Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

Do you need assistance?			Would you like to help?
Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not enter text that has been generated by a large language model or other artificial intelligence. All statements in dispute resolution must be in your own words. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.			Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Category:PlayStation 5-only games	In Progress	Jursha (t)	27 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 days, 5 hours	Jursha (t)	8 days, 5 hours
Muslim Gujjars	Closed	Anpanman11 (t)	21 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 5 hours
Pastirma	New	Agent Albatros (t)	7 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 2 hours
Western Sahara	New	Nice4What (t)	5 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 2 hours	Nice4What (t)	7 hours
Laos	New	TheodoresTomfooleries (t)	7 hours	None	n/a	TheUzbek (t)	41 minutes

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.

Current disputes

Category:PlayStation 5-only games

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Jursha on 20:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Category:PlayStation 5-only games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jursha (talk · contribs)
• WikiAnsweredNow (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I added lesser-known indie video games to the List of PlayStation 5 games page. At the time I did this, I was following WP:NOTEWORTHY. Particularly the part that says "The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles. It also does not apply to the contents of stand-alone lists, unless editors agree to use notability as part of the list selection criteria." Many of the entries I added to the stand-alone list have only a PlayStation Store URL as their citation.

I then proceeded to create hard redirect pages for all the entries I added to this list and included categories (allowed by WP:RCAT to my understanding) on the redirects, such as the PlayStation 5-only category. The user WikiAnsweredNow thought my additions and edits were in bad faith, and they removed only the PlayStation 5-only category from each of those redirect pages. I reverted all their edits, thinking they were vandalism. He started a discussion on the talk page of the article/category, and I think we don't see each other as acting in bad faith now, but we've seemingly come to a standstill on who's right.

WikiAnsweredNow seems to want the redirects to be deleted (or at least have the PS5-only category removed), citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIR. My opinion is that WP:NOTDIR doesn't directly apply to the List of PlayStation 5 games page since notability, by default, isn't considered for entries on stand-alone lists (and thus wouldn't apply to their redirect pages, or the categories on those pages). My thinking is that a consensus should be established on the List of PlayStation 5 games talk page about only including notable entries (i.e., entries with a link to a credible article and not just a digital store URL). I don't see redirect pages + their categories as needing to adhere to notability guidelines since they are just navigational guides for content on the aforementioned list; they should only be modified if the linked list entry is removed.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Category talk:PlayStation 5-only games#Bunch of worthless games

We've talked back and forth on this page, and another user chimed in and seemed to agree (I think with me) that things shouldn't be deleted based on "the personal, arbitrary quality threshold set by some editor." But I don't think WikiAnsweredNow understood that completely since they responded to that user asking me to delete (either the redirect pages themselves, or the categories from each page, I'm not sure).

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think if we could have a more experienced editor or two chime in and interpret the finer points of Wikipedia's policy to us both, then we'll have a better understanding of what to do/not do. I'm willing to delete my list entries (and redirects) if need be.

Summary of dispute by WikiAnsweredNow

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

This dispute began as the user Jursha explained. I noticed a huge volume of redirects page of low-effort / Shovelware titles being created and assigned categories. Due to the huge volume, I removed the said category from the redirect pages under bad faith. Jursha later reverted them, assuming vandalism. I initiated a discussion under an existing discussion talking about this same issue. After discussing our viewpoints, I no longer hold the belief that Jursha acted in bad faith. However, we have come to a standstill.

This dispute concerns the categorization of certain redirect pages under PlayStation 5-only games category. Many of these redirects point to list entries for low-effort or unverifiable titles (games by studios like Oiven Games, Colosseum Studio, Nextgo24 UG, etc. or games series like Cazzarion where its developer releases a new game each week) that lack independent coverage or reliable sourcing. While they technically meet the definition of “PS5-only” due to their platform exclusivity, they do not meet a reasonable threshold of verifiability or relevance per WP:V, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:NOTDIR.

