Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 242

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 235←Archive 240Archive 241Archive 242Archive 243Archive 244Archive 245

David Lammy

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Erzan on 23:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC).
More information Closed discussion ...
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

I am seeking your assistance in resolving a dispute regarding the portrayal of David Lammy's political role on Wikipedia. The issue arises from a misunderstanding of Lammy's constitutional position as a member of the British Parliament and the implications of labeling him solely as an "English politician."

Key points to consider:

Constitutional Role:

David Lammy holds a constitutional position as a Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom. Referring to him solely as an "English politician" is misleading, as his political role transcends national boundaries and encompasses the entirety of the UK.

Identity:

While Lammy has expressed identification with his English heritage, he has also affirmed his British and European identities. It is essential to accurately represent the complexity of his identity and political role on Wikipedia. Proposed Compromise:

I have suggested a compromise to acknowledge both Lammy's English and British identities in the discussion section, but this has not been acknowledged or accepted by the opposing user. I request your intervention to address this misunderstanding and ensure the accuracy and neutrality of Wikipedia's portrayal of David Lammy's political role.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Lammy

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Look at the sources and context.

Look at the proposed compromises.

Look at the logic and reasoning of the arguments.

Summary of dispute by ActivelyDisinterested

The discussion has only been ongoing on the talk page for less than half. Jumping to DRN without giving time for any other editors to comment is just needless bureaucracy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  1. Less than half what?
  2. My first comment was 20:27, 9 October 2023
  3. You and I made several comments.
  4. There was disagreements.
  5. I took a pause and came back.
  6. There are disagreements.
Erzan (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't believe you meant to reply in this section. But you are right I had forgotten the earlier conversation, it was lost in other controversies in the page. Probably as you just dropped the discussion after a couple of replies, and have only now re-entered discussion after 5 months and three failed attempts to make the change you knew you didn't have consensus for while WP:LOUTSOCKing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Either way DRN is the sixth method described by WP:Dispute resolution, it involves a lot of time and investment by a third party. I would suggest some of the other methods described in WP: Dispute resolution before starting such a timesink. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

David Lammy discussion

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

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Lammy)

The non-filing editor has declined to take part in moderated discussion. Moderated discussion is voluntary, and would probably not resolve the issue anyway. Advice on the subject is given in Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. That essay is not definitive, but basically provides that common sense should be used. British philosophy also stresses the importance of using common sense. Of the other options listed for dispute resolution, either discussion at WikiProject United Kingdom or a Request for Comments may be workable, if British common sense is used. I will close this dispute in about 24 hours unless either of the editors requests assistance in formulating a neutrally worded RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I used the same wording from previous RFC. The core of this dispute is putting personal views before what the references show and common standards used in other pages. I always thought references and following common standards were important. Erzan (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2024 (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.
Close

Boeing E-6B Mercury

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Khieatt on 19:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC).
More information Closed discussion ...
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

The page contains inaccurate information on the plane's specifications, which has been updated by the Navy via the Navy Fact File. The original source material (the 2019 Navy Fact File) is no longer active (the link goes to an error page). I have tried to update the information and the source link but user Binksternet repeatedly undoes the changes.

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

Binksternet and I have discussed the issue but cannot reach a resolution. He continues to revert to the 2019 version of the fact file, which is no longer accurate. The plane's specs have changed due to modifications that have been made to the aircraft.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Help moderate the discussion with Blinksternet and approve the changes and updated source link.

Summary of dispute by Binksternet

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

Boeing E-6B Mercury discussion

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

2024 F1 Academy season

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by LouisOrr27 on 22:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC).
More information Closed discussion ...
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

In the section about the entries of the season, there is a dispute about weather the teams should be listed in alphabetical order of the team name or numerical order of the drivers.

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

Talk:2024_F1_Academy_season#Alphabetical

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Offer an opinion on the matter and discus it with the users involved.

Summary of dispute by MSport1005

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

Summary of dispute by Cerebral726

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

2024 F1 Academy season discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note - Discussion at the talk page has been in progress for less than 24 hours. Sometimes continued discussion resolves the issue. Waiting for discussion to continue. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2024 (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.
Close

Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Max19582 on 19:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC).
More information Closed discussion ...
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

In the article's lede, I edited the minister's title to be capitalized, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Positions,_offices,_and_occupational_titles as it denotes the title, not the description. The change was reverted by User:Egeymi, who claimed the title should be kept in lowercase (they reverted it, so "Sienkiewicz has served as Minister of Culture and National Heritage" became "Sienkiewicz has served as minister of culture and national heritage" again). As I can see, the general consensus is that the titles of Polish ministers are capitalized - Barbara Nowacka, Adam Szłapka, Borys Budka, Adam Bodnar, among others. That's also how the official government website capitalizes it: .

We tried to discuss it in my talk page, but that was to no avail. The user kept on misquoting the policy, telling me to "read it carefully" instead.

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

User_talk:Max19582#Caps_rule

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please let us know which formatting would be better.

Summary of dispute by Egeymi

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

Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz discussion

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

Eurovision Song Contest 2024

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 189.217.192.247 on 05:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC).
More information Closed discussion ...
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

There is an ongoing dispute about the deletion of several important details from Eurovision pages, not just on the location of the dispute, but in most articles related to the contest, including, but not limited to: all editions since 1956, individual country's participations, spin-offs, national finals, singers, producers, writers, etc. This has led to the deletion of individual facts, notes, spokepersons, etc. However, they are attempting to delete the Language column from the articles, depriving users from one of the most important aspects of the Eurovision Song Contest. Furthermore, they're abusing their power by bullying another users and writing hurtful comments in the discussion.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eurovision#Languages_within_participants_tables

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By stopping the arbitrary deletion of information contained in other language's articles which can harm the reputation of the English version's usefulness for non-Eurovision fans.

