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 small 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 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
Nivkh alphabets	New	Modun (t)	6 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 hours	Kwamikagami (t)	1 hours
Metrication in the United Kingdom	Closed	Friendliness12345 (t)	5 days, 21 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 23 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 23 hours
Desi	New	Factfinderrr (t)	10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 hours

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.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 06:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Nivkh alphabets

– New discussion.

Filed by Modun on 21:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Nivkh alphabets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Modun (talk · contribs)
• Kwamikagami (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Good day! Initially, the dispute began because of my moderation of the specified article. I just rechecked in what form the link in the specified form has the current alphabet. My other opponent ignored this fact, and began to insist that the letters he replaced are allographs, but no convincing evidence was shown, and for some reason now I have to prove the opposite. My other opponent behaves as if the colonizer knows more than other natives and is trying to teach them to read and write. Sorry, maybe for the unfortunate analogy. But the evidence provided is more like OR.

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

[[1]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Either the opponent will provide other, more convincing evidence, or roll back the edits to match the ALREADY EXISTING references in the article.

Summary of dispute by Kwamikagami

These letter variants are allographs, per sources, and both variants are acceptable for the writing of Nivkh and many other languages of Siberia. (For example, ⟨Ң⟩ with a ticked tail and ⟨Ӈ⟩ with a curved tail, and similarly with other letters in the series, e.g Қ/Ӄ and Ҳ/Ӽ.) AFAICT, Modun has failed to provide a single source to the contrary, and is relying solely on WP:TRUTH.

We have as one source, in a discussion about why it was a mistake for Unicode to assign separate characters to these curved ⟨Ӈ⟩ letter variants, and the reasons Unicode has refused to do the same for additional letters (e.g. a curved variant of ⟨Ҷ⟩ che), by an expert in some of the languages in question (namely N. and E. Khanty and Nenets), an account of how a an influential textbook publishing house (Education Ltd.) created the curved-tail glyphs as in-house variants of these letters for their primers, primary-grade textbooks and other materials when publishing in the govt-assigned alphabet. This is part of a series of discussions involving multiple linguists working on these languages. We also have recent govt publications, in Nivkh, using the original ticked (e.g. ⟨Ң⟩) forms of the letters, including formal material such as trade documents. That is, both forms are in use in the modern era. Modun keep providing sources that use the Education variants of the letters, e.g. ⟨Ӈ⟩, as if they somehow negates the other. Modun has reverted the addition of the ticked variants to the alphabet charts and deleted a reference to the Unicode discussion, replacing it with a 'cn' tag.

There's nothing suggesting Nivkh is special in this regard. It's a general feature of these letters across the minority languages of Siberia, no more significant than the difference between double-loop ⟨g⟩ vs script ⟨ɡ⟩ in English, and unusual only in that Unicode (mistakenly) assigned them separate codes.

For Khanty, another language of Siberia that uses some of these letters, we recently found an orthography committee who decided that the curved-tail variants ⟨Ӈ Ԓ⟩ are to be preferred. At the same time, the principle Khanty language journal has gone in the opposite direction, using a third variant, ⟨Ӊ Ӆ⟩ with a diagonal tail. Modun insists these are different alphabets, despite no evidence for that idea, because allographs supposedly do not occur in Cyrillic. When I pointed out the extensive allography between Russian, Serbian and Bulgarian, he said those were "font" differences. Well, these are "font" differences too: Education Ltd created their own font for their textbooks.

Because two graphic variants are used for these letters in Nivkh, both by official sources, both should be included in the article. We should presumably stick to one for the examples for consistency, but the alphabet charts should reflect what people actually use. — kwami (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't say that allographers don't encounter it in Cyrillic. And excuse me, why is the commission for discussing alphabets of one language(s) applicable to another language? It's the same as if we were now discussing the spelling of the English language and why the results would be applicable to other languages ​​(for example, to French, Spanish or other languages).

The source you indicated discusses the Tofa, Khanty and Evenki alphabets, as far as I remember, but there is no mention of the Nivkh alphabet.

This is a direct lie about deletion!

This is what it was like before the rollback: 1, This is what happened after the rollback: 2, 3 and here's what happened next, you added the link LATER!