My position is that inclusion in this category should require some degree of verifiable significance, notability is not the issue, but verifiability and usefulness to readers is. This aligns with the intent of categories as navigational tools reflecting meaningful groupings of content, not indiscriminate collections of redirect links to entries in a list in List of PlayStation 5 games page.

Furthermore, per WP:CAT, "Every Wikipedia page should belong to at least one category, except for talk pages, redirects, and user pages, which may optionally be placed in categories where appropriate." Many of these redirects offer no substantial information beyond what exists on the main list article and often mirror unsourced entries. Including them in a major category like "PS5-only games" creates an inflated and less usable category for readers seeking a practical overview of the exclusive titles.

My proposed solution is to remove the category from such redirect pages unless and until independent sources verify the game's relevance. Alternatively, consensus may be sought on Talk:List of PlayStation 5 games to remove the unverified entries from the list entirely, thereby rendering the redirects unnecessary.

This approach aims to keep the category informative and policy-consistent, rather than bloated with unsourced or just raw dump of content with no practical usefulness.

The category should have 10-15 titles by my calculations, but instead it has over 100 titles, most of which are low-effort titles. I'm not against inclusion of lesser-known indie titles like Climate Station or The Winds Rising. I'm only against inclusion of Shovelware titles. WikiAnsweredNow (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:PlayStation 5-only games discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Playstation Category )

I will try to act as moderator if this dispute is one that can be worked at DRN. DRN usually handles article content disputes, and this appears to be a category dispute, so I am not sure at this time whether DRN is the right forum for this dispute, or what the rules should be, or exactly what this dispute is about. Please read DRN Rule X, which is the interim set of rules in uncertain preliminary cases.

I usually begin moderated discussion by asking each editor what they want to change, or leave the same, in a Wikipedia article. Since this does not appear to be an article dispute, I will ask each editor for a one-paragraph description of exactly what they want to change, and, if different from the above, a one-paragraph description of what they think the issue is.

Also, I see a long discussion of creating redirects from or to a list, but was not able to understand exactly what the purpose of the redirects was. Please identify a few examples of the issue so that I can review them and see if I can determine what the issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Playstation Category)

This dispute does concern the PlayStation 5-only games category specifically, but it also involves the List of PlayStation 5 games page. I'll do my best to sum it up and include examples of the redirects, as requested.

I created redirect pages which point to list entries I added to the List of PlayStation 5 games page. Each of these redirect pages include categories, one of which being PlayStation 5-only games. These redirect pages correspond to video games that are exclusive to the PlayStation 5 system, but many of them are considered shovelware. Here are a few examples of the redirect pages:

Timothy's Night; Toy's Brawl; Steam Train Simulator; Labyrinth Run; Cazzarion: Cute Town; 1917: The Alien Invasion DX Remastered

There are a lot more, but these serve as valid examples. Some of these, like Timothy's Night, do have a citation (usually an article I found) that isn't just a link to the game's PlayStation Store listing, but the majority only have a PlayStation Store link as their sole citation.

-I believe the user WikiAnsweredNow considers these entries with only a PS Store citation as not conforming to verifiability guidelines. Therefore, the category (or all categories) should be removed from the redirect page(s) and/or the redirect page should be deleted outright. (WikiAnsweredNow, please correct me if I've misconstrued anything.)

-I think the redirect pages should not be deleted or have their categories removed as long as they link to an existing list entry. I think the redirect pages should only be deleted/altered if consensus regarding notability is reached on the talk page for List of PlayStation 5 games, like what happened with List of Nintendo Switch games. Basically, I think that a redirect page and its potential categories all abide by Wikipedia guidelines as long as they link to an article or list entry on a standalone list. –Jursha (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by WikiAnsweredNow (Playstation Category)

What I want changed - I propose that every redirect on the category page that only leads to a list entry in List of PlayStation 5 games and whose only citation is a PlayStation Store listing should either have [[Category:PlayStation 5-only games]] (among other categories, if applicable) removed until the corresponding list entry is supported by reliable, independent source. Redirects whose list entries already contain such sourcing (e.g. The Winds Rising, Climate Station, etc.) may keep the category. This would trim the category from 110+ redirects to roughly 10-15 genuine PS5-only releases.