Summary of dispute by Sims2aholic8

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

Summary of dispute by Grk1011

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

Summary of dispute by IvanScrooge98

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

Summary of dispute by ImStevan

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

Eurovision Song Contest 2024 discussion

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

East African Community

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Jhpratt on 05:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC).
More information Closed discussion ...
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

I believe there is sufficient secondary sources to indicate that Somalia is a member of the East African Community (if not necessarily a full member). Other users are relying largely on primary sources (to my understanding against Wikipedia policy), which are not as conclusive.

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

[]


How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A decision as to whether Somalia is a member on the East African Community at present time is the primary decision that needs to be made. As the situation is not 100% clear, a suggestion on how the ambiguity can be conveyed in the article is not necessarily a bad idea either.

Summary of dispute by jhpratt

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

Summary of dispute by Chipmunkdavis

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

Summary of dispute by Danlaycock

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

Summary of dispute by 92.236.211.53

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

Summary of dispute by Ydecreux

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

East African Community 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 of the other editors is required. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2024 (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.
Close

Ilia Topuria

– Discussion in progress.
Filed by Nswix on 14:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Concerning the subjects nationality, he was born in Germany (which according to this doesn't entitle you to German nationality, we've all moved on from this a year ago). But where it gets tricky is he was raised in Georgia and claims to be a dual-citizen of Spain. But Spain doesnt allow dual citizenship for Georgian citizens. He fights out of Spain, wheres he's lived since he was 15 (so I vote that per MOS:NATIONALITY only list nationalities where subject established themselves). While others say he must be Georgian, because he walks out to compete under a Georgian flag. All of which is complicated by the fact that you can find sources that call him 'Georgian', 'Spanish', 'Spanish-Georgian', 'German-born Spanish-Georgian', etc.

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

Talk:Ilia Topuria#Nationality, Talk:Ilia Topuria#Citizenship

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Either tell us to use all, none or one of the nationalities

Summary of dispute by Cassiopeia

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Base on MOS:NATIONALITY guidelines, the subject current resident and citizen where he was notable should be on the LEAD section which is Spain and not other country where he was born (Germany doesnt allow dual citizenship) or Georgia where he lived from 7-15 y/o where Spain does have dual citizenship with Georgia. We have a lot of cases in mixed martial arts fighter whereby editors keep on changing subject countries in lead based on their ethnicity/bloodline/heritage/where their parents or which country(ies)/the whole world that the subject wanted to represent and not based on where they were born or where they lived when they are notable as per Wikipedia MOS:NATIONALITY guidelines. Cassiopeia talk 09:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Subject confirmed that he does not have Spanish citizenship:
https://twitter.com/pelunaton/status/1760725558114275347
So as per wikipedia guidlines he should be listed as Georgian only Caucasian Man (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by DrakeXper

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

Ilia Topuria doesn't have Georgian nationality. He officially has Spanish nationality and represents, as a UFC fighter, both Georgia and Spain.[1]

According to MOS:NATIONALITY, I think the correct way to resolve this discussion is:

  • We affirm Topuria is of Spanish nationality, with mention that he is of Georgian origin/ethnicity.
  • We eliminate nationality from the equation as it is controversial, and simply state on the lede that he is "a Georgian and Spanish professional mixed martial artist..." omitting the mention of "nationality" in the infobox.

DrakeXper (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Lemabeta

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

Both Georgia and Spain don't allow dual citizenship to each other, yet all the sources available claim that he has both Georgian and Spanish citizens. MOS:Nationality says that when there's a controversial or unclear cases nationality can be omitted, as shown in an example of Nicolaus Copernicus under MOS:Nationality. Therefore this(taking out Georgian or Spanish from the heading page) is one of the solution we can use to resolve this dispute.--Lemabeta (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Or an ethnicity can play a deciding factor as passport is unclear and be written as Georgian, until further clarification. Lemabeta (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Caucasian Man

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

First, he officially represents Georgia at the UFC. It is not just the flag, he is officially listed as Georgian in the UFC: https://www.espn.com/mma/fighter/_/id/4350812/ilia-topuria

Every source claims he holds dual citizenship. If we go with wikipedia guidelines, even if he only held Spanish citizenship, his origin is relevant as he became known as a Georgian fighter and represents his country of origin. That's what the wikipedia guidelines at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Context say: "Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability" Due to the reasons mentioned above, that "unless" is relevant here and he must be listed as a Georgian, granted. Thus, we can list the subject as "Georgian" or "Georgian and Spanish". Can't live "Georgian" out.

Summary of dispute by BasilE99

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

Summary of dispute by FCBWanderer

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

Summary of dispute by WikiJuan

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

Summary of dispute by Gsfelipe94

Topuria should be listed as Georgian and a relevant mention for him being based on Spain should also be added. The matter of fact is that he's chosen to officially represent Georgia in UFC related issues (walkout gear and official info on the main media), but that doesn't stop him from also carrying his Spanish roots. We've had several fighters do it before and I'm pretty this would not be an issue if he was born there instead of Germany. What Cassiopeia brings to the table is an unidimensional view (just like she brought up when we had issues changing fighters' last names when they got married - luckily that's not an issue anymore), so I don't think we should list him as Spanish based on that. A good example for it is Diego Lopes who is a Brazilian fighter based in Mexico. We don't list him as Mexican based on what Cassiopeia said. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


Gsfelipe94 I suggest you to read MOS:NATIONALITY. It is not about what country he wants to represents or his root. As per changing fighter names of the articles, I still stand by WP:COMMONNAME name to change the article names but not just because a subject married and automatically the subject name is changed, due to recent marriage and a small hand full of sources against 5 years of sources, as many editors (especially MMA editors do not understand the Wikipedia guidelines and do not care about Wikipedia guidelines) as they just want to edit which what seems to be reasonable of their standard but not per Wikipedia guidelines. It is tired and takes a lot of my time just to keep the guidelines stand against those editors who does not care about the guidelines - remember, after all this is Wikipedia and Wikipedia have guidelines. Cassiopeia talk 00:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you. Wikipedia has tools for situations like this, and one of them is MOS:NATIONALITY. DrakeXper (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
@Gsfelipe94, the example you have given with Diego Lopes is not good for this case.
Ilia Topuria officially only has Spanish nationality even though he is of Georgian origin/ethnicity. According to MOS:NATIONALITY, It should mention that he is of Spanish nationality or, in the worst case, avoid mentioning his nationality to avoid getting into controversies.
But aside from all this, he declares himself Spanish and Georgian,[2] and the official UFC account uses both countries (Georgia and Spain) as representative countries.[3] DrakeXper (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
The Diego Lopes example was related to the subject current resident and citizen where he was notable as an unidimensional view. I'm not going to dwell on the other things because every single time we had those situations regarding names it was 1 against everyone else on the same type of behavior and the same arguments above where used (funny that in the end all the articles' titles were moved).
And your example of a tweet wasn't good as well. Plenty of other fighters will fall into the same category (for example when they had Cain Velasquez with both the US and Mexico flags). I'd like to know where is the source that shows he only has Spanish nationality. That's the type of thing that ends discussions, though there's none of it here. It's just a bunch of suppositions as of now. If there's solid evidence of his nationality, then obviously everything else won't matter. I have no agenda whatsoever to list him as Georgian or Spanish. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
We know that he arrived in Spain when he was 15 years old, and that he became naturalized Spanish.
  • "The Georgian by birth (here means origin/blood, etc) and nationalized in Spain [...]"[4]
  • "[...] the 25-year-old young man of Georgian parents and naturalized Spanish.[5]
Although sometimes It is stated that he is of dual nationality, actually, due to the context, what they are referring to is that he feels equally Georgian and Spanish. In the legal dimension, we know that Spain does not admit dual nationality with Georgia.
In any case, and most importantly, if the nationality is way too controversial, according to MOS:NATIONALITY, we can omit "nationality" (from the infobox for example) and just say that he is a Georgian and Spanish fighter. Saying that Topuria is just a Georgian working or "based on Spain" is frankly quite incorrect in my opinion. DrakeXper (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the latter would be incorrect. I believe that the option of removing "nationality" would solve most of the problems or say that he's Spanish with Georgian heritage. What's confusing is that everything else is that he's always represented Georgia on his fight kits and the fact that he was born in a neutral country to that discussion makes matter worse.
Like I said, Velasquez was 100% American, but he used to represent Mexico in several fights and was always listed as American at the stats. Clearance on this would be great to updated List of UFC Champions for example. As of now we have him listed as Georgian, but based on those arguments, he could be shifted to Spanish. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by SpyroeBM

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

I suggest that the nationality be omitted from the lede outright, there are no reliable and independent sources (using this list as a guideline) that state Topuria's nationality status, and I would be wary of Spanish sources due to bias unless they have been vetted by other editors. A solution to his would be to follow the lede format used by the editing team over at the football/soccer section of Wikipedia for players of dual or unknown nationality (e.g. Alphonso Davies, Diego Costa, Pepe and etc.), where the nationality part can be explained in a different paragraph. For a UFC related example, Khamzat Chimaev nationality was a big talking point, where we had some editors (and for the sake of honesty myself included) go under the assumption that he was only Swedish and should be listed as such; albeit it was later revealed that he never acquired said citizenship and had only been representing Sweden. Due to the precedence of this issue, I suggest for neutrality and for the sake of not being controversial, the nationality should not be made a focal point in the lede. SpyroeBM (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Upon further research (a total of 5 minutes), Topuria's nationality has been highlighted as the following; Sky Sports and Jack Baer of Yahoo News has listed Topuria as a Spaniard[6][7] while the editing team at ABC News Australia and Marc Raimondi of ESPN highlight that he is a Georgian living and training in Spain, with special attention to Raimondi's quotation as "Topuria was born in Germany to parents of Georgian descent. His family moved back to the Republic of Georgia when he was young then later to Alicante, Spain. Topuria lives and trains in Spain -- his nickname is "El Matador" -- but also represents Georgia."[8][9] With the ambiguity of his nationality sourced with material vetted on Wikipedia source list, his nationality should be explained in a separate paragraph, while I stand by my original point that the lede should not include nationality. SpyroeBM (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Ilia Topuria discussion

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


Zeroth statement by moderator (Ilia Topuria)

I will open this case for preliminary discussion, for the purpose of starting a neutral Request for Comments to resolve the matter of the nationality or nationalities to list for the subject. This case involves a contentious topic, because it involves nationalities in Eastern Europe, which includes all of those countries that were under Soviet domination in the late twentieth century. For this reason, we will use DRN Rule D, so that by agreeing to the rule, the editors have received notice of contentious topic procedures. Do the editors agree that they want moderator assistance, which will consist mostly of formulating an RFC? What does each editor say should be listed as the nationality of the subject? Are there any other article content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Ilia Topuria)


First statement by moderator (Ilia Topuria)

Apparently some of you didn't read my zeroth statement, which said that we will be using DRN Rule D, or you read it but didn't read the rules, or you read the rules and decided not to agree to the rules. Read the rules again if you want to use this noticeboard. The rules say not to engage in back-and-forth discussion. You are to answer questions from the moderator (me) and address your answers to the moderator and the community. I will collapse any further back-and-forth discussion, and I may (at my discretion) close this case, in which case you will be able to continue back-and-forth discussion that is not getting anywhere. So read and follow the rules.

