Template talk:Dispute-resolution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Layout questions[edit]

For a discussion about the edit link see the Template:Tnavbar(edit talk links history) talk page. For issues like align=right (floating), colour scheme, width, and line breaks see the Category:Maintenance navigation(edit talk links history) talk page, it's more or less the same problem for various "sidebar" templates. -- Omniplex 06:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggested addition[edit]

I think that right below the header and above "negotiation" we should have a link to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines with a text of "Discuss the issue" or "Talk pages" or something similar. Talk is, after all, the most basic and most important means of resolving disputes, the first thing you want to try, and in most cases, sufficient to resolve the issue. Eleland 12:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I merged in editor assistance with "negotiation" and MedCab in with "mediation". There didn't seem to be a good reason to have them on the bottom of the list as "member groups". It seems better to just have them listed under the existing appropriate headings. Also, I added a link to the talk page guidelines, based on the suggestion above. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hrm. Given MedCab isn't governed by the mediation policy which it's located under, I don't know if I think that's the ultimate solution. Maybe add MedCab under "Negotiation"? Daniel (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Made a bold change, not reckless, but bold. I changed Informal Mediation to Mediation Cabal, merely as it's known as the Mediation Cabal, and that there are other forms of informal mediation that exist, such as mediating on an article talk page. Thoughts? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 09:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a new project which is gaining steam. I suggest it be added to the bottom of the template. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rework of template[edit]

I have been very bold and reworked the template. While I have cut out some stuff, and added more words, I feel it somewhat streamlines the process. Additionally, I also think it removes some of the Wikispeak we are used to using on a day to day basis. How I've reworked it I feel clarifies what each step in the DR process does. Most of us familiar with the DR process know where to take our disputes for the issues we encounter, but some don't, and I feel this rework will simplify the process somewhat. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 03:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible WQA change[edit]

There is a proposal at the Village Pump to close the Wikiquette page. The consensus appears to be moving in favor of closing, but the discussion is still on-going. If it were closed, this project page would need to be modified to remove WQA and perhaps replace it with something (perhaps a link to Dispute Resolution process or Third Opinion because the latter may take on much of the workload). Please comment at the Village Pump discussion (not here, so the talk is colocated) if you have any thoughts. --Noleander (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Third Opinion under Conduct section[edit]

I've boldly removed it. It was inserted there several months ago at a point in time that a revision of several forms of dispute resolution were under way and having conduct disputes at 3O was being considered but that idea was rejected at the 3O talk page. No one apparently thought to go back and remove it from this template and it has been there in error since that time. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]