Revision as of 19:25, 23 February 2024

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 07:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

Current disputes

Ilia Topuria

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Ilia Topuria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Nswix (talk · contribs)
• Cassiopeia (talk · contribs)
• DrakeXper (talk · contribs)
• Lemabeta (talk · contribs)
• Caucasian Man (talk · contribs)
• BasilE99 (talk · contribs)
• FCBWanderer (talk · contribs)
• WikiJuan (talk · contribs)
• Gsfelipe94 (talk · contribs)
• SpyroeBM (talk · contribs)

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

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 Misplaced Pages MOS:NATIONALITY guidelines. Cassiopeia talk 09:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by DrakeXper

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

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

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

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/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

Summary of dispute by FCBWanderer

Summary of dispute by WikiJuan

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 Misplaced Pages guidelines and do not care about Misplaced Pages guidelines) as they just want to edit which what seems to be reasonable of their standard but not per Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages have guidelines. Cassiopeia talk 00:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you. Misplaced Pages 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, and the official UFC account uses both countries (Georgia and Spain) as representative countries. 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 "
• " the 25-year-old young man of Georgian parents and naturalized Spanish.

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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." With the ambiguity of his nationality sourced with material vetted on Misplaced Pages 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

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)

Second statements by editors (Ilia Topuria)

Draft:Tristan Tate

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Draft:Tristan Tate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mr vili (talk · contribs)
• PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs)
• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I'm contesting the refusal to move a Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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

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

2024 F1 Academy season

{DRN archive top|Closed due to lack of notice. It is now 48 hours after I said that the filing editor had not notified the other editors. The instructions state that the filing editor should notify the other editors. This case is now closed. Continue discussion on the article talk page. Do not edit-war. If discussion is unsuccessful, consider the use of a neutrally worded RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 23 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

• 2024 F1 Academy season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• LouisOrr27 (talk · contribs)
• MSport1005 (talk · contribs)
• Cerebral726 (talk · contribs)

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

Summary of dispute by Cerebral726

2024 F1 Academy season discussion

• 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.

|}

1977 anti-Tamil pogrom

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cossde (talk · contribs)
• Oz346 (talk · contribs)
• Petextrodon (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Current dispute is over cited content has been removed by two users Oz346 and Petextrodon who have repeatedly removed cited content added by me claiming "ruining the flow of the article with unnecessary details". Given the highly controversial nature of the article, I feel that the events leading up to the events of at the core of the article needs to be clearly stated to established the context of the events mentioned in the article. Furthermore, these events have been mentioned in the government commission that has been cited heavily to narrate the events that took place during the time covered by the article. However these editors feel that should focus on the pogrom which I feel that is non-WP:NPOV.

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

Talk:1977_anti-Tamil_pogrom#Discussion_on_background_section

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Decide if the content that has been removed should be kept in the article.

Summary of dispute by Oz346

User Cossde wants to have an overly long background section, which expands greatly on Tamil separatism, anti police violence and the 1977 Tamil electoral history. See his preferred version here: . I think this is of undue weight and that the current background section already summarises these topics concisely, without submerging the actual topic of the article which is the 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom. His reliance on the framework of a government commission which has been described as being biased towards the government by other reliable sources, should not be the basis of how an encyclopaedic article on this topic is framed.

1977 anti-Tamil pogrom discussion

Montacute House

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Montacute House (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• A.D.Hope (talk · contribs)
• Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)
• Murgatroyd49 (talk · contribs)
• Johnbod (talk · contribs)
• KJP1 (talk · contribs)
• AdamBlack89 (talk · contribs)
• EPEAviator (talk · contribs)
• The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk · contribs)
• Rodw (talk · contribs)

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 Misplaced Pages 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

Summary of dispute by Murgatroyd49

Summary of dispute by Johnbod

Summary of dispute by KJP1

Summary of dispute by AdamBlack89

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

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)

Summary of dispute by Rodw

Montacute House discussion

Boeing E-6B Mercury

Closed as premature. There has been no discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Boeing E-6 Mercury, only on a user talk page, and that discussion has has not been in complete paragraphs. Discussion should be on an article talk page, because sometimes third-party editors who are viewing the article talk page may have useful input. Discussion should continue for more than 24 hours, with at least two statements by each editor. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be made here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

1. https://twitter.com/ufc/status/1759094502973907450?t=bRQ1TlLbMeo8b77vRivfgw&s=19
2. https://www.mundodeportivo.com/us/ufc/20230627/654612/ilia-topuria-intimidante-mensaje-quienes-le-dicen-espanol.html
3. https://twitter.com/ufc/status/1759094502973907450?t=bRQ1TlLbMeo8b77vRivfgw&s=19
4. https://www.elespanol.com/omicrono/tecnologia/20240218/mark-zuckerberg-alex-volkanovski-derrotado-ilia-topuria-combate-ufc/833666637_0.html
5. https://www.mundodeportivo.com/us/ufc/20230105/30405/ufc-ilia-topuria-tuvo-feroz-pelea-bar-nocturno.html
6. "UFC 298: Ilia Topuria knocks out Alexander Volkanovski to become new featherweight champion". Sky Sports. February 19, 2024. Retrieved February 20, 2024.
7. Jack Baer (February 18, 2024). "UFC 298: Ilia Topuria KOs Alexander Volkanovski to win featherweight belt in stunner". Yahoo News. Retrieved February 20, 2024.
8. "Alexander Volkanovski defeated by Ilia Topuria as he relinquishes featherweight title at UFC 298". ABC News Australia. February 18, 2024. Retrieved February 20, 2024.
9. Marc Raimondi (February 18, 2024). "Ilia Topuria knocks out Alexander Volkanovski at UFC 298". ESPN. Retrieved February 20, 2024.

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards