Wikipedia talk:Third opinion#User Papapursa
{{tmbox | type = content | text =
Instead list them in the Active Disagreements section of the main project page
after reading the instructions at the top of that page.
{{talkheader|WT:3O}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Dispute Resolution}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 10
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(90d)
|archive =Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/Archive %(counter)d
}}
User FAQ
Eisenhower request
@Furius, it looks like you might have found the Eisenhower talk page dispute through this page and then left your opinion on the dispute. In that case, you might want to identify yourself as a Third Opinion volunteer along with your comment and then remove the dispute from the list of Active Disagreements. Manuductive (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Template for declining a request due to 3 editors already in the topic
Anybody know how to make a template? It would be awesome if we had an easy one for this situation, which turns up almost half the time. You could model it after this:
| style="border-top: solid thin lightgrey; padding: 4px;"
| Image:Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request: |
| style="padding-left: 1.6em;" | A third opinion request related to this discussion topic was declined because three or more editors have already commented. If necessary, try another kind of dispute resolution, like starting a request for comment and/or posting an announcement on the talk page of a relevant Wikiproject. Manuductive (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC) |
:I'm not sure about allowing for automated responses to 3O requests, though I'd be amenable to summarizing points that 3O closers should attempt to address when closing disputes, such as mentioning that there are other dispute resolution options. For instance, the example you provided seems to assume that the editors requesting a 3O didn't already reach out to any Wikiprojects before filing their 3O request. If I had done so and no editors had chosen to involve themselves, I'd feel like the editor closing the 3O was being dismissive by suggesting I do something that I had already done.
:FWIW, I do maintain some boilerplate text that I tend to use for myself, but I also try to customize it to the request that I'm closing and I would never claim it's the best it could be. DonIago (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for that thoughtful response. I would like to see some of your 3O work and might go through a few of your contributions to use as a model. Manuductive (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Thank you! This reminds me of a discussion at WT:FILM regarding whether there should be templates for summarizing a film's reception at Rotten Tomatoes. As I noted there, my analytical instincts say that it would be "nice" if RT numbers could be handled in this manner, but other editors have expressed multiple concerns about taking such a "one size fits all" approach, and I find their concerns valid, and maybe Wikipedia genuinely benefits from encouraging editors to express things in their own words versus relying on templates, though I would argue that that's even more important for things like dispute resolution than for article text. DonIago (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Removed from list, but no opinion provided
A listing for Talk:Community care access centres § Removal of lists was removed, but no third opinion was provided for this dispute. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
:It was accidentally removed by a new editor, per the page history. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
3O when WikiProject has also been notified?
I don't exactly see why this would be a concern, but does anyone feel that an editor requesting additional opinions at a WikiProject related to a dispute should have an impact on whether they can simultaneously request a 3O? I figure either way they're getting additional opinions, and I don't see how it can cause harm. DonIago (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)