If you want assistance, I will ask questions in order to formulate a neutrally worded Request for Comments. So my first question is whether the content disagreement is about the infobox, or the lede sentence, or both. There should not be an argument about the body of the article, because the body of the article should explain in sufficient detail. My second question is: What do you want listed in the infobox as his nationality? My third question is: What do you want stated in the lede sentence as his nationality?

This case involves a contentious topic, because it involves nationalities in Eastern Europe, which includes all of those countries that were under Soviet domination in the late twentieth century.

Fourth, are there any other article content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Answer to:
First question: Both
Second question: Either eliminate the "nationality" section of the infobox, or mention both (Georgian and Spanish)
Third question: Maintain the claim that he is "Georgian and Spanish", and remove the current unnecessary and controversial claim that as a UFC fighter only represents Georgia.
Fourth question: There isn't as far as I can tell. DrakeXper (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Ilia Topuria)


Second statement by moderator (Ilia Topuria)

It is not clear that we need an RFC. It appears that we may have agreement that the lede sentence should say that he is a Georgian fighter living in Spain, and that the infobox should list his nationality as Georgian and Spanish. If not, what does anyone else want the lede paragraph and the infobox to say? If an editor has a different opinion, then we probably do need an RFC, and, if so, please state what else the choices should include when I put together the RFC.

Are there any other article content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

this came out today, where he says (in Spanish) that he doesnt have Spanish nationality, so I change my stance and say we all drop it and list him as Georgian. Nswix (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Exactly like Khamzat Chimaev when we thought he had Swedish citizenship but turned out he didn't. So yes, based on Wikipedia guidelines, we can remove Spanish altogether and list him as Georgian. I agree. Caucasian Man (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Ilia Topuria)


Third statement by moderator (Ilia Topuria)

Is there agreement that he should be listed as Georgian, or do we need an RFC? If you have not already said that he should be listed as Georgian, please answer how you think he should be listed. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Ilia Topuria)

Fourth statement by moderator (Ilia Topuria)

If no one disagrees, I will close this case as Resolved, and we will have agreed that we will list him as Georgian. If there is disagreement, please state it below, and there will be an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

New update, today he was granted Spanish citizenship, so I change my vote back to Spanish and Georgian Nswix (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Ilia Topuria)

Fifth statement by moderator (Ilia Topuria)

Please look at the draft RFC at Talk:Ilia Topuria/RFC on Nationality . Does anyone have any comments about the draft RFC before it is moved to the talk page and activated? Please do not enter your statements at this time, because this is a draft until it is moved and activated.

Does anyone have any questions or comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (Ilia Topuria)

India

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by BhandupAamche on 07:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

More information Closed discussion ...
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.

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The issue is actually about mass deletion of India's train pages, preferably-Shatabdi, Jan Shatabdi, Tejas, Rajdhani, Duronto, Humsafar, Uday, Vande Bharat, Antyodaya, Amrit Bharat, AC Express which are as good as a railway information website providing info of their timings, coaches etc in every pages. Rather making seperate pages of each service, one can make all collective services of those specific trains in one table similar to Vande Bharat Express *Services* section.

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

[]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The resolution should be that to permanently delete all the Shatabdi, Rajdhani, Tejas, Duronto, Uday, Antyodaya, Humsafar, Jan Shatabdi, Vande Bharat, Amrit Bharat, AC Express service articles and place like table form adding all services just like done in vande bharat service section removing all the links while placing their table form.

Summary of dispute by Arnav Bhate

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

Summary of dispute by MPGuy2824

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

India discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Sorry to scurry in before a volunteer does, but could you please explain how the "one table" solution—as I understand it—solves the underlying problem of Wikipedia not being a directory? Your notion that Wikipedia is "as good as a railway information website providing info of their timings, coaches etc" is part of the problem. It simply does not seem like encyclopedic information, and you don't seem to be claiming that it is encyclopedic, either. Remsense诉 07:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
information Administrator note Filer has been blocked as a sockpuppet. I'll leave DRN regulars to resolve this thread by whatever process they normally use. The WordsmithTalk to me 01:40, 2 March 2024 (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.
Close

Draft:Tristan Tate

– New discussion.
Filed by Mr vili on 03:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I'm contesting the refusal to move a Wikipedia article about Tristan Tate to the main namespace, arguing that he meets notability criteria through significant media coverage, his accomplishments as a kickboxing champion, his reality TV appearance, and his extremely high profile criminal case.

Despite presenting various sources to establish his notability independently of his brother Andrew Tate, editor PARAKANYAA disputes the reliability and sufficiency of these sources, labeling many as unreliable and not indicative of standalone notability. My suggestion to resolve the issue through a community "Articles for Deletion" (AfD) discussion has been met with resistance, leading to a deadlock over the article's eligibility for mainspace, prompting me to seek dispute resolution to evaluate the article's merit for inclusion based on Wikipedia's notability standards.

I have done research to find notable sources with WP:SIGCOV, which have all referenced him in significance

  • The Independent (UK)
  • The Hindustan Times
  • Essentially Sports
  • Sidekick Boxing
  • Sportsbrief
  • Sportsrush
  • Accumulate.com.au
  • BBC News
  • Reuters
  • The Chess Drum
  • Various Romanian news outlets
  • Storm Gym
  • MoneyMade.io

And so many more sources that you can find via a simple google search

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Ideally, I would like the article to be moved to mainspace and immediately go through an AfD to settle the matter.

