistaken?

Comment: I believe derogatory only has the one "r".

Cheers, Dubc0724 18:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For (1), the speed with which pages sent for mediation were reverted or reconstituted was such that the time-lag of MedCab causes a problem. Reviewing this history of reverts and edits, as well as prior MedCabs on similar issues, this apparently requires a more formal process. For (2), primarily to determine if Wikipedia should include derogatory (thanks) nicknames, redirects created solely to attack an institution, and the like. Notability, or widespread use could be somewhat in dispute, neutrality however is a much larger question. Hopefully, there will be some insight in what Wikipedia is, is not, and should be. If I am wrong, I'm wrong, but I will need to hear that from neutral sources. If Wikipedia is to be a place where what I consider to be "playground names" take on encyclopedic gravitas, so be it. DukeEGR93 18:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Dubc0724 18:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derogatory

I think that there is a clear difference between the mascot names (such as Tar Heels and Blue Devils), informal nicknames such as Bronx Bombers and Pinstripes, and the derogatory names that made me bring up this mediation. The added mediation topic is certainly fine, so long it is clear that I am not discouraging using things such as [[1]]. DukeEGR93 20:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

In an effort to get the ball rolling, my answer to the issue would be that the nicknames should appear under the trivia section of the UNC-Duke rivalry page and the derogatory nicknames should re-direct to this section of the UNC-Duke rivalry page. This solution allows for the information to presented in wikipedia in the context that makes it clear to the reader what it is. Alternatively, don't have any redirects but include the information just on the rivalry page. Other thoughts on the matter? Remember 20:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I am wholly against having mainspace articles on, or redirects to or from derogatory or attacking names for either of the schools (or any school, in fact). I am against having the insults listed on the rivalry page from basically the same reasoning, but not as adamantly. Beyond that, I wonder what sort of policy would be able to determine when an insulting "nickname" is notable and when not. DukeEGR93 21:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Flag

I've removed the offending passage from Dook. Please see my note at the UNC-Duke Rivalry page. I believe the mediation can be dropped at this time? Dubc0724 14:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think a better result would be just to include this information in the Triva section of the UNC-Duke rivalry page and delete any redirects, but I don't care that much about it and I am willing to drop it.

I am, however, interested on whether there is a general wikipedia policy on pegorative nicknames for people, places, teams, institutions, etc because I would think that this issue would appear in many different contexts and there should be one coherent policy. Thus, I would like some administrator take on a look at the current situation and give their opinion. Remember 14:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a different solution would be to create a list of pages for nicknames for sporteams so that this information would be presented along with lots of other pejorative and celebratory nicknames for various teams. Basically it would mirror the List of United States Presidential nicknames cite. For a similar discussion related to our own see [2], Talk:Butcher of Baghdad. What do you think? Remember 14:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, Remember. The list idea might not be bad. However, my personal feeling has changed to the point that I fear the inclusion of a pejorative nickname in any fashion will open us up to the kinds of unproductive and increasingly hostile debates we've had lately. Good suggestions, and perhaps a consensus on where to go next may be reached. Thanks Dubc0724 14:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also found a bunch of lists of nicknames that are already included on wikipedia [3]. Many of the lists include both pejorative and celebratory nicknames so I think there is a precedent for making the list that I am suggesting. Remember 15:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. Maybe Bo & Luke can weigh in and tell us if that will be a less contentious option. Dubc0724 15:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say at this point, for me, the main thing has to do with mainspace articles, redirects, and disambigs. And I hope I have shown good faith in this as I believe that for both schools (really, for all of them, but who has the time). So long as the lists are NPOV (and verifiable, as many of them are), I won't complain (anymore). I might add a notation about UNJD that it's a wholly innacurate statement, though :) Which brings up:

How does one delist a mediation request without breaking the mediation rules? DukeEGR93 02:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings DukeEgr93, while not an expert on this subject, I can tell you that any of the parties involved in a RfM can withdraw at any time. If a mediator comes along and discovers that the issue has resolved itself he would be likely to 'delist' the request. --Skywolf 02:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]