What the issue is - Categories are meant as navigational tools, not indiscriminate directories. A bare redirect that (1) offers no article-level content and (2) points to a list entry whose only citation is the store link itself fails WP:V and runs afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIR. Per WP:CAT, redirects "Every Wikipedia page should belong to at least one category, except for talk pages, redirects, and user pages, which may optionally be placed in categories where appropriate." Until there is some independent verification, placing a high-level category tag on shovelware redirects, such as Cazzarion series, or games by shovelware studios, makes the category practically useless to the readers seeking a practical overview of PS5 exclusives. Requiring a minimal verifiability threshold (independent source or higher-quality coverage) before categorization will keep this category actually informative, policy-compliant, and most importantly useful to the reader. WikiAnsweredNow (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

First statement by possible moderator (Playstation Category )

Okay. As I understand the issue, the issue has to do with article categories and what I will call stub redirects, redirects from titles that do not have an article but are mentioned in a more general article. I am familiar with redirects from a song title to either the album or the artist, and these appear to be similar. The issue appears to be that these redirects have been assigned article categories, which should only be used on articles. Redirects should have redirect categories, such as {{R from list topic}}, which I think would be appropriate. We can either close this dispute based on advice to the filing editor to change the redirects to redirect categories, and removing them from an article category, or I can put this case on hold while I consult with other experienced editors as to whether I am interpreting the guidelines on categorizing redirects correctly.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Playstation Category)

If you wouldn't mind, I would like to hear if the interpretation is indeed correct based on your consulting with other editors, though I have the feeling you're likely correct. Perhaps I have greatly misunderstood WP:RCAT. If you are correct, does this also mean that redirects such as Mario Kart 8 Deluxe should also have no article categories? I did read on WP:INCOMPATIBLE that article categories can be used on a redirect as long as the category doesn't wholly apply to the article itself. The Wile E. Coyote example in particular seems appropriate. Would PlayStation 5-only games not be exactly that, when compared to a general list of mostly multiplatform PlayStation 5 games? Or does the rule not apply when the redirect is to a list instead of an article subsection? (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I looked at WP:INCOMPATIBLE, it appears to be primarily concerned with alternative names. Both Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and Wile E. Coyote are redirected to articles that are very specific to these topics and are highly relevant and include substantial information with high quality coverage and sourcing to these topics on hand.

I think this policy is not very relevant to our discussion. Most, if not all, of the redirects pages that we are discussing don't have any articles that are very specific to them and the general PS5-games list doesn't contain reliable independent high quality coverage or sourcing for these shovelware titles to be considered for this Wikipedia policy. WikiAnsweredNow (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

The Wile E. Coyote example is mostly what I wanted to show since it gives us an example of a redirect page with categories. I'd also like to bring up WP:LISTRCAT, which is definitely relevant since it also shows that redirect pages can have article categories. Its Eastenders example in particular. Eamonn Flaherty redirects to an Eastenders-related list, and its redirect page does have an article category: Beale family (Eastenders). The list entry actually doesn't have a citation to boot, just an invite to add to the section along with a summary; maybe all the list entries I added need something similar rather than outright deletion (be it their categories or altogether). Respectfully, I'd like to hear what Robert finds out before any big moves are made. Jursha (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Playstation Category )

I asked for advice. I was given the suggestion that, instead of putting the redirects in an existing article category, you could create a redirect category to put the redirects in, such as Category:Playstation 5 redirects to lists, and then add that category to parent categories, either Playstation-oriented or categories of redirects. See [1]. I will inquire further as to where is the best forum to ask for more detailed advice about categories.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Playstation Category)

