Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 268

Summary of dispute by Msforzese

Maire Tecnimont discussion

First statement by moderator (Maire Tecnimont)

I am ready to act as the moderator if two editors agree to moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A. I know that the filing editor has requested moderated discussion because they want to add a section to the article. The other editor has made a statement explaining why they reverted the other editor's edits, but it is not clear whether they are agreeing to moderated discussion, which is voluntary. If they are not agreeing to moderated discussion, then I will work with the filing editor to develop a Request for Comments to add a section.

So my question for the other editor is: Do you agree to take part in moderated discussion?

So my question for the filing editor is: Which of two sections that you have added, both of which were reverted, is your first choice to add to the article?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your willingness to moderate the discussion. To answer your question, my first choice is to add a “Major projects” section. I believe this structure provides a more neutral and balanced overview of the company’s activities. TextGardener (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I am willing to continue with a moderated discussion, provided that it proceeds in line with Wikipedia policies.

I would also appreciate some clarification on the timing: my understanding from DRN Rule A is that participants have up to 48 hours to respond, so I was wondering why the discussion has already moved toward an RfC. Msforzese (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Maire Tecnimont)

Second statement by moderator (Maire Tecnimont)

I have created a draft RFC to add the Major Projects section to the article, at Talk:Maire Tecnimont/RFC on Major Projects . The RFC contains the actual text that was in the article before it was reverted. Please comment here (in DRN) on the draft RFC. The draft RFC is not a live RFC until I launch it by moving it to the article talk page, so do not vote in it at this time.

Are there any comments about the RFC or questions about the RFC?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for preparing the draft RfC. I have reviewed the draft and understand the process. I do not have any procedural questions at this stage and am happy to proceed once the RfC is launched. TextGardener (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

My comment on the draft RfC is mainly about how it is framed, rather than the exact wording of the proposed text. As it stands, the RfC starts from the previously removed “Major Projects” section and effectively assumes that a detailed standalone section of this kind belongs in the article.

However, the discussion that led to the removals was about broader structural and policy issues. Those issues are still present. In particular:

• The section raises undue weight and coatrack concerns (WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK), as the “Major Projects” heading is used to accommodate extensive material on disputes, investigations, and ongoing proceedings.
• Even setting disputes aside, the level of technical and contractual detail is closer to an industrial catalogue than to an encyclopaedic overview, which creates an imbalance with the rest of the article. It is also not clear why these specific projects are being singled out as encyclopaedically significant.
• WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SYNTH, and WP:RECENTISM concerns in relation to the Kingisepp (EuroChem) case, which involves ongoing litigation and would require continuous updates, making it premature for encyclopaedic treatment
• Punta Catalina is treated as a case study, with a degree of detail and controversial context that is disproportionate within a general company article, especially given that no wrongdoing was attributed to Maire Tecnimont.

To be clear, I am not opposed in principle to mentioning projects. A possible way forward, purely by way of illustration, would be to reduce project coverage to brief, descriptive references, avoiding detailed narratives. This would address the weight and structure concerns without excluding factual information. Msforzese (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Maire Tecnimont)

Third statement by moderator (Maire Tecnimont)

User: Msforzese - You ask me about the timing, saying that I prepared the draft RFC less than 48 hours after I asked for agreement to DRN Rule A. The draft wording of the Major Projects section is the same as what you reverted without discussion. I had read your two statements on the article talk page. Your statements were not concise, and I could not infer whether you were or were not ready to discuss expanding the article. Since you had said, both on the article talk page and then in this DRN, that removal of the entire section was the appropriate remedy, I drafted the RFC that would allow the community to decide whether the section should be removed or restored. You had given me no indication that you would agree to moderated discussion (which you have now done), so I had to be ready to take action in the event that you either did not reply or did not provide a constructive reply.

If you are ready to take part in moderated discussion, I will leave the draft RFC on hold.

I normally begin moderated discussion by asking each editor what they want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change, or what they want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. We know that User:TextGardener wants to add the Major Projects section, and that User:Msforzese has removed that section. So I will ask Msforzese two questions, and will ask TextGardener one question. First, can Msforzese state concisely why they removed the Major Projects section? Their previous explanation was not concise, and saying "not encyclopedic" is not useful. Second, can you state concisely what you would accept as a description of the major projects of Maire Tecnimont? Does TextGardener have a proposal for a less detailed but informative expansion?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

When drafting the section, my intention was to keep it concise and informative. I am open to further reducing and simplifying it if that would help us reach a constructive compromise. TextGardener (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Thank you for the clarification and for explaining the process. I will try to provide a constructive response and be clearer.

