Revision as of 23:51, 16 November 2017

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

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

This is an informal place to resolve 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.

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, 253, 254

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

Current disputes

Talk:Arab Brazilians

Closed. The filing editor hasn't edited in a week since filing. I'm not going to put this case on hold, but simply to close it without prejudice, that is, so that it can be opened again later if this dispute recurs. In the meantime, the editors should discuss any disagreements on the article talk page. There is a request for another editor to offer an opinion at WikiProject Brazil. Do not edit-war. Be civil. If discussion on the article talk page is inconclusive, a new thread can be opened here, or a Request for Comments can be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Nyheter Idag

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Nyheter Idag (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• David A (talk · contribs)
• Liftarn (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have inserted a POV tag to the page, as I think that it uses several highly unreliable sources in order to unfairly character-assassinate the news website.

I and Liftarn have a long history of arguments, and they always result in that I feel like I am talking with a fact-resistant stonewall, which turns me increasingly angry, as I am overworked in general, and do not have the time and energy to properly deal with this. I need an uninvolved party to attempt to mediate between us so we can reach some conclusions.

We also have another discussion here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Crime_in_Sweden

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We talked about this at length at the reliable sources noticeboard, but did not get satisfactory input.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=797834788#Source_for_calling_Nyheter_Idag_xenophobic — Preceding unsigned comment added by David A (talk • contribs)

How do you think we can help?

It would be very helpful if you could evaluate whether or not the sources in question are reliable, or should be removed for a NPOV encyclopaedic overview.

Summary of dispute by Liftarn

I have on multiple occasions tried to educate David A (talk · contribs) about the use of reliable sources, but the problem appears to be that if a source says something he disagrees with it's an "opinion" that can be deleted at will. He demands to use primary sources ("proof" he calls it) instead. // Liftarn (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Nyheter Idag discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page, and the filing editor has notified the other editor. I will again remind both editors that they should focus their comments on article content, not on each other. The next step is to wait for a response from the other editor, since participation is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• As the other editor has responded, I'm going togo ahead and open this. Please provide your answers to the following questions, as I think it could be a good starting point.

1. What information should or should not be in this article?
2. What sources demonstrate this information is accurate and notable?
3. Is there anything else you believe the other editor fails to acknowledge or understand?

ProgrammingGeek 21:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

First round response by David A

1. Preferably only the ones that treat Nyheter Idag as a primary subject of analysis, and offer examples supporting the claims, not the ones that simply mention it in passing with an unproven accusation.
2. Resumé, Expressen, Expo
3. Liftarn keeps inserting extremely slanted references in order to character-assassinate the news site, to further his political agenda. He has shown no compunctions from using 1-sentence offhanded mentions as somehow being encyclopaedic, while elsewhere repeatedly berating reliable statistics from official institutions and cited by reliable newspapers, if the facts of reality contradict his personal ideology.

David A (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

First round response by Liftarn

1. The core issue is regarding the description of Nyheter Idag as a racist site. I think it should be described using WP:RS and avoid WP:ALLEGED. We have several reliable sources from two different countries supporting it. As it's the defining characteristic of the site it should be next to their own description, not downplayed or hidden away.
2. Expressen, Nöjesguiden, Omni, YLE, Nöjesguiden, Dagens Arena
3. I think the main problem is that he wants to use primary sources (what he calls "proof") and not what reliable sources say (what he calls "opinions").

// Liftarn (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Second Statement by Moderator

David A, please do not comment on Liftarn's personal "philosophy". While POV-pushing is a problem, this is a fairly loaded accusation, and it does not belong on DRN because we do not deal with editor behaviour, only content disputes.

Also: I don't really like the term character-assassinate either. It implies some form of wrongdoing, whereas this issue is over whether or not it should be included -- a content dispute.

So, the key issue is to whether reliable sources describe the website as racist. I am not familiar with the Swedish press, and I'm unsure which news sources are considered reliable. So, here are the questions I think need to be answered:

David A: are the sources that Liftarn provided in his response reliable, in your opinion?

Is the website's defining characteristic racism, is it a significant part of it/is it well known for being racist, or is it a minor issue?

How much weight do you feel should be given to the allegations of racism?

Thanks, ProgrammingGeek 17:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

1. Of course, racism is always a major issue. What I mean is, was it in some controversy where it published one racist article, had a racist editor resign, etc

Second round response by David A

Understood. I will try to keep my irritation and autistic lack of mental filters in check.