You can't even provide convincing evidence that these letters are "allographs". This is not a proven fact! Modun (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

These forms are allographs across the board, per RS's. They were part of a general Soviet standardization of the minority languages of Russia and occur in multiple languages.

I would think govt ministry publications in Nivkh would count as evidence that both variants are used in Nivkh. That's also suggested by the history, that the curved variants were created by Education Ltd. after the Nivkh alphabet had been created, and were used in Nivkh material, following the govt-set orthography, by Education Ltd.

Deleting a citation and replacing it with a 'cn' tag is a deletion. Calling that a "lie" doesn't change anything. — kwami (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

you bring your conclusions into practice. We do not know for what reasons and why different variants of alphabets were used, and bring this conclusion into practice because these are "allographs" it looks like OR.

here is an example of how you started a "discussion" you deleted the CN column (deleting CN) Modun (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

By the way, here is an excerpt from a discussion about the Khanty countries, where one of your oponets also thinks that this is OR, and at least he is not being disingenuous and does not call things by their proper names. You are inflating an unproven statement as a “fact”. Modun (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, your TRUTH is 'fact', but expert conclusions are 'OR'.

We follow sources. It's as simple as that. If you have RS's to support your claims, great! Let's see them. So far you've provided nothing.

BTW, I just found another example of a Nivx text that uses the original letter forms, this time the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, bilingual Nivx and Russian. — kwami (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Great, the document was published in the old version of the alphabet. Where is the fact that these letters are allographs? I am a moderator and author of a translation of an article from Russian Wikipedia. Why do I have to prove anything to you?

I asked you a simple question, can you provide another source somewhere where it is said that the indicated letters are allographs? You are constantly trying to give me that this is a "fact". Well, at least provide another source where this is also indicated. Moreover, in the correspondence you indicated, not all linguists agree with this interpretation, but for some reason you ignore this opinion.

You adjust the practice to your convenient picture. This is already OR. Modun (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Here are some other examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (5-ru), 6.

Practically given by linguists, and no one mentions any "allographs" or the use of any other alphabets at the same time. Everyone consciously uses the same alphabets. But for some reason the opinion of these linguists does not interest you. I doubt that these people made any mistake. No one even mentions the interchangeability of some letters. Modun (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

But it's not in the old alphabet, is it? It's the modern alphabet with all of the letters introduced in 1979, namely Ғ Ӻ Р̌ Ӿ Ў. — kwami (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Nivkh alphabets discussion

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

Zeroth statement by moderator (Nivkh)

I am ready to try to moderate this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A and say that you agree to the ground rules. In particular, do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. It is not resulting in any progress. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors.

The purpose of content dispute resolution is to improve the article, so I will ask a question that I usually ask at the beginning of moderated discussion. Please state concisely what you want to change in the article that the other editor does not want to change, or what you want to leave alone that the other editor wants to change. Do not explain the reasons why you want to change the article or leave it unchanged, at this time. We will go into the reasons later, but at this time I am only asking what the issues are, not why there are issues. I understand that there are issues about original research; we can go into them later. However, if there are issues about the reliability of sources, please state them at this time, so that we can ask about them at the reliable source noticeboard.

If there are multiple points in the article that are in dispute, please provide a concise list.

Please state concisely what the content issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I agree. Let's try. Modun (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Summary below. — kwami (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Nivkh)

Summary of Kwami's position: There are two possible pathways, depending on which of us the sources support. Of course, it's possible that RSs might contradict each other. I make three proposals: [a] what I would like to see if I'm correct, [b] what I'd like to see if Modun is correct, and [c] a second issue of using proper alphabetic letters rather than punctuation marks for the Nivx alphabet.

[a] If I'm correct, there are duplicate Unicode characters for several Cyrillic letters used with Siberian languages, according to discussions at Unicode about encoding more of them by linguists who specialize in these languages. Several of these letters are used for Nivx, namely Қ/Ӄ Ң/Ӈ Ҳ/Ӽ. We should reflect the RS that these are allographs, note that the variants were invented by a specific influential textbook publishing company, and note that both variants are found in official documents. Both variants should be listed in the alphabet charts, though for conciseness we should choose one for the examples.

(There is also the letter Ӻ, which should be mentioned, but because Unicode has refused to encode a second variant of it, due to the argument that that is a mere allograph and not a distinct letter, it wouldn't appear directly in the alphabet charts unless we wanted to use SVG images.)

[b] If I understand correctly, Modun claims that Қ/Ӄ Ң/Ӈ Ҳ/Ӽ are not allographs, but instead that there are two distinct Nivx alphabets in current use, with apparently identical orthographic rules. If true, the article would still need to reflect that. If Modun can find RS's for that claim, then we should list the two alphabets side by side. We would need to use SVG's for Ӻ, because there is no Unicode support for it in the second alphabet. Perhaps we could merge the cells of the alphabet table where the letters are identical, assuming the same sorting order. Since we would then have competing RS's about the nature of the distinction, we should note the disagreement. We should still choose one alphabet for the examples.

[c] There is a second issue, that of replacing Nivx letters with punctuation marks. We should instead use proper letters, i.e. ⟨Кʼ Ӄʼ/Қʼ Пʼ Тʼ⟩ and dialectically ⟨Чʼ⟩. Here on WP-en, we use the appropriate Unicode characters for apostrophe-like letters. For example, we use the dedicated letter ⟨ʻ⟩ for the Hawaiian ʻokina, and not the single quotation mark. Similarly with other apostrophe-like letters, regardless of whether the script is Latin, Cyrillic or something else. In this case, the alphabetic letter is U+02BC modifier letter apostrophe. Currently the article uses U+2019 right single quotation mark. These characters look more-or-less the same but can behave quite differently. U+2019 is regularly replaced by the ASCII apostrophe per the no-curly-quotes rule of the MOS. — kwami (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Explanation: Cyrillic alphabets of many small (and not only) peoples of Russia (mainly in the North, Siberia and the Far East) have changed, revised and clarified many times. Accordingly, many different variations of orthography were formed, which cancelled the old variations. Often changing the alphabet itself. UNICODE has no competence to change or interpret either the composition of existing alphabets or the current orthographies. The UNICODE consortium is based on the existing orthographies of specific languages. Specific alphabets and orthographies of languages ​​in Russia are established and interpreted by the Russian government (or regional ones within their competence).

“ 6. В Российской Федерации алфавиты государственного языка Российской Федерации и государственных языков республик строятся на графической основе кириллицы. Иные графические основы алфавитов государственного языка Российской Федерации и государственных языков республик могут устанавливаться федеральными законами.

7. Порядок утверждения норм языков коренных малочисленных народов Российской Федерации, правил орфографии и пунктуации этих языков определяется Правительством Российской Федерации. 6. In the Russian Federation, the alphabets of the state language of the Russian Federation and the state languages ​​of the republics are constructed on the graphic basis of the Cyrillic alphabet. Other graphic bases of the alphabets of the state language of the Russian Federation and the state languages ​​of the republics may be established by federal laws. 7. The procedure for approving the norms of the languages ​​of the indigenous peoples of the Russian Federation, the rules of spelling and punctuation of these languages ​​is determined by the Government of the Russian Federation.

” — The federal law "On the languages of the peoples of the Russian Federation"
Article 3. Legal status of languages

Law

The indicated letters Қ/Ӄ Ң/Ӈ Ҳ/Ӽ have a separate codification in Unicode, and were not originally "variations" of each other. It seems that no spelling reference book says that the letters in question can be variations of each other. This is an assumption that arose from who knows what. Perhaps this is the reason why the old version of the alphabet is used instead of the new one, because not all the letters of the alphabet were codified.