(Moving my responses to Robert in the second statement field since I think that's proper DRN etiquette. Apologies for any additional pings.) I like that idea and I like that we have precedence for it on top of that with that Simpsons example. I've never created a category myself, so I'll have to do a little reading on how that works when I have time. I do have some questions, first: should I also do this for other similar categories as well, in cases where redirects dwarf actual article pages? For example, the Switch-only games category. That way, it stays consistent from platform to platform. Or does consensus need to be established first via the talk page for other categories?

Another question comes to mind. The redirect to list category for Simpons characters works well in that it's listed as a subcategory on the main category. Basically, the redirect to list category is only one step removed from the main category. However, would a hypothetical Category:PlayStation 5-only games redirects to list be potentially seen as a type of overcategorization? Category:PlayStation 5-only games is already a subcategory of Category:PlayStation 5 games, so the hypothetical equivalent for PS5-only games would be a subcategory of an existing subcategory. I still like the idea and I think it's an excellent compromise as well as what we should do going forward, but I just want to be sure I'm covering my bases before I commit to anything. Jursha (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Second statements by WikiAnsweredNow (Playstation Category)

Thank you for the suggestions, Robert.

I think that's a fairly good compromise of creating a separate category for the redirects. I think I'm good with it.

Jursha - However, even with a separate category, I feel like the huge volume of shovelwares will drown out the legitimate indie titles, but I don't have any strong opinions on that. I'd like to leave this decision entirely upto your discretion whether you'd want to include them or not.

Thank you! WikiAnsweredNow (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Third statement by possible moderator (Playstation Category )

Shall I create the category and assign it to categories? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Playstation Category)

I'm all for it. I do have my questions above, but they aren't necessarily important to this specific task. Jursha (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Third statements by WikiAnsweredNow (Playstation Category)

Yeah, sounds good to me. WikiAnsweredNow (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Fourth statement by possible moderator (Playstation Category )

I have created the category, Category: Playstation 5 redirects to lists. Please put the redirects in the category. We must remember that the population of categories is done in a way that seems to be in reverse. A category is populated by adding the category to the articles. Adding a category to a category puts the category into a parent category. Please let me know whether this seems to be working.

Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Playstation Category)

Thank you for doing this. I guess I had misread earlier, but shouldn't the category name reflect the naming scheme of the PlayStation 5-only games category? I feel like information is lost in just calling it "Playstation 5 redirects to list"—the name no longer informs that these video games are exclusive to the PlayStation 5. Also, I think "Playstation" should be changed to "PlayStation" regardless. —Jursha (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Fourth statements by WikiAnsweredNow (Playstation Category)

Good catch Jursha. I was in middle of updating the category. I can update the category for remaining ones and then we can retroactively update the category to new name, if possible.

Robert, we would appreciate if the category could be renamed to "Category:PlayStation 5-only games redirects to list" or simply "Category:PlayStation 5-only games redirects". Or do we have to apply for Speedy renaming independently. WikiAnsweredNow (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Fifth statement by possible moderator (Playstation Category )

The category is now pending renaming. Are there any other issues while we wait for the renaming? Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (Playstation Category)

None from me. Thanks for all your help with this!Jursha (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Muslim Gujjars