I do not mind most of the sources as such, as long as they are used to reference news, or contain columns that treat Nyheter Idag as a primary focus of examination. As I mentioned earlier, what I mind is that the cited sources only feature subjective accusations of the variety "the racist site Nyheter Idag interviewed a certain person". This is an offhanded subjective mention very unbefitting of an encyclopaedia.

I am not overly familiar with the website, but the articles that I have read have not contained any outright racist material, no, and there have been no such incidents mentioned in major newspapers that I know of. They generally seem to attempt to hold a high journalistic standard in their reporting, and handle a variety of topics.

David A (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Second round response by Liftarn

David A did give a rather good summary. We have reliable sources saying the site is racist, but since David A have done some WP:OR (he read some texts on the site) he don't want to include it in the article. // Liftarn (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Second round discussion

Third Statement by Moderator

David A has posted this at WP:3O. If he could remove that request or respond saying he'd rather go the 3O route, that'd be great. In the meantime:

1. How much coverage of the alleged racism is appropriate, in your opinion, for this article?
2. Are the sources provided by the editors conflicting? Is there competing sources as to whether or not the site is racist?

Sorry I was awol over the weekend, I do other things then. ProgrammingGeek 16:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Third round response by David A

I have removed the third opinion and request for comments requests. They can wait until later, if this option does not reach a solution.

1. I do not mind coverage, if the articles in question actually analyse Nyheter Idag as a main subject. I just find it insane for an encyclopaedia to include offhanded unfounded 1-sentence accusations that come from articles that are mainly about other topics.
2. I do not think that the site is mentioned much in regular newspapers, other than when they break a news story, and regular media later pick it up and occasionally give them credit. Regardless, mindless slander does not sit well with me.

No problem, we can continue from here. However, what I really need is a judgement regarding Misplaced Pages policy for these types of situations. David A (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Third round response by Liftarn

1. It's main claim to fame is that the site it's a part of the far right web milieu so I'd say that racism is quite central. It was founded by a member of the far right party Sverigedemokraterna who also have worked on Avpixlat and Politiskt Inkorrekt. The site was registered by Kent Ekeroth in 2011.
2. It has also been described as "right-wing populist and far right alternative media", but not as not being racist. So I'd say the only conflict is between the sources and David A and how the site describes themselves. When mentioned in mainstream media it's usually as far-right, right populist or racist.

// Liftarn (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation)

This really isn't suitable for DRN, consensus has already been established against the filing editor on the article's talk page, and having a discussion here is unnecessary. If the filing editor is still unhappy, I ask that he discuss it further or open an RfC. ProgrammingGeek 15:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Batman (1989_film)

Closed, apparently abandoned. The filing editor has not notified the other editors a week after filing the case, and has not asked what the next step is. Please take any further discussion to the article talk page. Do not edit-war. Another thread may be opened here if necessary with proper notice. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Hallam FM

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Hallam FM (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Butdavid (talk · contribs)
• Davey2010 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An ongoing dispute in regards to what is deemed to be considered as a 'Notable Presenter'. A Dispute Resolution Notice request was filed by myself, dated 5 June, 2014, in regards to 'Notable Presenters'. User: 'Doniago' mediated at that time. I have included a number of past presenters in the 'Notable Presenters' section of the Hallam FM article, that sadly do not have their own Wiki article to link to, but were undeniably regarded as 'notable presenters', in the sense that they played a huge part in the early years of the station. I cited these names with what I considered as reliable sources. ie Sheffield Newspaper article; YouTube Yorkshire TV video; a website set up by a former presenter of the station, which included recordings and genuine photo's; a forum showing original photos of presenters and a correct LinkedIn source. I am also from the city where the radio station was born and can verify that everything is accurate in relation to the presenters added to the 'Notable Presenter's' section. User:Davey2010 is still arguing that the presenters are only 'Notable' if they have their own Wiki article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Dispute Resolution Request, June 2014; and previous to that discussion via the Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Mediate in the matter. Assist us in determining what is to be deemed as a 'Notable Presenter' - Is it one with a Wiki article linked to it only?

