Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand

Involved users who cannot be notified

 Clerk note: The following users could not be notified due to page protection or bot exclusion:

• Arcadian (talk · contribs)

Please notify them manually, or take other appropriate action. MediationBot (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's not get ahead of ourselves

I think the logical next step in this dispute is to ask for an uninvolved admin to close the RFC, not to begin another process here.--Taylornate (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't mediation the next logical step when 'comment' doesn't seem to resolve a dispute? Closing a request for comment would stop us from getting commentary, and with the issue still contested that doesn't seem good. The additional mediated process seems like it could compliment from it and they could be mutually beneficial to one another? Y12J (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No, no, and no.--Taylornate (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, there are several editors who explicitly stated their support of my position and you have listed none of them here. Why?--Taylornate (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I missed a couple who didn't post as frequently (the talk page is getting rather long) Manfi (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

How about the RFC?--Taylornate (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a mediator would be useful here since it seems to have devolved into a revert-war.
— User:Y12J

Really, you you write this as you begin a fresh round, ending one week without reverts?--Taylornate (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I gave it some time to hope that you might properly nominate them using the merge template, instead of restoring the redirects that many have removed. These changes aren't easy to monitor, watchlists can be difficult to follow. Y12J (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I did an RFC and you are trolling.--Taylornate (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: At the current rate there seems to be little danger of getting ahead of anything whatsoever, let alone ourselves. So far I cannot find anything to take into account for mediation. I suggest that instead of accusations of trolling and counter-trolling, we grit our teeth, ignore the entire foregoing mess, however in love with any part of it we might be, and start two new sections right here. In one section we (or half of us) post precisely which points we would like to see implemented (better leave out justifications and certainly leave out criticisms and arguments for now), and without any references to the other section or history whatsoever. And in the other one the other side can place their list. Having done that, then tweaked each one a bit till we have concrete non-negotiables on the table, we will at least know what discrepancies to discuss. I reckon that will be a lot faster than dredging the history for all the gems to be found there. I know it sounds infantile, but better be infantile with some practical options in view, than what we have now. Anyone with better suggestions had better make them pretty obviously better before losing his temper. Lost tempers have been pretty cheap currency so far, for all that they have achieved. Try to say things along the lines of: "I would like to see 17 (or 1 or 0) articles with links to..." rather than "I am dreadfully offended and because of para 17 in WP:YUIOP I would like to see XCVBN admit that he..." Just one suggestion of course, but look who made it. JonRichfield (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you, Jon. I think your idea on the two sections is great and I'll open them right now. Everyone, let's please try to have a rational debate without any accusations and name-calling. We all want to improve Wikipedia, even though we might have different ideas on how to do it. Manfi (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Thank you Manfi, that is just the sort of thing I had in mind, only better worked out. JonRichfield (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Feel free to edit your respective section below, but leave the conflicting one as it is. Manfi (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Right! JonRichfield (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

In favour of merging the pages

Main points

• (Which points would you like to see implemented?)

Arguments

• (Why should your points be implemented?)

Against merging the pages

Main points

• All the separate muscle pages are preserved, without them being redirected.
• Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand is kept as a summary article. A new image highlighting the discussed muscles is added.
• After restoring the redirected pages, we create links to and from the new page and begin working on reducing any too obvious overlap.

Arguments

• All other human muscles have separate pages, including variable and accessory ones. The same thing is true for human bones, arteries, veins and nerves. Changing this system (which is also used on other language versions) would require very extensive work and vast consensus.
• There already are several Wikipedia pages on certain categories or groups of muscles such as the facial muscles, hamstrings and erector spinae muscles, or even the parts of the quadriceps femoris muscle.
• Useful images and infoboxes haven't been included in the merge. This data is better presented in separate articles instead of cluttering up the new page.
• According to the Manual of Style naming conventions for medicine-related articles, Wikipedia pages on anatomy should use terms from the Terminologia anatomica.

-- Manfi (talk)

Involved users who cannot be notified

 Clerk note: The following users could not be notified due to page protection or bot exclusion:

• Arcadian (talk · contribs)

Please notify them manually, or take other appropriate action. MediationBot (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Rejection

Finley just sent out the notice that the request is rejected due to Taylor's disagreeing to it. Might've saved some time to ask him beforehand. This page is apparently going to get deleted after "a reasonable amount of time" according to the template, so I would like to propose we archive it (as well as this talk page) on the extensor page's talk. Any agreement or objections? Y12J (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I can see no objection. If Doctor No objects, let him sue. JonRichfield (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)