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Anpanman11 on 18:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Muslim Gujjars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Anpanman11 (talk · contribs) Sybercracker (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The user keeps posting highly unreliable sources that have already been refuted. He ruined the entire page. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muslim_Gujjars How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By comparing our sources and using logic to understand what number is correct A mediator can solve the dispute between "Anpanman11" & me by reading and comparing the sources I've provided (Here) and the source provided by "Anpanman11" (Here). By giving the conclusion that in all these sources, the actual number of "Muslim Gujjars/Gujjar" specifically mentioned in Pakistan, not in India. And explaining the reliability of all these sources, whether my provided sources are more reliable or the outdated source provided by the filer is more reliable. Summary of dispute by Sybercracker This source is outdated and unreliable because it is based on 1931/1933 British Caste census that is not reliable for present estimates also this Journal(Population Geography: A Journal of the Association of Population Geographers of India, Volumes 10-12 this outdated source was added by the filer he even violated WP:3RR on Muslim Gujjars by 3/4 reverts in just 8-12hours) was published in 1988 (. Here are the quotes from the journal on page-7 there is no mention that Muslim Gujjars in Pakistan are 44 lakh it is only mentioned that Indian Muslims Gujjars are 44 lakh and Muslim Gujjars in Pakistan constitute 14% population. (estimation for India) In India, the population of these communities is 9% (71,480,124 out of 800,000,000) of the total population. The corresponding figure for Pakistan is 21% (22,916,047 out of 110,000,000). Amongst themselves the Rajputs (30,913,520) account for the biggest chunk of 44%, followed by Jats 24% (18,153,513), Ahirs 24% (17,083,813) and Gujars 8%(5,329,278). Rajputs, Jats, Ahirs and [Gujars] respectively form 3.9%. 2.3%, 2.1% and [0.7%] of the total popula-tion of India. (Estimation for pakistan) In Pakistan, within these communities, "56% (12,912,740) are Jats", 30% (6,882.336) Rajputs, "14% (3,107,879) Gujars", and the remaining 10,072 Ahirs. Sources for 33 million estimations Even in 1999 British anthropologist Stephen Lyon estimated Muslim Gujjar population as 30 million in Pakistan (see 4th paragraph in [Muslim Gujjars#Pakistan]) Sources that confirm they constitute 20% of Pakistani population or Major tribe in Pakistan. Sources Muslim Gujjars discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Muslims Gujjars) I am ready to act as moderator if the editors want moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom ruling on India and Pakistan. This topic appears to be a contentious topic, and you are being notified that expedited procedures apply for sanctions for disruptive editing. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Discuss edits, not editors. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. The purpose of discussion is to improve the article. I will start with a two-part question. First, is this dispute at least partly about the reliability of sources? If so, please identify the sources. Second, please state what changes you want to make to the article that another editor disagrees with, or what changes another editor wants to make to the article that you disagree with. If this is at least partly an issue about sources, I will refer the question or questions or their reliability to the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Otherwise, please state what the content disagreements are. Are there any procedural questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC) @Robert McClenon Yes please help in this matter also read Muslim Gujjars#Pakistan population estimates already there as 30 million in 1999 now 33 million only filer who filed this report first he violated 3RR, then I myself started talk page discussion here he is not in the mood to understand he removed many sections from the page with misleading edit-summary for what I also left a notice on his talk page. He is still arguing on the base on one source of 1988 that he present in such a source even on page-7 there is only mention that Muslim Gujjars are 44 lakh in India. In Pakistan his source gave 14% estimate that source is unreliable because it is based on 1931/1933 caste census of British India. We need to use recently published scholarly reliable sources not unreliable of British, India.Sybercracker (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Main Issue Yes there is an opose by "Anpanman11" on the addition of estimate of 33 million Muslim Gujjars in Pakistan in main article's infobox. In his provided source (Population Geography: A Journal of the Association of Population Geographers of India, Volumes 10-12) he believes this source as most reliable but I don't believe this source is reliable because it is outdated published in 1988 and it is based on the 1931/1933 caste census of British India. Also "Anpanman11" claimed in this source on page-7 Muslim Gujjars population is 44 lakh, but he removed 33 million estimate from infobox of Muslim Gujjars and 33-million estimate was about Muslim Gujjars in Pakistan not in India. In India their estimation according to "Anpanman11" source is 44 lakh. But in his provided source number estimate about Muslim Gujjars in Pakistan are not mentioned it is only mentioned they constitute 14% population within four communities (Jat, Rajput,Ahir & Gujar even source has not mentioned that they constitute 14% population of entire pakistan or not it is only mentioned that out of these 4 communities Gujjars constitute 14% in Pakistan) his provided source is also outdated but also has not mentioned any numbers for Muslim Gujjars in Pakistan or percentage of Muslim Gujjars among all Pakistani tribes (not specifically these 4 communities) because they are total 18,20+ ethnic communities in Pakistan. Sybercracker (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Muslim Gujjars) Zeroth statement by uninvolved editor Rosguill (Muslim Gujjars) I've been following this discussion and have poked around to look for additional sourcing. Between the sources provided by Sybercracker and those I was able to find online, I'm noticing a bit of a gap around the actual use of the term "Muslim Gujjar" (or other spellings