Summary of dispute by PARAKANYAA

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

I stand by my opinion that the sources that primarily address Tristan Tate are unreliable or passing mentions. What does address him in depth is solely in reference to the crime case his brother is involved in. The purpose of AfC is to approve articles into main space that the reviewer perceives as having a greater than 50% chance at surviving at AfD: I see virtually no chance this would. Also, I wasn't the first person to decline the draft and I didn't reject it, so he could have simply asked someone else (who would have likely said the same thing). This feels unnecessary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Robert McClenon

First, DRN is not a forum for disputes over the acceptance of drafts. They can be discussed at the AFC Help Desk or the Teahouse. Second, I cannot act as a moderator or mediator in this dispute, because I am involved, having previously commented on the draft. I observed that there was a history of sockpuppetry about drafts and articles about Tristan Tate, and that a reviewer should check whether edits to the drafts were made by sockpuppets or by good-faith editors. Third, I am willing to ignore the rule that drafts should only be accepted if the reviewer thinks that there is more than a 50% chance of surviving AFD, because the current editor is proposing that the draft be moved into article space for the purpose of a deletion discussion. It is my opinion that the interests of the encyclopedia will be advanced by a deletion discussion. So, if the filing editor wants to have a deletion discussion, and resubmits the draft for review, I will accept the draft so that it can be nominated for deletion, which will resolve the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with this assessment. I believe there is zero risk in moving the draft into mainspace for the purpose of undergoing an AfD. I am not attached with the outcome, but to say it has "virtually no chance" it would survive is somewhat absurd and biased.
I will resubmit the article for review Mr Vili talk 23:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon The article has been re-submitted Mr Vili talk 23:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
User:Mr vili - The article has been accepted, and is now in article space, so that there can be a deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon can we archive/close this dispute as it is now going through AfD which should be the final step in this process. Mr Vili talk 11:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Tristan Tate discussion

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

Age of Mythology

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Orange-kun on 18:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC).
More information Closed discussion ...
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

I'm adding info into the article in a serie of edits and then it gets reverted. Instead of discussing with me what's wrong in a polite and copperative way my edits just reverted captured as disruptive or unconstructive. This article is about videogame, I'm adding the new info about future remaster and also about user scores from Steam statistics, why is it disruptive? I tried to change wording several times, found another sources, but yet, we here and the only thing that this user is said to me that my English is not correct, he has no time and my edits will be reverted anyway. Without explanation what exactly is uncorrect? My info is wrong or what? It's nice that you have no time, but you found your time clicking revert.

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Is it normal to revert ALL edits at once just calling them disruptive while I'm only was going to update the info and add some sourced critics? Why can't one user just fix the grammar mistakes if he sees instead of reverting? He reverting the version written in 'perfect English' but with outdated info! What is the sense in this? I think these reverts are disruptive, not my edits!

Summary of dispute by Waxworker

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

Summary of dispute by MrGoldenfold007

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

Age of Mythology discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Discussion was only opened a few minutes ago at Talk:Age of Mythology--editors should maybe attempt to hash things out there first before bringing to DRN. signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 3 March 2024 (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.
Close

Montacute House

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by A.D.Hope on 16:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC).
More information Closed discussion, Montacute House ...
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

The infobox of Montacute House is currently partially collapsed. I believe that it should not be based on MOS:COLLAPSE, which states that 'collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading.' It additionally states that 'a few infoboxes also use pre-collapsed sections for infrequently accessed details' and that 'if information in a list, infobox, or other non-navigational content seems extraneous or trivial enough to inspire pre-collapsing it, consider raising a discussion on the article (or template) talk page about whether it should be included at all.' I do not believe that either of these passages apply to this infobox, as the Template:Infobox historic site is used on many similar articles and, as far as I'm aware, this article, Little Moreton Hall, and (until recently) Rufford Old Hall are the only cases in which the infobox has been partially collapsed. This suggests an informal consensus that the collapsed parameters are not generally considered infrequently accessed or trivial.

Other editors have opposed this, preferring to keep the infobox collapsed. I won't speak for them, but I believe their positions are largely based on this 2009 discussion, in which a collapsed infobox was a compromise.


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

The issue has been discussed extensively at Talk:Montacute House#Infobox collapse. I also opened a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:COLLAPSE, and have publicised both.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Clarification on how the MOS should be applied in this case would be helpful.

Summary of dispute by Nikkimaria

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

Summary of dispute by Murgatroyd49

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

Summary of dispute by Johnbod

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

Summary of dispute by KJP1

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

Unproductive, time-consuming and divisive edit wars over infoboxes have been ongoing since I joined in 2007. The MoS says, "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article". The local consensus agreed at Montacute House, to use a collapsed infobox, has prevailed for 15 years. User:A.D.Hope's determination to overturn that consensus, pursued here, here, and now here, would re-ignite, rather than end, that debate, as we would then revert to the 2009 argument over whether to have an infobox at all. I have no wish to personalise this content dispute, but the filer's actions here follow a pattern, which has relevance. Examples include: Royal standards of Canada, forfeited honours, the Cornish flag and images of Essex. In each case, the issue is predicated on an interpretation of MoS, but in each case, the behaviour displayed is a determination to gain their point, and a refusal to acknowledge other views/interpretations. My suggested resolutions are that the prevailing consensus at Montacute House continues, and that the filer reflect on whether raising repeated RfCs, or continuing with their high-quality content contributions, is of greater benefit to Wikipedia's users. KJP1 (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

If you had no wish to personalise this content dispute then you should not have written the second half of your comment. Your remarks are uncharitable, and do not show that I refuse to acknowledge other views or interpretations. To give a single example, you should note that I was open to other image options at Talk:Essex#Infobox images, and that I went to some effort to reconcile with Rupples after a misunderstanding.
In any case, this dispute is about Montacute, not me. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I think the guidance suggests we don't engage in a back-and-forth, but I'll leave that to the volunteer who picks this up. KJP1 (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
The guidance also states that you should 'comment on content, not contributors', but all three comments so far have contained personal comments about me. I hope you can understand why that would be difficult, but you're right that it goes against the guidance to reply.
I will disengage, but I'd like to note that I still have a great deal of respect you as an editor. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by AdamBlack89