Some sources indicate that for the Nivkh language (Amur dialect) from 1953 to 1979 there was one version of the alphabet. 2, 3, 4, 5 At least, if we are to believe the Nivkh-Russian dictionary of 1970, authored by V.N. Savelyev and Ch.M. Taksami, it had the following form:

А а	Б б	В в	Г г	ӷ	ɧ	ⱨ	Д д	Е е	Ё ё	Ж ж	З з
И и	Й й	Йи йи	К к	К’ к’	Қ қ	Қʼ қʼ	Л л	М м	Н н	Ң ң	О о
П п	П’ п’	Р р	Рш рш	С с	Т т	Т’ т’	У у	Ф ф	Х х	Ҳ ҳ	Һ һ
Ц ц	Ч ч	Ш ш	Щ щ	ъ	Ы ы	ь	Э э	Ю ю	Я я

And after 1979, modern alphabets already looked like this: 1

А а	Б б	В в	Г г	Ӷ ӷ	Ғ ғ	Ӻ ӻ	Д д	Е е	Ё ё	Ж ж	З з
И и	Й й	К к	К’ к’	Ӄ ӄ	Ӄ’ ӄ’	Л л	М м	Н н	Ӈ ӈ	О о	П п
П’ п’	Р р	Р̌ р̌	С с	Т т	Т’ т’	У у	Ў ў	Ф ф	Х х	Ӽ ӽ	Ӿ ӿ
Ц ц	Ч ч	Ш ш	Щ щ	ъ	Ы ы	ь	Э э	Ю ю	Я я

Vladimir Sangi (one of the authors of the alphabet) mentions that the alphabets for both dialects were adopted by the Council of Ministers (government) of the RSFSR in 1979. Perhaps if we could find this document, we would clarify the situation in what form the modern alphabet was adopted.7, 8--Modun (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Nivkh)

Thank you for stating what the content issues are. On the one hand, the statements are not concise. I requested concise statements, but I recognize that that may be difficult. So I have a two-part follow-up request. First, please indicate the sections and paragraphs of the article that you want your changes made to. Second, please see whether you can make your statement of what you want to change more concise. If what you have provided is the most concise possible summary, because the issues are complicated, at least it will help to see what paragraphs are being discussed. A third question is whether either editor has questions about the reliability of a source. If so, we will ask the reliable source noticeboard for an opinion on the source.

Are there any other content questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

First statements by Kwami (Nivkh)

These are the edits I would like reversed.

Section: Cyrillic alphabet

• In the table, give both variants of the hooked letters, namely ticked Қ қ Қʼ қʼ Ң ң Ҳ ҳ and curved Ӄ ӄ Ӄʼ ӄʼ Ӈ ӈ Ӽ ӽ.
• In the table, change deprecated curly quotation marks to the proper apostrophe letter ⟨ʼ⟩.
• [not in diff] Below the table, change "Hooked variants of the letters" to "Rounded variants of the letters", since they're all arguably hooked.

Section: Alphabet Correspondence Table

• Give both letter variants as above. This only affects cells in the left column, though some of those cells span 2 columns.
• This time we're changing ASCII apostrophes to ⟨ʼ⟩. This should be done to all Cyrillic alphabets.
• For the Latin alphabet in the right column, the apostrophe should be the spiritus asper ⟨ʻ⟩. For example, the 'k' row should be: Кʼ кʼ | Къ къ | Kʻ kʻ.
• [not in diff] Provide a reference for "a 1970 dictionary".
• Change ⟨ɧ⟩ to "(approximately ɧ)" or similar, since ɧ is a Latin letter, not Cyrillic. The Cyrillic letter is not supported by Unicode, and so can only be approximated. It might instead be replaced by an SVG of both capital and lower case.
• Change Latin ⟨ⱨ⟩ back to Cyrillic ⟨Ԧ ԧ⟩.

— kwami (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

First statements by Modun (Nivkh)

Section: Cyrillic alphabet

• There's just one thing I want to change. Cancel the part that says that the letters Қ қ Қʼ қʼ Ң ң Ҳ ҳ and Ӄ ӄ Ӄʼ ӄʼ Ӈ ӈ Ӽ ӽ are interchangeable. Not a single textbook says that these letters are interchangeable. I believe that in this regard, we should separately examine why other letters are used in practice. And simply bring it into line with the source that has already been cited.
• Supplement with two variants of alphabets for different idioms/dialects (depending on the periods when they were adopted separately).