of Gujjar in the same position) in academic literature. Overwhelmingly, "Muslim Gujjars" are only discussed in the context of the demographics of north-west India and Kashmir (e.g. [2], [3], [4]). While there are Gujjar populations in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and a significant chunk of these populations are presumably Muslim based on the demographics of those countries, it is WP:SYNTH to actually include such a presumption in article text in the absence of sources that make that claim. Equating "33 million Pakistani Gujjars" to mean "33 million Muslim Gujjars" is not sound reference work. Based on the scholarly sources I have looked through, I'm left with the impression that Muslim Gujjars should perhaps be merged into Gurjar in order to better present to readers what RS have to say on this topic; the sources I've collected here could also provide the basis for an article on Muslim Gujjars in Jammu and Kashmir, but there appears to be a dearth of sources that discuss Muslim Gujjars as a unitary group across national borders. signed, Rosguill talk 19:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Basically in Pakistan & Afghanistan almost 99% all Gujjars are Muslim by faith there is no present record of any remaining Hindu Gurjars in these countries, so in the sources about pakistan or Afghanistan they actually discuss about Muslim Gujjars of Pakistan & Afghanistan, but I think merge is not a good solution because we also have separate article those even lack basic sources (example Jat Muslims, Muslim Rajputs, Muslim Khatris). Muslim Gujjars is an important article because out of 53-54% Gurjar/Gujjar population is follower of Islam religion remaining 48-46% are Hindus, on the other hands Jat, Rajput & Khatris are predominantly Hindu by faith minority groups are Muslim then sikhs. Sybercracker (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Basically in Pakistan & Afghanistan almost 99% all Gujjars are Muslim by faith there is no present record of any remaining Hindu Gurjars in these countries needs a source stating as much, or you're engaging in WP:SYNTH. signed, Rosguill talk 19:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC) For the claim that 53-54% Gujjars are Muslim by faith remaining are Hindus. Further also in the source of Population Geography: A Journal of the Association of Population Geographers of India, Volumes 10 On page-7 mentioned as "Amongst Gujars, more than one-half (53%) are Muslims, 46.8% Hindus and 0.2%, Sikhs. Almost all the Ahirs (99.9%) are Hindus." So when a community is predominantly belong to Islam religion how merge will be a good decision? Gurjar page is for Hindu, Muslim, Sikhs Gujjars and also for historical background or origin of the community. Sybercracker (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Okay but I generally said when sources talk about Gujjars in Pakistan or Afghanistan they talk about Muslim Gujjars but without mentioning any religion. Sybercracker (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC) The framing used by RS matters: by having a separate article, you emphasize a shared identity in distinction from other related groups; this emphasis needs to follow RS. Swabians, for instance, are predominantly Christian, but there is no Christian Swabians because RS do not group together Christian Swabians as a unit for discussion in distinction from other Swabians or other Christians.Ditto Jewish Jews (but note that Christian Jews and Jewish atheism both have extensive coverage). Kipchaks#Religion describes the group divided between Tengrism, Christianity and Islam, but sources digging into their religious identity and intracommunal practices are scant so the text is summarized there rather than constructing separate pages for each denomination, because that's how RS describe Kipchak social organization. signed, Rosguill talk 19:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Question for User:Rosguill - Do you wish to be a party in this case, or the volunteer mediator in this case? You are welcome to participate in either role. Please let me know which way you are participating. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC) I guess I mostly wanted to point out that both the specific locus of the dispute (i.e., what is the population count of Muslim Gujjars?) and to a lesser extent the broader context for it (an article specifically on Muslim Gujjars) are currently resting on shaky evidentiary grounds, and that a stronger bibliography is needed. signed, Rosguill talk 00:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC) I believe the merge of Muslim Gujjars into Gurjar is not a dispute here between me & the filer because "Anpanman11" created the article: Muslim Gujjars he himself opposes the idea of redirect/merge of Muslim Gujjars into Gurjar. Also, if there is a merit to merge Muslim Gujjars into Gurjar on the basis of lack in "stronger bibliography" then we also need to merge (Jat Muslims into Jats, Muslim Rajputs into Rajput, Muslim Khatris into Khatri) all of these articles not only lack in stronger bibliographic sources but also basic reliable sources. Another reason for I believe merge is not a solution when 53% Gujjars of entire community belong to Islam religion mainly living in Pakistan & Afghanistan. So merge will not represent the Muslim Gujjars population of Afghanistan, Pakistan in actual depth; in these countries, they mainly belong to setlled groups/classes, not to the Nomad class. But in the Himalayas regions of India (Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarkhand) Muslim Gujjars are mainly nomads divided into occupational subgroups ( Bakarwal, Van-Gujjar, Dodhi Gujjar). But as a merge is not a dispute here, we can later start a request for merging of (through WP:MERGEPROP) this article into Gurjar if other users have their rationales for the merge. Sybercracker (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2025 (UTC) Volunteer Note - @Anpanman11, Sybercracker, and Rosguill: - Is there currently a content dispute? If so, shall I reopen this case? Otherwise I will close it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC) @Robert McClenon Yes, still there please read all provided sources and revolve the dispute. As Anpanman11 has competence issue after getting ECP status he will disruptive and remove more & more content without any reasonable excuse, so dispute still there on the mentioning of population numbers in infobox. Sybercracker (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pastirma