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

I really can’t be arsed to play with bad losers! This has been discussed ‘ad nauseam’ elsewhere. AdamBlack89 (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by EPEAviator

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

Summary of dispute by The Lady Catherine de Burgh

Oh! How nice of you all to think of me, I don’t believe anyone has contacted me since poor Benito died in 1945. Such a charming man, did you know him too? So misunderstood! Now what is it you all want to discuss? I do charge for public comments. My nephew can send payment details if you care to enquire. I accept most credit cards, but cash is always nice if you have it. You see this is where the poor dear Phelips at Montacute House went so sadly wrong, they took their eye off the finances. Then, they let in that dreadful pompous Curzon man, with all his ‘sinning on tiger skins With Elinor Glyn? Or erring with her on some other fur?’ Well, it’s not good for people, they get hairs in their crevices and whatnots and they end up, wasting their time, on pages like this. So, I suggest you all get outside in the fresh air and go fishing or stalking, or even ratting, and do something useful and stop bothering very poor and defenceless old ladies such as myself! The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:IAR, I’ll reply directly…
I didn’t even read the original dispute (saw yr name on the left after being summoned for another thread), but we need more bubble-popping stuff like this. This sort of thing would be very productive in areas like, say, American politics.
Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Rodw

I objected to the removal of the infobox in 2009, and accepted the collapsed version as a compromise with those who did not want it included at all. I continue to support including the information provided in the infobox for those that wish to be able to access this information quickly.— Rod talk 09:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Montacute House discussion

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


Zeroth statement by moderator (Montacute House)

I am ready to act as the moderator if at least two editors request a moderator, and agree to DRN Rule A. Some editors have not replied yet, and should reply to this statement if they wish to participate in discussion. Some editors have declined to take part in discussion. (We will not pay anyone for their opinion. Paid editing is discouraged in Wikipedia.) Two editors have correctly quoted two of the rules in DRN Rule A, so I will not repeat the rules, but I will ask the editors to state that they agree to the rules. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article in the encyclopedia, so the first step is to identify the scope of the content disagreement. I understand that one of the issues has to do with the infobox. We can discuss infobox issues and any other article content issues. Each editor who wishes to take part in this discussion is asked to make an introductory statement, which should state what they want to change in the article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). Robert McClenon (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Montacute House)

  • Robert, to confirm, I'd be pleased for you to pick this up, and I will make every effort to abide by the requirements. Assuming that the filer is too, and I think they are, you have your necessary two editors. I think the dispute can be summarised as:
(1) Does MoS, or other policy/guidance/convention, preclude the use of a collapsed infobox, as currently in use at Montacute House, or is such a collapsed infobox an acceptable, article-specific, compromise which can legitimately be agreed by involved editors?
(2) I do think that a determination on the above should also include a consideration of next steps, that is: if a collapsed infobox cannot be used, should it be replaced by a full infobox, or by no infobox? My concern is that, unless we cover this point, we are back in the 2009 impasse to which the collapsed infobox was the resolution. KJP1 (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
p.s. I don't want to prolong/complicate this discussion, but input from a user who actually understands how infoboxes work on various technologies, might be useful. I'm a numpty on this issue but, when I try Montacute House on my mobile devices, iPad, iPhone and android phone, I get the collapsed infobox on opening. But when, as an example, I try Cragside, which has an uncollapsed infobox, I get the uncollapsed IB on the iPad and iPhone, but a collapsed IB, labelled "Quick Facts", on my android phone? I've no idea why, but I'm sure I've read that the majority of Wikipedia readers use mobile devices so it might be helpful to properly understand their experience. KJP1 (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I can also confirm that I'll abide by the rules, and I'm happy you've taken on the moderation, Robert. I agree with KJP1's points, and don't have anything further to add at the moment. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


First statement by moderator (Montacute House)

I have read the background of this dispute, and I am changing the rules to DRN Rule D, because this is a dispute about an infobox, and infoboxes are a contentious topic, as found by the ArbCom in the second infobox case. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. You probably knew that, but it requires restating, because some editors are not civil in infobox discussions. It appears that this dispute has been simmering for fifteen years.

On the one hand, I see nothing in either the MOS or the ArbCom decisions that says that a collapsed infobox may be used as a compromise. On the other hand, I see nothing in either the MOS or the ArbCom decisions that says that a collapsed infobox may not be used as a compromise. It seems to me like the most unsatisfactory compromise, used because it makes all of the parties equally unhappy. I am asking each editor to state whether they think that the article should or should not have an infobox, if those are the only two choices. (A collapsed infobox is not a choice for this purpose.) If this dispute cannot be resolved by discussion, it will be resolved by a Request for Comments. It does not appear that there has been an RFC. It appears that in 2009 normal discussion led to an impasse, but with no attempt to use an RFC to bring in additional editors followed by formal closure. So please state your opinion as to whether there should be an infobox. These statements will be preliminary to an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Montacute House)