I removed the “Major Projects” section because it was being used to foreground judicial scandals in which Maire Tecnimont was neither involved nor charged (Punta Catalina), as well as ongoing litigation (Kingisepp, EuroChem), raising concerns under WP:COATRACK. The reasons for treating these two projects as problematic have already been discussed at length on the article talk page and here at DRN. In light of the policies cited, I don't believe they should be included in a revised version of the section, as their inclusion would risk undermining the neutrality and encyclopaedic character of the article.

I would be open to a “Major Projects” section, or a subsection within “Activities”, that focuses on describing the company’s activities and development rather than functioning as a catalogue of projects, avoids giving disproportionate weight to this material within the article as a whole, and doesn't rely on a level of technical detail more typical of corporate or promotional content. Msforzese (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Maire Tecnimont)

Fourth statement by moderator (Maire Tecnimont)

If either editor proposes a compromise, we will discuss the compromise proposal. If neither editor proposes a compromise, I am ready to launch the draft RFC in order to resolve this content dispute. So does either editor have a compromise proposal at this time?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I have carefully read the other editor’s position. I do not agree in principle that projects which have attracted dispute or controversy should be excluded from a “Major projects” section solely on that basis. Given this fundamental disagreement, I do not expect a compromise to be reached at this stage and am ready to proceed with the RFC. TextGardener (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

As already outlined in the compromise proposal, I am willing to meet you halfway on Punta Catalina, with wording that focuses on the project itself and also makes proportionate reference to what occurred.

However, if the purpose of the section is to list and describe the company’s major projects, giving disproportionate weight to a scandal that did not involve Maire Tecnimont raises structural concerns under WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. More generally, when legal issues arise, their encyclopaedic relevance does not depend on whether the underlying project is “major” or not, but on the existence of established allegations or judicial outcomes, which are typically addressed in dedicated sections.

With regard to Kingisepp, I do not consider it appropriate to include it among major projects, particularly as the project was never completed. I would also like to reiterate that, as discussed previously (including in the Italian Wikipedia discussion), I am not opposed in principle to the inclusion of material about this matter. That said, given that the dispute is still ongoing, it would be more appropriate to wait until the proceedings have concluded before assessing whether and how a section on legal issues should be included.

Finally, I would encourage reference to WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, and especially WP:COATRACK, which explain in detail why the EuroChem dispute is problematic to include at this stage. This is not a matter of personal opinion, but of applying the policies designed to preserve balance and neutrality in Wikipedia articles. I would welcome (and I address this also to the wider community) a discussion grounded in Wikipedia’s policies rather than individual viewpoints. Msforzese (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

This is the content I would propose to include within the Activities section. If the other editor agrees, Punta Catalina could also be added (I can propose a neutral, policy-compliant wording). With regard to Kingisepp, I would instead wait until the ongoing litigation has concluded before considering the inclusion of a subsection dedicated to legal matters.

=== Energy and petrochemical infrastructure ===

Maire Tecnimont operates as an EPC contractor in the energy and petrochemical sectors, involved in the delivery of industrial facilities in different regions.

==== SOCAR Polymer (Azerbaijan) ====

Between 2015 and 2016, EPC contracts for key processing units of the SOCAR Polymer complex in Sumgayit, Azerbaijan, were awarded to Tecnimont and KT-Kinetics Technology, both subsidiaries of the Maire Tecnimont Group.^[1][2] The polypropylene plant entered operation in July 2018 ^[3], followed by the high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plant in February 2019.^[4] The project was developed to support Azerbaijan’s domestic production of basic polymers and to reduce reliance on imports of polypropylene and polyethylene products. ^[5]

==== Borouge 4 (United Arab Emirates) ====

In December 2021, EPC packages for the Borouge 4 expansion project in Ruwais, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, were awarded to Tecnimont, an operating subsidiary of the Maire Tecnimont Group, for the construction of new polyolefins-related facilities.^[6] The project forms part of the expansion of the Borouge petrochemical complex and involves additional polyethylene and associated downstream units.^[7]

==== Amiral (Saudi Arabia) ====

In June 2023, Tecnimont, a subsidiary of the Maire Tecnimont Group, was appointed EPC contractor for downstream units of the Amiral petrochemical project in Jubail, Saudi Arabia, developed as part of the expansion of the SATORP complex.^[8] The project is being developed by SATORP, a joint venture between Saudi Aramco and TotalEnergies, and forms part of an integrated refining and petrochemical development intended to convert refinery outputs into petrochemical products.^[9] Msforzese (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your proposal. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with it. A simple listing of projects without basic contextual information (such as scale, contractual scope, or cost) does not explain why they are considered “major”. Some factual context is necessary to convey their significance.

In addition, the proposed approach continues to exclude the Kingisepp project in principle, which means that the core disagreement remains unresolved. In this situation, I believe it is appropriate to proceed with an RfC so that the community can determine whether a “Major projects” section is appropriate and, if so, in what form. TextGardener (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I understand the need to provide some context to explain the relevance of the projects. That said, the issue is not whether context should be provided, but what kind of context is appropriate in a general company article. On English Wikipedia, contextualisation does not necessarily require detailed information about scale, contractual scope, or financial figures, especially where such detail risks turning the section into a project catalogue or a case-by-case analysis rather than an encyclopaedic summary.

My position on Kingisepp is not one of principle, but relates to timing and structure. As the project was never completed and the dispute is still ongoing, its inclusion raises concerns under WP:RECENTISM (articles overburdened with documenting breaking news and controversy as it happens) and WP:NOTNEWS, regardless of how the section is framed. For this reason, I consider it premature to treat it as a “major project” at this stage, rather than assessing its inclusion, once proceedings have concluded, within a section dedicated to legal matters.

In light of the above, I believe that the focus of the RfC should shift to whether and how the Kingisepp case should be included at this stage, rather than on the existence of a “Major Projects” section as such. Reframing the discussion in this way would, in my view, allow for a more targeted assessment that is better aligned with Wikipedia’s policies. Msforzese (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry but can you elaborate on which exact parts of WP: NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM apply? Because I am reading both these policies and fail to see how they would preclude the inclusion of court cases that are notable for the company. Perfecnot (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

According to WP:RECENTISM, “Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events,” which can result in “articles overburdened with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens.”

In addition, WP:NOTNEWS clearly states that “Wikipedia is not a newspaper” and that it “should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories.” This reflects the principle that articles should avoid tracking ongoing events as they develop.

Finally, WP:COATRACK explains that the inclusion of Kingisepp within the Major Projects section is problematic because, in this way, the section “gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects.”

I would like to reiterate that I am not opposed in principle to including the Kingisepp case. However, at this stage, its ongoing nature raises practical issues. The proposed wording is already outdated, illustrating that the matter would require continuous updates, which is not well suited to an encyclopaedic article. Given that the proceedings before the High Court in London are expected to conclude in 2026 (as reported by Il Giornale: https://www.ilgiornale.it/news/aziende/tecnimont-ottiene-sequestri-conservativi-11-miliardi-contro-2586795.html), it would be more appropriate to wait for that outcome before considering whether and how the topic should be covered, and, if included, to address it within a section dedicated to legal matters, rather than within Major Projects.

With regard to the Punta Catalina case, the corruption scandal involved Odebrecht, not Maire Tecnimont, as the investigations did not result in any charges or convictions against Maire Tecnimont. I can accept that a mention be included in the article, given its participation in the consortium, but with a better-balanced paragraph that focuses primarily on the project itself. Msforzese (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

First of all, WP: RECENTISM and WP:COATRACK are not policies. Both are essays. One happens to be an explanatory essay and the other is just an essay. On the coatrack page is says right at the top "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been  reviewed by the community and may reflect various opinions.".

"Illustrating that the matter would require continuous updates": I'm not even sure what this means. The entire point of wikipedia is that anyone can edit it which allows it to be updated relatively easily.

The main reason I started commenting on this Dispute Resolution was because I was drawn to the fact that you were against any information about the companies ongoing court cases being included in the edit and was wondering why that is? Perfecnot (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Maire Tecnimont)

Fifth statement by moderator (Maire Tecnimont)

We have a content dispute that will require an RFC. The question is what the alternatives will be.

User:TextGardener - Do you still want your Major Projects section to be one of the choices in the RFC?

User:Msforzese - You have proposed a very short Major Projects section. Do you want it included as one of the choices in the RFC? Do you also want one of the choices in the RFC to be not including any Major Projects section?

User:Perfecnot - You are welcome to comment in this discussion. Do you wan to propose your own wording, or do you only want to comment?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I propose the following "Major Projects" subsection within the "Activities" section:

=== Major Projects ===

Maire Tecnimont operates as an EPC contractor in the energy and petrochemical sectors, involved in the delivery of industrial facilities in different regions.

==== Punta Catalina (Dominican Republic) ====

Between 2014 and 2019, Tecnimont, part of the Maire Tecnimont Group, participated as EPC contractor in the construction of the Punta Catalina coal-fired power plant in the Dominican Republic, as part of a consortium that also included Odebrecht and Estrella. According to industry reporting, the overall EPC contract was valued at approximately US$1.95 billion, with a share of about US$690 million attributable to Tecnimont.^[10]

During implementation, overall project costs increased significantly and were later reported by official audits and indipendent media reports to have reached approximately US$3.2–3.3 billion.^[11] Cost overruns led to audits and investigations in connection with the wider corruption case involving Odebrecht; however, no criminal charges were brought against Tecnimont or Maire Tecnimont Group.^[12]

Following disputes over cost increases, the contractor consortium demanded additional funding to complete the works. The parties ultimately reached an amicable settlement through international mediation, under which the Dominican government agreed to make an additional payment below US$400 million. After the settlement, the plant was completed and commissioned.^[13]

SOCAR Polymer (Azerbaijan)

Between 2015 and 2016, EPC contracts for key processing units of the SOCAR Polymer complex in Sumgayit, Azerbaijan, were awarded to Tecnimont and KT-Kinetics Technology, both subsidiaries of the Maire Tecnimont Group.^[14][15] The contracts covered the construction of a polypropylene plant and a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plant, with reported values of approximately €350 million and US$180 million, respectively.^[16] The polypropylene plant entered operation in July 2018^[17], followed by the HDPE plant in February 2019.^[18] The project was developed to support Azerbaijan’s domestic production of basic polymers and to reduce reliance on imports of polypropylene and polyethylene products.^[19]

Borouge 4 (United Arab Emirates)

In December 2021, EPC packages for the Borouge 4 expansion project in Ruwais, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, were awarded to Tecnimont, an operating subsidiary of the Maire Tecnimont Group, for the construction of new polyolefins-related facilities, with a combined value of approximately US$3.5 billion.^[20] The project forms part of the expansion of the Borouge petrochemical complex and involves additional polyethylene and associated downstream units.^[21]

Amiral (Saudi Arabia)

In June 2023, Tecnimont, a subsidiary of the Maire Tecnimont Group, was appointed EPC contractor for downstream units of the Amiral petrochemical project in Jubail, Saudi Arabia, developed as part of the expansion of the SATORP complex.^[22] The contracts, with a reported value of approximately US$2 billion, form part of an integrated refining and petrochemical development led by SATORP, a joint venture between Saudi Aramco and TotalEnergies, aimed at converting refinery outputs into petrochemical products.^[23] Msforzese (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I would like my originally proposed “Major projects” section to be included as one of the options in the RfC. TextGardener (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (Maire Tecnimont)

Sixth statement by moderator (Maire Tecnimont)

I have developed a new draft RFC at Talk:Maire Tecnimont/RFC on Major Projects . Please review it before I launch it by moving it to the article talk page. Any comments should be made here, in the DRN, not in the RFC, because it is not a live RFC.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

As for my version, I have no further comments

With regard to @TextGardener’s version, I would ask that the text be reconsidered, as it shows a clear imbalance toward EuroChem’s position and relies predominantly on Russian-language sources. In this respect, I would like to ask @Robert McClenon: in the current geopolitical context, can Russian sources reasonably be considered reliable and independent?

In addition, the following points would need to be integrated, with appropriate sourcing:

• On 31 July 2025, the Bright judgment confirmed the freezing of bank guarantees in favour of Tecnimont, prohibiting their payment to EuroChem, an entity linked to Andrei Melnichenko, who is subject to EU sanctions.
• Explicit mention of the sanctioned individual should be included.
• Tecnimont obtained immediately enforceable seizure orders against assets held by the EuroChem Group for an amount of approximately €1.1 billion (https://www.ilgiornale.it/news/aziende/tecnimont-ottiene-sequestri-conservativi-11-miliardi-contro-2586795.html)
• By a judgment issued on 18 December 2025, the Court of Appeal fully upheld the decision of the English High Court of 21 November 2025, which declared unlawful the judicial actions brought against Tecnimont by the EuroChem Group in Russia.

