Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-11 State of Origin
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | State of Origin |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | Unknown |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | Jeff79 & Grant |
| Mediator(s) | Wizardman |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|State of Origin]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|State of Origin]]
Request Information[edit]
Who are the involved parties?[edit]
What is the involved article(s)?[edit]
State of Origin (as well as Rugby League State of Origin)
What's going on?[edit]
- Jeff is arguing primarily for redirect to Rugby League State of Origin on grounds of it being the Primary Topic, and (failing that) secondarily for a straight disambiguation page.
- Grant is arguing for the status quo on the grounds that information in the article as it is now constitutes the Primary Topic, that is the general concept of State of Origin, as used to select teams in various sports.
What would you like to change about that?[edit]
Our debate has been long and we agree that we can't resolve it between ourselves. Some kind of independent mediation is required to establish the genuine Primary Topic.
Mediator response[edit]
- Alright, I'm willing to take this on. First off, you two would have to accept me as a mediator. You're allowed to decline as this would be my first mediation case, but I've done plenty of sports work so I think I could get this straightened out. I'd prefer discussion here, of course.--Wizardman 02:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think not being Australian could be an advantage. But more than being sports-related, I feel it's more wikipedia policy-interpretation related. I accept you.--Jeff79 02:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Very well then, I'll start looking through everything and see what I think of the situation.--Wizardman 19:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the problem is the idea of a "primary topic" according to the disambiguation guidelines, I got that much. Primary topics can be arguably subjective, though, hence this problem. But sine it's just between two separate topics, a primary topic might be more likely to exist. I'll keep looking over this, may take me a while since I don't really know anything about this "state of origin".--Wizardman 17:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, update. From the looks of it, the way it is now seems fine. For a primary topic argument to be effective, there would hve to be evidence that is it worldwide accepted as the general primary topic, which I don't see at this point.--Wizardman 15:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- It seems like the debate here's died down anyway, and it's not that big a deal, so if Jeff's fine with letting it go I'll close this case. Wizardman 18:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I guess I did kinda disappear there. I'm sorry though could you give me some more detail about the reasoning behind your decision? Exactly what tests for primary topic does the State of Origin fail?--Jeff79 08:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know if I can say anything on this page or not, but to justify Jeff79's point, if you type "State of Origin" (without the apostrophies) in Google Search - 17 of the first 20 are rugby league based/related. The 3 left, one is about the Origin of the USA states, a recent news article about AFL pushing for their own State of Origin and the other is a blog which has nothing to do with State of Origin at all. (Google search done at 11:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)) I agree with Jeff79 that State of Origin, rugby league related is the primary topic. But if the AFL State of Origin comes back next year (2008), it may not be the primary topic then, but now it is rugby league. If you do redirect it, you can always add the page State of Origin (disam what ever it is) to the top of Rugby League State of Origin using the template {{dablink}}. SpecialWindler talk 11:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, but it's a point I've made ad nauseam in the original debate.--Jeff79 10:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)