Summary of dispute by Davey2010

In short there was a discussion in 2014 which rather annoyingly I closed as "Not Done - Having a huge long list of notable presenters is fine, Having a huge list of non notables is not" - I will say here and now the discussion should never have been closed by me but in my defense I was more or less a newbie at the time,

Anyway a Few weeks to a month ago I removed the presenters from the article (completely forgetting there was ever a discussion on this) which Butdavid objected too - Although the list was sourced the sources were "YouTube, LinkedIn, BlogSpot, hallammemories, family-announcements.co.uk and sheffieldhistory.co.uk (forum)" which are obviously not reliable sources and I stated this on the talkpage, Butdavid disagreed and so here we are,

It seems to be a common thing on all radio stations - If they're not wikilinked then they're not included however if they're actually notable for working on the station and there's sources to establish this then unlinked but reliably sourced presenters can be added. Thanks, –Davey2010 14:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Hi ProgrammingGeek, I did mention 30, DRN and RFC to the editor however I'm more than happy to go with 30 or RFC :), Thanks, –Davey2010 14:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Hallam FM discussion

Volunteer note: This seems a fairly minor dispute. Davey2010 and Butdavid, if you want mediation at DRN, that will happen. Have you considered a WP:3O? I feel that is a possibility. If that's already been requested, then I'm sure someone will open your case. Thanks. ProgrammingGeek 14:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

ProgrammingGeek Thank you for your kind intervention. With respect, I would prefer mediation at DRN as it has not previously been resolved through talk page discussion. The dispute may seem 'minor', but in my view it is not. What I would consider as very notable presenters from the early days when Hallam FM was known as Radio Hallam, who were around well before the internet could document them are not receiving the recognition they deserve.

The sources cited for a number of well liked and very popular influential presenters are in fact extremely reliable. These sources are not necessarily relying on the odd mention of a particular dj, but numerous verifications and some coming with official photo's etc. Official videos and recordings uploaded also reliably show without doubt certain presenters who were major personalities at the station back in the 1970's and 80's. Davey2010 states that "It seems to be a common thing on all radio stations -If they're not wikilinked then they're not included..."

My response to this is that one of the reasons why Wiki radio stations have only wikilinked presenters is very likely down to the likes of Davey2010 deciding this by trawling through all the stations and editing out all presenters who are not wikilinked.

There are no rules on this by Misplaced Pages as far as I am aware, that names have to be wikilinked; so editors are just taking it upon themselves to lay the rules down like Davey2010. I started a thread on this subject on Sheffield Forum earlier on this year, which I feel that Davey 2010 should at least have a read of.

I am not as familiar with Misplaced Pages as Davey2010 is and he says he has done about 80,000 edits. If he was a "newbie" back in 2014, then since then he has roughly edited 50 plus times every day since then until now. I feel that is a lot of editing by one person. With respect to Davey2010, I am far more knowledgeable on 'Radio Hallam' than he will ever be. I lived and breathed it, so I know who the presenters were and who were well known or even iconic ie Roger Moffat. Ask people over 45/50 years of age in Sheffield who Roger was and they would tell you. He was an iconic figure in Sheffield. The sources I have cited are as reliable as you will ever get. I have not included in the 'Notable Presenters' section all the great names from the early days, but the names that graced the airwaves the most and who were the most popular with the listener.

Misplaced Pages's purpose is to "benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge." I think that Davey2010 really is all about being 'neat and tidy' on Misplaced Pages, but Wiki is not about being neat and tidy, but informative. Butdavid (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1499143

• That is long, but please limit your comments to article content and not to comments about other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not all about neat and tidy at all - My entire objective or goal on this site is to help our readers and to make them read informative and encyclopedic information - A long pointless list of nobodies is not informative nor encyclopedic information, I absolutely agree I will never know Hallam like you will and that's obvious but that doesn't mean pointless lists should exists purely because you know them,

The edit count part is off-topic however if you have issues with this you're more than welcome to ask on my talkpage but for the time being we should keep this about presenters etc and not about me (Yes I did in some sense make it about me on the talkpage however I was trying to justify my bad actions in 2014), Thanks, –Davey2010 22:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Davey2010 With respect, we need to once and for all determine what 'Notable' means.

What is Misplaced Pages's stance on what 'notable' means?

To me, 'notable' means something or someone who was well known, significant, unforgettable, memorable. That does not mean they need to be Wikilinked to be any of these.

The presenters I added were indeed these terms and should be recognised. Nobody surely can deny as accurate an official video, a radio recording that actually went out on air or official radio photo's of presenters with their names and radio station logo attached?

I had added or included a small number of presenters from the station when it was known as 'Radio Hallam.' There were many more, but I limited it to the most significant.

What we have got is just one presenter from the original line-up of presenters back then, in the 'Notable Presenter' section of the Hallam FM article, who is Wikilinked. This is not a true reflection of who was 'notable' back then in the 1970's and needs to be addressed, corrected and improved on.