Finally, I propose the removal of the following sentence:

• “As a result, different courts in different jurisdictions reached opposing decisions in relation to the same project”: this is a synthetic assessment that introduces an interpretative element, which is not appropriate for a general encyclopaedic article.

Msforzese (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors (Maire Tecnimont)

Seventh statement by moderator (Maire Tecnimont)

User:Msforzese - It would have been more collaborative if you had proposed changes to TextGardener's version of the Major Projects section on 7 January, rather than reverting its addition and then stating that removal of the content was necessary.

So I will now ask User:TextGardener - Do you agree to the changes proposed by Msforzese? I will now ask User:Msforzese - Do you want to propose a Medium version of the Major Projects section? If so, please prepare it in a sandbox. If so, do you want it included in the RFC in addition to the Short version, or in place of the Short version?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. At this stage, I do not agree to incorporate substantive changes outside the RfC process. If User:Msforzese chooses to propose a medium-length version of the section in a sandbox, I am happy to review and comment on it within the RfC once it is launched. I do not plan to propose an additional version myself at this time. TextGardener (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I removed the projects section because it continued to include the Kingisepp case, which I do not consider appropriate to include until the dispute has been concluded. The issue has never been the inclusion of a "Major Projects" section as such, but rather the inclusion of Kingisepp. I have consistently explained my reasons Msforzese (talk) 08:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors (Maire Tecnimont)

Eighth statement by moderator (Maire Tecnimont)

I will launch the RFC in about 24 hours unless any changes to it are made, in which case I will launch the RFC in about 48 hours.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Eighth statements by editors (Maire Tecnimont)

Ninth statement by moderator (Maire Tecnimont)

I have launched an RFC to decide between the long and the short versions of the Major Projects section and no Major Project section. The RFC is in the article talk page, Talk: Maire Tecnimont. Please vote in the RFC. You may make statements in the Discussion section. I will be publicizing the RFC neutrally on some pages in the next few days, and will then close this DRN as being resolved by the RFC.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Ninth statements by editors (Maire Tecnimont)

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.

Summary of dispute by IzzySwag

To give context, this is specifically about the song The Fate of Thomas Light on the album linked. Here is a YouTube link to the song for those who want to listen/get context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh5w1txmH8c. The scene the song takes place in as described by the liner notes (which tell the story of the album) is the execution of Thomas Light. This is what is described in the final lines of the liner notes, towards the end of the song:

"Light slowly climbs the steps and stands beneath the crossbeam, the rope dangling in front of his face. He looks out over the crowd and, for a brief instant, catches a flash of blue before the cloth plunges him into darkness. He breathes slowly and deliberately against the fabric as the rope slips around his neck. He takes another deep, slow breath and closes his eyes. He thinks of Emily..."

In the song, you can hear Light climb the steps, hear the rope go around his neck and be tightened, and hear his breathing. After what is described in the liner notes, you hear the sound of a floor dropping out, his breathing cease, and all that is left is the sound of a rope creaking in the wind. The exact moment Light is hung is not presented in the liner notes, but it is clearly presented in the song. WP:PLOTANALYSIS clearly states that the plot summary should represent the plot the way it is presented to the typical listener. I think it is clear to the listener who is reading the liner notes alongside the music (the intended experience of listening) will be able to take it as Light's hanging. PBugaboo has even agreed that the fact these sounds represent Light's hanging is "really clear" and "really obvious." I do not see the issue in including Light's death in the plot synopsis when it is clear that is what happens.

Summary of dispute by Pingnova

Act III:_This_City_Made_Us discussion

Zeroth statement by volunteer (This City Made Us)

I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute if at least two editors want moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule X and state whether you want to take part in moderated discussion. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so please state concisely what the content dispute is. That is, please state what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (This City Made Us)

Thank you. I can confirm that I want to take part in moderated discussion.

I think that the inference that Thomas Light was hanged should be removed from the article, until a reliable secondary source can support that. The current wording is editorialising by presenting this as a fact. My suggested wording relies solely on the facts. If this wording is unsuitable (i.e: if it is ‘too literal’ as described by IzzySwag) I am agreeable to alternative wording.

Current wording: Light sees "a flash of blue" in the crowd as the rope slips around his neck and thinks of Emily before being hanged in front of the crowd ("The Fate of Thomas Light").

Suggested alternative: Light sees "a flash of blue" in the crowd as the rope slips around his neck and thinks of Emily. A loud slamming sound is heard, followed by creaking. ("The Fate of Thomas Light"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by PBugaboo (talk • contribs) 20:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I am also willing to take part in moderated discussion. What PBugaboo wants changed is they want to remove the "being hanged in front of the crowd" part of the plot summary due to the fact it is not in the liner notes. My argument is that the audio of the album clearly shows that this is the case, which PBugaboo has also agreed is very obvious and clear to the listener. WP:PLOTANALYSIS says to write the plot summary as it would be presented to the typical listener and not to go by a word-by-word basis. It is very clear to me that the typical listener will take the end of the album as Light's execution. IzzySwag (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

What I want has not been changed, I'm not sure I understand. Removing 'being hanged' is in both of the alternative examples I suggested - discussed here [].

When I was redirecting you from repeatedly restating how heavily implied your interpretation was, this was because it's not relevant to whether interpretation should be presented as fact. []

MOS:INUNIVERSE warns against bridging gaps. Discussion, interpretation and explanation of the plot requires the citation of external reliable sources, and is generally best included elsewhere in the article. []. From WP:OR Conclusions drawn from inference are original research. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. PBugaboo (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I was not saying what you want has changed, I was just also stating it so we could be in agreement about what specific wording you want removed.

It is not bridging a gap. It is directly what the album presents to the listener. To say what is heard is only a loud slamming and creaking would be frankly be dishonest. Sounds of loud slamming and creaking is not what is being presented to the listener. You are also completely ignoring the breathing sounds that cease after the gallows floor drops out.

You restated your arguments, I restated mine. We are still just repeating the same arguments back to one another. I have heard what you said and you have heard what I said. I now want to hear what Robert makes of it. That's why we are at the DRN. IzzySwag (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer (This City Made Us)

It appears that the issue is the wording of the last sentences of the Plot description. Please read DRN Rule A, which will be in effect. In particular, do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. I would like each of the editors to state how they think that the plot description should end. Do not explain why. After I see the different ideas for how to end the plot description. I will either ask for explanations, or, if I think that there has already been enough discussion, I will prepare a Request for Comments. So, please state what you think the ending of the Plot section should be.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

First statements by editors (This City Made Us)

I think it should end as it is currently written. "Light sees "a flash of blue" in the crowd as the rope slips around his neck and thinks of Emily before being hanged in front of the crowd." No other questions. IzzySwag (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I have no other questions, I think it should end as below.

Light sees "a flash of blue" in the crowd as the rope slips around his neck and thinks of Emily. A loud slamming sound is heard, followed by creaking. PBugaboo (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (This City Made Us)

I have created a draft RFC at Talk:Act III: This City Made Us/RFC on Plot Ending. Please review the draft, and comment on it here (in DRN). Please do not vote in the draft RFC, because it is not a live RFC until I launch it. Please do not comment on it in the draft; comments go here. When there is agreement that this RFC presents the issue to the community correctly, I will launch it by moving it to the article talk page.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (This City Made Us)

Seems fine to me other than it might be worth linking the song itself in the survey. Both of our considerations are about what happens in the audio of the track. No other questions.IzzySwag (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion to include a link to the song [] and perhaps inclusion of a small snippet of the direct text of the libretto so that it's clear at what point the plot summary derives from the sound design. No other questions. PBugaboo (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (This City Made Us)

I have added a link to the draft.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (This City Made Us)

Seems fine to me. Thanks and no other questions. IzzySwag (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

No questions from me either, thanks. PBugaboo (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (This City Made Us)

The RFC has been launched, and will be open for another 28 days. The next step is that neutrally worded mentions of the RFC should be included on a few article talk pages and project talk pages. Also, each editor should vote in the RFC, and may discuss in the RFC.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, to clarify is the idea that comments mentioning and linking to the RFC should be placed in talk pages of related articles (The Protomen, Act I, Act II, etc)? I mentioned user:Pingnova at the start of the dispute due to the discussion including his comments - due to this is he eligible as a party to vote in the RFC? And what occurs in the event of a ‘stalemate’

I will leave my vote and reasoning in the RFC shortly, no other questions come to mind. Thanks again PBugaboo (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

No further questions from me other than what PBugaboo has already asked. IzzySwag (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (This City Made Us)

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.