  • On balance I would support an infobox, as, although not universally used, it's become common practice to have one in similar articles and I do believe that a summary of information such as the location, building phases, architectural style, and the builder is useful. It isn't essential that the article has one, however.
It may be tricky to attract enough attention to an RfC. Despite the current normal discussion having been open for nearly a month and being publicised, both it and the related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:COLLAPSE have failed to attract many outside editors. I'm not against an RfC by any means, but it may not be fruitful unless it does have a wider participation.
If it's allowed, I'd be interested to if you have any thoughts on how MOS:COLLAPSE might apply in this case. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Given that choice, I would rather not have an infobox, but that is not really what this dispute is about. I would (and did) rather reluctantly accept having an infobox of reasonable size, complying with WP:INFOBOX, and only containing the key information that readers are likely to be interested in:"keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". This emphatically does not include 8 lines each on the "Listed Building – Grade I" and "National Register of Historic Parks and Gardens" listings, including the day of the months in respectively 1961 and 1984 when the registrations happened, and the two registration numbers. Not to mention the registered name, which in each case is, amazingly, "Montacute House". This cruft should not be in the infobox at all, but near the bottom of the text, probably in a footnote. The registrations should have a line each in the infobox, if there must be one. The collapsed infobox was a compromise, which, despite the old consensus being re-affirmed in recent discussions, A.D.Hope has been completely intransigent in refusing to accept. Wikipedia needs to decide whether it is an encyclopaedia or a database. The situation has I think got worse since 2009, when the gardens scheme had not been added to the box (or most similar houses). Johnbod (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
  • If it were a personal choice, I would include an infobox. The articles I have taken to FAC, from broadly Start level, all include one. But I recognise that this view is not universally accepted. Therefore, for FA articles I have worked on at FAR where the original editors did not include one, e.g. Belton House, I have not imposed one. My position is thus to respect the views of the main contributing editors. Where I am that main contributing editor, I have one. Where I am not, and the intention of those that are is not to include an IB, I don't. This leads to my concern regarding an RfC. This will almost certainly have one of two outcomes. Either, as A.D.Hope suggests, it will attract little interest and be inconclusive. Or it will create another virulent and divisive time-sink, like this, or many, many other examples...and be inconclusive. We will not resolve the pro/anti Infobox debate here, because it is not capable of resolution. My own view is that we should therefore accept that there are differing, and equally valid, views as to the value of infoboxes, (see the two comments above), recognise that they are actually pretty unimportant in terms of the overall quality of an article, and to have policies/guidance that accommodate this divergence of view, including the option of a collapsed infobox. We have 6.7 million articles on Wikipedia, of which 6,437 are Featured Articles. We have to accept that there is more than one way to write a good one. KJP1 (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Montacute House)

Some editors have expressed concerns that an RFC will not be adequately participated in, but that it will be a divisive timesink. I don't know of another way to resolve the infobox dispute over this article, which has been going on since 2009. Do the editors have another suggestion for how to resolve this ongoing disagreement? If the editors want me to choose one of the choices, either an infobox or no infobox, I will not make that choice. DRN is not content arbitration. I am again asking the editors to identify any other content issues that they wish to discuss, besides the infobox. If the pro-infobox editors wish to resolve the dispute, they can agree that the article does not need an infobox. If the anti-infobox editors wish to resolve the dispute, they can agree that the infobox summarizes content and is useful for casual readers. If an editor is negative about an RFC on an infobox, they can propose an alternate solution to the controversy, or can withdraw their "side" from discussion.

I have read the guideline on collapsing, and I do not see collapsing an infobox listed as a compromise between pro-infobox and anti-infobox factions. Evidently at least some editors think that the status quo of a collapsed infobox is undesirable. Any editor who does not want an RFC is invited to offer an alternative. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Montacute House)

Montacute House
The garden facade
Interactive map of Montacute House
50°57′09″N 2°42′58″W,
LocationMontacute, Somerset
Site notes
OwnerNational Trust
Listed Building – Grade I
  • Second comment by KJP1. With the aim of trying to find a compromise, would a pared-back, un-collapsed, infobox be acceptable to those who would actually prefer not to have one at all, while including the "essential" detail, Grade I, Listed park, that those who favour an IB want? I'm envisaging something like the below. Sorry it makes a bit of a mess of the page. All of the "important detail/bureaucratic cruft" (take your pick!), listing numbers etc., could then go in a prose section. KJP1 (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Robert - not wanting to breach the rules by a back-and-forth conversation, but just for clarity, my position on this article, if I had to chose between having an IB and not having an IB, would be not. This is because the main contributing editor - User:Giano, in two guises, at 41.3% - did not want one. This is exactly what I, and the late, lamented, Vami IV, did at the Belton House FAR, where Giano was again the lead contributor. I could have chosen to insert one there, and indeed I am now the main contributor on that article, but I chose not to. Ditto here, and here. KJP1 (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Robert, I think you might be inching us towards a compromise. Recognising that Rod did want an IB, and they are the second highest contributor to the article, if JohnBod could live with the truncated version illustrated, I could certainly do a prose paragraph, to go either above or below In popular culture, to contain those listing details, which we've all agreed we don't want in an IB. Perhaps if you were to frame that as a compromise solution, we could see if it flies? KJP1 (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
    Apologies for extending the back-and-forth – I'm only doing so to correct my misinterpretation of KJP1's first statement in my second statement below.
    Given KJP1 and Johnbod do not want an infobox, I would follow this consensus. I agree with KJP1's reasoning in following the wishes of the main contributor, assuming there are no other factors at play. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  • An RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to clarify to what extent and in what circumstances infoboxes should be collapsed might be worthwhile. The current guideline isn't as clear as it could be, which has made the Montacute discussion more difficult.
Assuming collapsing isn't an option, the fact myself and KJP1 support an infobox and Johnbod can tolerate one suggests that having an infobox would be acceptable. Other editors may not agree with this, however.
I agree with Johnbod that the listed building parameters take up too much space. As this affects more than just the Montacute House article, discussion about modifying them should take place at template:infobox historic site. I would be happy to help with organising this. My preference would be to do this after the conclusion of the RfC about MOS:COLLAPSE mentioned above. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I think the stripped-down IB is way better, but in fact goes a bit too far. I think my detailed comments on that belong at talk on the house, but I would welcome a more general discussion at template:infobox historic site, when this is over. We now have discussions on 3 pages on this, some with multiple threads. Don't let's start another. Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Montacute House)

I am providing a section for back-and-forth discussion about a compromise on a stripped-down infobox. I am also asking each editor who supports an infobox to state what they think is the minimum that they want in the infobox, and each editor who opposes an infobox to state what, if anything, they are willing to accept as a compromise. You may make these statements either as statements to the community (no back-and-forth responses) or back-and-forth statements. If back-and-forth discussion becomes repetitive, I will stop it and resume normal procedure. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Montacute House)