Otherwise, there are no global disagreements.--Modun (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Nivkh)

It appears that there is one main content issue. That is whether the letters Қ қ Қʼ қʼ Ң ң Ҳ ҳ and the letters Ӄ ӄ Ӄʼ ӄʼ Ӈ ӈ Ӽ ӽ are interchangeable (allographs) or are different letters. (By the way, do each of those lists of eight letters consist of four upper case letters and four lower case letters?) Is that the main issue? If so, what sources do you have to that effect about these groups of letters (that they are allographs, or that they are different)? Is the question about the reliability of sources, or interpretation of the sources, or are you using different sources? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Second statements by Kwami (Nivkh)

Yes, those are 4 letters, each in capital and lower case, and each in two allographic variants.

Yes, IMO too this is a matter of RSs. There are RSs to support my argument, and AFAIK there are no contrary RSs. At least, none have been presented so far. If Modun can produce RSs, then we would have a conflict of sources; so far AFAICT we do not.

First, there is a series of threads on the Unicode discussion board about these specific letters. Participants include linguists who specialize in the Siberian languages that use them. An example is here: L2/23-015 Comments on CYRILLIC CHE WITH HOOK’s use in Khanty and Tofa (Tofalar) (L2/22-280).

There are multiple experts in those discussions who say that these are allographs, the only dispute being whether they are completely interchangeable or whether one variant is to be preferred. It would be like people arguing over whether double-loop 'g' or script 'ɡ' is correct for English: double-loop 'g' is more common, but some publishers prefer script 'ɡ', and that's what's generally used for literacy material. Even if people strongly prefer one over the other, both are found.

We've had an argument that Unicode and the linguists participating in those discussions are irrelevant. The debate is relevant to Unicode because Unicode doesn't normally encode allographs. The consensus now is that it was a mistake to encode the rounded letters Ӄ ӄ Ӈ ӈ Ӽ ӽ. They should only have encoded Қ қ Ң ң Ҳ ҳ and left it to the font to handle the letter forms, just as publishers who prefer script 'ɡ' for English typeset it as the regular ASCII 'g' and choose a font that displays it the way they like. Unicode has decided therefore that they will not encode any more of these letters and make a bad situation worse. The situation is bad because words can now be encoded multiple different ways with no difference in meaning. A search engine therefore has to treat Ӄ Ӈ Ӽ as being the same 3 letters as Қ Ң Ҳ or people won't be able to reliably seach in texts or online. Search engines do not always accommodate the idiosyncrasies of small languages, so this can be a problem.

Modun objects that that Unicode source does not address Nivx specifically. However, these letters were created in the 1930s for all of the languages of Siberia, which until then had been written in Latin. Nivx was just one of many, and the same publisher's typefaces are used for all of them. If Nivx were different from the others in this regard, it could be used as an argument for encoding these letters. However, according to sources, none of the languages that use these letters make a distinction between their different forms.

The ref above describes how a single textbook publishing house, Prosveschenie ('Enlightenment' or 'Education'), created an in-house typeface that had rounded forms of these letters. There are no other differences -- that is, these aren't new alphabets. Prosveschenie was highly influential, and their textbooks are how many speakers of these languages learned to read. Therefore there is an idea among some speakers that the rounded Prosveschenie letters are the correct forms. However, Russian government ministries continue to use the original ticked forms. For example, here is the UN Declaration of Human Rights in Nivx and Russian. As you can see, they use the ticked allographs in the title of the doc and throughout the text. The fact that it's the modern alphabet is shown both by the date (2014) and by the fact that it uses all of the new letters that were introduced to the Nivx alphabet in 1979, namely Ғ Ӻ Р̌ Ӿ Ў (thanks to Modun for pointing out that orthographic revision). Again, these new letters appear in both the title and the text.

What we have therefore is a recent, official Nivx text (the official Nivx translation of the UNDHR) that uses the modern orthography with the ticked allographs of these letters, as well as statements by linguists working on the languages of Siberia that a single influential publishing house created the rounded forms, and that the difference is allographic.