It may not look neat having names in black rather than blue, but so long as these presenters come with unarguable information about them, such as what I have mentioned, then they should not be disputed as being reliable and the information that goes with them not to be trusted.

I trust we can come to some kind of agreement here, Davey 2010, and make the 'Notable Presenter' section more of a true reflection of who were in fact the most well known, significant, unforgettable and memorable presenters or disc jockey's, at the station over its lifetime. Butdavid (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: I would request both parties to kindly keep discussion here to a minimum until a volunteer opens the case. You both have already presented your views. Please wait for a willing volunteer to open the case and help you reach a resolution. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Yashovardhan Many thanks. Butdavid (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yashovardhan Just to inform that I feel it would be best for me, if I continue to discuss on the talk page in regards to 'Presenters', to further lay out my case there. Hopefully, myself and Davey2010, can come to some kind of agreement and certain names can then be included in the 'Notable Presenter' section of the article. Many thanks for your assistance. Butdavid (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Butdavid, I think it's probably best we wait this out and failing that we start an RFC on the talkpage - Even I didn't realise this would take this long however being realistic we won't come to an agreement by ourselves - WP:30 is kinda pointless as it's just one editor offering their opinion whereas with RFC you get a whole bunch of random editors, Thanks, –Davey2010 12:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Davey2010... In the 'summary of dispute', you clearly state the following: "...however if they're actually notable for working on the station and there's sources to establish this then unlinked but reliably sourced presenters can be added."

The dispute was previously resolved successfully in 2014, with the reasoning suggesting that: "List should be narrowed down to significant presenters based on reliable sources, with option to link to full list." It did not reason that presenter's had to be Wikilinked to be added or included.

I therefore propose acceptance of book/annual citations with a credited author, against any presenters I wish to add to the 'Notable Presenter' section of the article. Also citations for newspaper article/s, which also will have gone through editorial processes to be also accepted.

W:IRS definition of a reliable source states: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."

I trust this will resolve the dispute and we can close.

Yashovardhan Please note that I have attempted to keep this to a minimum. Thank you. Butdavid (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

It appears that we may have resolution, but I don't know. I am willing to moderate. Will the editors please read the rules and follow them? Be civil and concise. (Previous discussion at this noticeboard has not been concise. Overly long statements do not clarify the issues, even if they make the editors feel better.) It appears that the issue has to do with who are the Notable Presenters. Will each editor please state, in one or two paragraphs, what they think are the issues involving article content? (If you have issues about other editors, don't bother with them.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

First statements by editors

I've already stated above but screw it, Restored, Not going to repeat myself again and again. –Davey2010 23:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_94#Talk:Hallam_FM

Special:Contributions/2601:47:4101:58D1:69E4:E062:E3C8:393C

No dispute between editors, no other parties stated. The editor's general complaint is hard to parse out, but the editor is advised that they might get more help at the Misplaced Pages Teahouse which exists to help newcomers. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Ghalib bin_Ali

Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Misplaced Pages, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017 FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship#Order_of_Toro_Rosso_drivers

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:2017 FIA Formula One World Championship#Order of Toro Rosso drivers (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Abdotorg (talk · contribs)
• Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs)
• Corvus tristis (talk · contribs)
• Deaþe gecweald (talk · contribs)
• Joseph2302 (talk · contribs)
• Bbb2007 (talk · contribs)
• DH85868993 (talk · contribs)
• Sketchmoose (talk · contribs)
• WikiEditorAU (talk · contribs)
• Waysiders (talk · contribs)
• Wikipediaeditperson (talk · contribs)
• FactualCollector7d1 (talk · contribs)
• Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs)
• QueenCake (talk · contribs)
• cherkash (talk · contribs)
• Tvx1 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There has been quite a few editors who have shown displeasure to the current format of the 'Teams and Drivers' table in the article.

Much of the opposition towards it has stemmed from the fact that it was confusing to us as editors, and therefore is also likely to be confusing to readers as well.

We have extensively discussed this on the talk page, with several proposals being put forward, but no concensus has formed in support of 1 single proposal. However, proposals by QueenCake and Tvx1 have proven to be 2 of the more popular proposals.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Several editors, including myself, have put forward proposals with the aim being to achieve a compramise. However, we have failed to agree on which proposal should be taken forward.

Also, we have discussed this in great detail on the talk page, trying to explain our opposing viewpoints. However, most editors have not changed from their original viewpoint.

How do you think we can help?