– New discussion.

Filed by Agent Albatros on 19:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Pastirma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Agent Albatros (talk · contribs)
• Grasshalm (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Aboukh and Pastırma are two dried meat dishes,one user says pastırma comes from aboukh,citing a book that says it is without any furher proof or citacion, despite none of the primary sources saying so, given the context it is very unlikely that these foods are related.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pastirma#%22Past%C4%B1rma_existed_in_ancient_Armenian_cuisine._%22_Really?

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

move aboukh to a different page.

Summary of dispute by Grasshalm

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Pastirma discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor in their user talk page. Notification on the user talk page is a required precondition to discussion at this noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Western Sahara

– New discussion.

Filed by Nice4What on 23:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Western Sahara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Nice4What (talk · contribs)
• M.Bitton (talk · contribs)
• Skitash (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute regarding a sentence in the Western Sahara article. I am concerned that a sentence in the lead, that "The Polisario Front ... has won formal recognition for the SADR from 84 UN member states", could be misleading. The current wording could imply that 84 states currently recognize the SADR, when in fact 37 of the 84 states have since withdrawn recognition. Reliable sources that use the "84" number often include a disclaimer/explanation about states that have withdrawn recognition (including the source currently cited), but two editors do not want to include this context. I have proposed alternative wordings as a compromise (one that doesn't include any number, for example) but this has come to the point where dispute resolution is needed.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

• Talk:Western Sahara#July 2025

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I am hoping I can get a third opinion on a) whether the current wording, excluding the context that states have withdrawn recognition, may be confusing for readers, and b) should the article include the context that states have withdrawn recognition, as reflected in reliable sources.

Summary of dispute by M.Bitton

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Skitash

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Western Sahara discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Notification on the user talk pages is a required precondition to discussion at this noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: This is untrue. Both editors were notified, but removed the notification. See here and here. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 23:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Laos

– New discussion.

Filed by TheodoresTomfooleries on 22:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Laos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• TheodoresTomfooleries (talk · contribs)
• TheUzbek (talk · contribs)
• ErickTheMerrick (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute itself is concerned with the 'standard' for how countries like Laos, Vietnam, or other states like it, should be described as. As such this does not necessarily wholly concern Laos, but the dispute started on there regardless and this dispute is focused on it.

The dispute in question is how to describe Laos' government form in the infobox. TheUzbek seems to prefer to call Laos a 'Unitary people's democratic state' based off of sources he's provided. ErickTheMerrick seems to prefer the 'status quo' before TheUzbek inserted that into the article, which was 'Unitary Marxist-Leninist one-party socialist republic'. I preferred 'Unitary Marxist-Leninist state'.

While I would normally discuss this, it has been rather clearly shown by TheUzbek- both with his conversations with Erick and with me, that he is not willing to see compromise or to actually engage in good faith with other editors. This is not about his conduct; but it is a reason why I feel though I must come here to resolve it.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Laos#People's democratic state vs. socialist state

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A decision should be made on how to describe the Laotian government form in the article. This has the possibility to concern other articles as well.

Summary of dispute by TheUzbek

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

See Talk:Laos#People's democratic state vs. socialist state. I truly think user TheodoresTomfooleries is a sockpuppet of ErickTheMerrick. He started editing immediately after the conflict with Erick concurred and takes his side on everything: this conflict has been going on for a while, see Talk:People's Socialist Republic of Albania.

The conflict is easy. Erick and Theodores propose adding a text that is completely made up, "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party republic". There are no scholars or scholarly work that defines the form of government as this: "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party republic". None. Marxist-Leninist state redirects to communist state, but they refuse to link "Marxist-Leninist state" to the communist state article. Instead, having it be "Marxist-Leninist state", in which "Marxist-Leninist" redirects to "Marxism-Leninism", an article not about the communist form of government or the state formation known to social sciences as communist. I suggest the following:

1. We follow the academic consensus, which is the accepted usage of the term "Communist state"
2. Marxist-Leninist state is synonymous with communist state, both in social sciences and here on Wikipedia, so we should prefer the usage of communist state over it (since the article is named "communist state")
3. We should add short, concise, and uncontroversial definitions of the form of government in infoboxes of states. More does not mean clarification; in most cases, it means the opposite.
4. All information that is supported by a reliable source about the form of government should be included in the article in written form, even if more controversial, as long as it's cited by reliable sources.
5. Note: communist states either call themselves (normally) socialist states or people's democratic states. For example, Laos does not claim to be a socialist state, but its a communist state. China claimed to a people's democratic state until (legally) the 1975 constitution (one can claim that this was earlier; the first proposed draft was released in 1971 and proclaimed China a socialist state). Stalin and the Soviet communists were very clear that the USSR became a socialist state in the 1930s. The term people's democratic state was established in the 1940s, but the Mongolian communists, in retrospect, claimed that the Mongolian People's Republic was established as a people's democratic state in 1921 and transformed into the lower-levels of socialism only in 1960 (when it became a socialist state). This is all referenced in List of communist states by reliable and academic sources. What is my point? The form of government: the one-party state that controls the unified powers of the supreme state organ of power did not change in Mongolia from 1921 to 1960. The form of government is communist, as in the communist form of government, as in communist state. That is the least controversial term and the most correct one as well.

--TheUzbek (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Their edits have been reverted by countless of other editors as well: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. I am not alone in this... --TheUzbek (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by ErickTheMerrick

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Laos discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.