— kwami (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Metrication in the United Kingdom

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Friendliness12345 on 10:19, 17 September 2024 (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 Metrication in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Friendliness12345 (talk · contribs) DeFacto (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is an on going dispute around consensus on changing the existing lead imagine. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom#The lead photo How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Confirming the consensus, and the opinion of the third party. Summary of dispute by DeFacto Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This section is to be written by DeFacto, not the filing editor. --Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Defacto does not believe consensus has been made by the third opinion and Friendliness12345 on the replacement of the current imagine. As I see it, the dispute is over whether the third opinion supported my view or that of Friendliness12345 with respect to whether the lead image should now be replaced. My view is that the 3O supported my view that a consensus to change the lead image had not been achieved in the discussion and that the image which had used for about 10 years should be restored per WP:STATUSQUO. As I understand it, Friendliness12345's view is that the 3O, effectively, somehow established a new consensus that the lead image should be replaced by one of the other images that had been proposed as an alternative in the original lead image discussion of more than 10 years ago (and not the image that Friendliness12345 had been pushing for and had already set as the lead view without consensus). -- DeFacto (talk). 22:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC) Metrication in the United Kingdom 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 on their user talk page. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Thanks am new to this process and have now done this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendliness12345 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Volunteer Note: DeFacto has not replied to this issue in the "Summary of dispute by DeFacto" section, and has not edited for the past few days. If there's no reply within 24 hours, I'll close this discussion. Thanks. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by moderator (Metrication) I will be the moderator in this case. Please keep in mind that DRN is a voluntary, non-binding noticeboard. Here, we're dealing with content issues, not conduct issues. Please read and indicate in your responses your acceptance of Wikipedia:DRN Rule A. After reading through the discussion, I find it unlikely that mediation will bring agreement between the editors (although if both of you want it, we can attempt it), so it's probably better if we try to create an RfC instead. The RfC would have these two options: File:Tomatoes_for_sale_in_a_UK_greengrocer's_shop_2013.jpg and File:The_Black_Arch_near_Larne_(2)_-_geograph.org.uk_-_851820.jpg. Are you fine with an RfC like this, do you have any suggestions to it, and do you have any other concerns or comments? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC) @Kovcszaln6, I thought the dispute was about whether the 3O supported my view that there was no current consensus to change the image and that the status quo image should be restored, or the view of Friendliness12345 that the 10-year-old consensus was wrong and that the image should be left as it is now with the 'black arch' one hich they have already changed it to. Once we have confirmed from that what the current image should be, then we could decide whether we want to continue the discussion already started at the talkpage in relation to an RfC. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC) @DeFacto: Alright, I might have misunderstood the dispute here. So you didn't come here to decide what the lead image should be (permanently), but what the status quo is and what should be the lead image while you create an RfC, right? If yes, then I don't think DRN is the best place for deciding that. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) @Kovcszaln6, it seems that the only reason we are here is because the filer either misunderstood, or didn't like, the third opinion received following their request for that. I say that because, while I was away over the last few days, it seems there has been progress back at the article, with two other editors having agreed with me, and overruling the filer by restoring the original status quo image. I think this request has turned out to be a waste of your time, and mine, and that it should be closed now as there is no longer a dispute. Thanks for offering your help with this though. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Metrication) 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.

Desi

– New discussion.

Filed by Factfinderrr on 20:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Factfinderrr (talk · contribs)
• MrOllie (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hi, The article lists Afghanistan as desi. I removed Afghanistan, as Afghanistan is not desi. The article used 2 sources to support Afghanistans inclusion. The second source cited is contradictory. It states "South asians(Desi)" and then goes on to say that they reference Afghanistan as also Desi. HOWEVER, on the SAME PAGE the article states "Central asians:Afghans," if by the articles definition south asian= desi why are central asians included in that definition? The source is therefore unreliable and cannot be used as a valid source to support the inclusion of Afghanistan in the scope of Desi. Consequently, that leaves only 1 valid source that supports this assertion. On the talk page I listed MULTIPLE valid different sources that omit Afghan from the scope of desi, but the editor continues to dismiss them. I don't understand how its fair that a singular source is being relied upon to support the inclusion of Afghanistan when the consensus in literature is that Afghanistan does not fall within the scope of desi.

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

Talk:Desi#Afghans_are_not_Desi by User:Factfinderrr [2]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Support my original edit please.

Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
The other editor has shown a pattern of acting in bad faith, refusing to engage and consider the evidence outlined.

Summary of dispute by MrOllie

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

Desi discussion

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