Fourth statement by moderator (Montacute House)

Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Remember that the purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, and in this case to improve the infobox by agreeing on a compromise. Are the editors at or near agreement about the infobox? If not, will an RFC be needed? Are there any other content-related questions or issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Montacute House)

  • Am I right in saying that we've reached a consensus not to include an infobox at Montacute House, the principal reason being that the main contributing editor didn't want one? A.D.Hope (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Personally, I thought we were closer to agreeing a, very much trimmed down, infobox. You would like one, as would RodW. I would have one if I had written the article from scratch. While Johnbod, and we can assume Giano, would prefer not to have one, Johnbod can live with the slimmed-down version. As to Giano, we know they accepted the collapsed version as a compromise. My guess is that they would prefer a much-truncated version to a full IB if those were the only options. KJP1 (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


Fifth statement by moderator (Montacute House)

Do the editors taking part in this discussion agree that the consensus is no infobox?

Do the editors taking part in this discussion agree that the consensus is a small infobox?

If we have agreement on either of these alternatives, we will close this discussion. Otherwise, we will resort to an RFC.

Are there any other questions about content at this point? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (Montacute House)

  • I can agree with the reasoning in KJP1's fourth statement above. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    Although I'm not quite sure what a 'much trimmed down' infobox means. We can work that out on the article talk page, perhaps. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Support a "small" infobox", along the lines of the exemplar given. KJP1 (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


Sixth statement by moderator (Montacute House)

Do the editors taking part in this discussion agree that the consensus is a small infobox? The exact content of the infobox can be decided by normal editing.

If there is no disagreement, I will close this discussion as resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors (Montacute House)

  • Robert - I think most of the involved editors are too exhausted by the discussion/have other things to do, but I believe that is indeed the consensus we have reached. I'm sure we can agree the specific contents through Talkpage discussion. Thank you very much for your help on this one. KJP1 (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I can't add much to what KJP1 has said, except to say that I agree and to repeat their thanks for moderating this discussion. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion (Montacute House)

  • To kick the discussion off: considering a spectrum from NONE; Bramshill House; to COLLAPSED Little Moreton Hall; to FULL Cragside; I think the minimum details for an IB to be of any value would be something like:
Name / Image (as large as permissible) / Location / Listed Building Status (one line) / Historic Park Status (one line) / Map
I could probably lose Governing body (easy to cover in the lead) / Type (again in lead) / Architect (again in lead, although if the building was strongly associated with one architect, e.g. Hearst Castle & Julia Morgan, there might be a case?) Architectural style (again in lead). These last two do illustrate the challenges of trying for an accurate IB summary - how many architects would you list for Buckingham Palace, what architectural style would you attribute to it? Hope this is helpful as a starting suggestion. KJP1 (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I suspect that which parameters are used really depends on the article. 'Type', for example, is used well at Alfriston Clergy House, a major surviving example of a Wealden hall house, a specific type of dwelling. It's less well-deployed at Knole, a great sprawling mess of a place which doesn't conform to a single type, and which is described rather broadly as a country house.
To answer the last part of your comment, at Criccieth Castle I listed the builders (owners, really) and building phases in the infobox. The castle was built in three main phases, and while this is explained in the article body it is useful to have them laid out simply. For houses with particularly complex building histories this approach would probably produce unwieldy results, though. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
  • While the list at the top of this section is a reasonable start, I don't think it is possible to give a standard minimum list, even for as narrow a group as English country houses. For example the old expanded Montacute box had "Type: prodigy house, Style: Elizabethan architecture". Really since the great majority of prodigy houses are Elizabethan, with a few from the next reign, and all are country houses, "Type: Elizabethan prodigy house" covers all that pretty well. Something on type/style is much more important than the listing info, even at one line; that is where the appalling UNESCO World Heritage Site box falls down. The The main date of completion of the existing structure is important, if there is one, but often there isn't. In the case of Montacute, the builder Edward Phelips (speaker) isn't essential for the IB imo, but for eg Hatfield House it would be. The trouble is that for the general run of articles, the drive-by people who added the infoboxes, mostly some years ago now, had no idea what was important for a particular article and what wasn't. I notice that the FA Ham House doesn't mention the gardens listing in the IB at all, though it is in the lead - and the gardens there are way more important than those at Montacute, where the layout is essentially 19/20th century. I am one of the very, very few WP editors who currently write on English garden history, and I'm not that interested in the gardens listings as a key fact. Johnbod (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
    I think we're largely in agreement. Do you think it's worth opening a discussion in the future about the listings boxes, or is it something we can live with? I'm working on Wightwick Manor at the moment and have reduced the boxes to just their listing numbers, which I think works quite well (and if you'd like to chip in on the gardens side please consider this an invitation). A.D.Hope (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd agree that we've largely reached agreement here, and I think User:Rodw will be content to the extent that there will be a box - but they can correct me if I'm wrong. My concern about any wider discussion remains. Either there will be little interest, and it will be another conversation between the few of us. Or there will be a lot of interest, with attendant heat, and we shall just discover, once again, that people get very worked up over IBs, and that there are very divergent, and irreconcilable, views. Personally, I'd just chalk this one up as a local consensus and move on to other things. But I understand if others want a wider discussion. KJP1 (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
As I have previously said I believe many readers find an infobox useful, however I do not feel strongly enough for long discussions like this or anywhere else.— Rod talk 08:21, 1 March 2024 (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.
Close

Boeing 737 MAX

Russo-Ukrainian War

Heiner Rindermann

Dragon

MP4 file_format

Turkey

Rio Grande 223

Telegram

Sweet Baby Inc.

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks