Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10 Hectagon

Mediation Case: 2007-02-10 Hectagon
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Nardman1 18:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?

{{la|Pentacontagon} na na naaaaaaa


 * Who's involved?

Nardman1, Pmanderson
 * What's going on?

The Hectagon AfD closed as "no consensus", with some minor comments to merge. Pmanderson merged the three articles in the AfD plus 2 other ones I can find. I reverted and Pmanderson reverted me back. I hope to avoid making this into an edit war. Pmanderson commented on my talk page about it and I said I'd submit it for WP:DRV which I did. They're saying this isn't an issue for DRV. It should be noted one of the articles is undergoing a discussion as to the proper name of the article, which leads me to believe other people are interested in an individual article on it as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by nardman1 (talk • contribs)
 * The AFD is at Articles for deletion/Hectagon. I see a large majority for Delete, redirect, or merge; there is no consensus for any one of these courses; but there is general agreement that we don't need this stub.
 * The discussion at Talk:Tricosagon involved one other editor, and ended with my proposal to replace the redirect, so I see no reason to believe anyone but Nardman1 is interested in saving that stub as a separate article either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * ''What would you like to change about that?

The user consensus on this article should be clarified, either by re-listing somewhere people can comment on it, or the articles should be kept as separate articles and not redirected.
 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

You can work in the open. The best way to reach me is through my talk page.

Mediator response
Relevant policies to look at include WP:NUMBER, WP:V, WP:SNOW, and WP:DELETE.

There are actually two main differences of opinion. One is about the proper names of these polygons, and the other is about whether the individual articles should just be redirects to the Polygon article. I believe that we can use this fact to work out a fair compromise.

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.


 * Compromise proposal:
 * The articles in question will remain as redirects to Polygon. This does not preclude an editor from later writing a non-stub article about an individual polygon.
 * Information about these polygons, like the sum of their angles and the angle measure for a regular n-gon, may be included in table form in the Polygon article. This should reduce the need for creating individual articles unless new information about such a polygon comes to light.
 * A picture of the regular 100-gon may be added to the Polygon article for the purpose of showing how close it is to a circle.
 * Because MathWorld is, on the face, a reliable source (despite some problems that have been brought to light at WikiProject Mathematics), the names of the polygons as listed in the table of the Polygon article may remain as is, with the exception of the 100-gon, which should be listed as "hectogon," in accordance with the table. Other names for such polygons may only be added if mentioned in another reliable source (e.g. multiple scholarly articles or other reference material). Editors are reminded that the standard for including information in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It is acceptable to amplify the statement that most mathematicians use the n-gon naming convention, and, therefore, other names for polygons larger than 20 are often coined or used inconsistantly. The editors of Polygon should use consensus when writing this statement.


 * Please indicate if this is a valid compromise offer. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 23:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I deplore part 4; I dispute the accuracy of any assertion of "hectogon"; it's Weisstein's misspelling of a mistake. I prefer 4A; I believe "hectogon" fails that test, but I am willing to be surprised. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

4A: The names of polygons of more than twenty sides are rarely used, and any mention of such names should be supported by evidence that that word is in fact commonly used (in that sense) by multiple scholarly sources; we should either use the most common name, or note that naming varies. Editors are reminded that the standard for including information in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It is acceptable to amplify the statement that most mathematicians use the n-gon naming convention, and, therefore, other names for polygons larger than 20 are often coined or used inconsistantly. The editors of Polygon should use consensus when writing this statement.
 * I agree with the offer. Nardman1 02:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, seems as though everyone's happy now. I'm declaring this case closed with the given offer with 4A in place of 4. Thank you both for resolving this in a civil and rational manner. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 02:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * The agreement of resolution of this matter is as follows:
 * The articles in question will remain as redirects to Polygon. This does not preclude an editor from later writing a non-stub article about an individual polygon.
 * Information about these polygons, like the sum of their angles and the angle measure for a regular n-gon, may be included in table form in the Polygon article. This should reduce the need for creating individual articles unless new information about such a polygon comes to light.
 * A picture of the regular 100-gon may be added to the Polygon article for the purpose of showing how close it is to a circle.
 * The names of polygons of more than twenty sides are rarely used, and any mention of such names should be supported by evidence that that word is in fact commonly used (in that sense) by multiple scholarly sources; we should either use the most common name, or note that naming varies. Editors are reminded that the standard for including information in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It is acceptable to amplify the statement that most mathematicians use the n-gon naming convention, and, therefore, other names for polygons larger than 20 are often coined or used inconsistantly. The editors of Polygon should use consensus when writing this statement.

JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits), Mediator, 02:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)