I fear that most editors in this discussion have been backing their preferred proposal and there has been a divide between the editors, based on their preferred proposal. This divide has made it difficult to work collaboratively with other editors, so I feel an external viewpoint may be needed to help us decide which route is best to take forward.

Summary of dispute by Abdotorg

Summary of dispute by Zwerg Nase

Summary of dispute by Corvus tristis

Summary of dispute by deaþe/gecweald

Summary of dispute by Joseph2302

This is a long dispute caused by Toro Rosso messing around a lot with their drivers. It's a unique situation, but I don't feel strongly enough about this to be involved in this DRN discussion. Frankly we should spend less time having recursive arguments like this, and more time spent building the encyclopedia. This will be my only contribution to this DRN. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bbb2007

Summary of dispute by DH85868993

Summary of dispute by Sketchmoose

Summary of dispute by WikiEditorAU

Summary of dispute by Waysiders

Summary of dispute by FactualCollector7d1

The issue arises from the fact that Toro Rosso has used four drivers over the course of the year. However, instead of directly replacing one driver with another in a straightforward fashion, some drivers have come back to the team and replaced the driver of the other car, and not the one they had driven before. Additionally, for the first time since 1994, Toro Rosso has fielded two completely different driver lineups in consecutive races. While in the past when such situations were more common teams were assigned numbers to their cars, making such situations relatively straightforward to discern as the replacement driver would carry the same number as the original driver, since 2014 drivers have been able to select their own number, meaning that this is no longer the case. Additionally, one driver (Hartley) has raced with two distinct numbers as he was originally given the team's reserve driver number for his first race before picking his own.

As this is the first time such a situation like this has occurred since 2014, their is no real precedent for how to format the teams and drivers table, and given the complexity of the matter, two popular proposals along different schools of thought have emerged for the organisation of the table. QueenCake's proposal calls for the drivers to be listed such that each driver number is listed once, and the table is ordered in such a way that a replacement driver is listed directly under the driver that they replaced in the first instance. The perceived downsides to this proposal is that the drivers are not listed chronologically by round and that there is a lack of clarity on which driver was being replaced by whom in some circumstances. This second point is important as the replacement driver maintains the original drivers allocation of power unit components, gearboxes, and tyres, all aspects of the sport that are fundamentally important as they can affect reliability, performance, strategy, and starting position (through grid penalties). Tvx1's proposal makes this clear by sorting the two allocations chronologically, one after another, and putting a line in between them, solving both of the issues that the first proposal faced. However, it necessarily includes some drivers twice, as some have raced at some point using both allocations. Some editors have been opposed to this proposal for this reason, claiming that it creates confusion as to why drivers are listed twice, specifically among those who don't understand the concepts of parts allocations. This proposal would also require some modifications to the all existing season tables between 2014 and 2017 for continuity.

While originally in support of QueenCake's proposal, I now support Tvx1's proposal due to how the chronological sorting by rounds it provides, the belief that any issues of confusion arising from drivers being listed twice could be eliminated though a brief explanation above the table, and because in my opinion it is simply a more elegant solution for all instances. As such, I would also be willing to help make the modifications to the existing tables should it be selected. I would also like to point out that the format currently in is nearly universally unpopular, with little support. Thank you and apologies for the length. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Prisonermonkeys

I promise I'll be brief:

Prior to 2014, Formula 1 used a system where numbers were assigned to cars based on the team's championship position the previous year. Starting in 2014, drivers were allowed to adopt their own personalised number. This necessitated a change in the way the entry table was organised. Where previously it was organised by number, now it is organised alphabetically by constructor name. Drivers within each team are organised by number when they contest the same rounds. In the event of a mid-season change, the rounds column takes priority. This was to prevent a situation where a driver who raced mid-season was listed before a driver (or drivers) who started the championship. Hence in 2016, Ocon (#31) is listed after Haryanto (#88).

Now to the 2017 article:

Daniil Kvyat contested the first 14 rounds, then left the team. He returned for round 17. However, he did not resume his position in the team. Instead, he replaced Carlos Sainz, Jr. We can prove this through reliable sources: the rules governing engine use assign engines to cars, not to drivers (to stop teams swapping drivers to get fresh engines). When he returned to the team, Kvyat inherited Sainz's engine allocation. The same goes for Pierre Gasly, who replaced Kvyat in his original car, then later replavcd Kvyat in Sainz's original car. Compare that to Fernando Alonso, who missed one race but returned to his original car. The question that is up for debate is to how best represent this in the table given that the rounds column takes priority.

One final note:

This is a very unusual situation. I have been following the sport for over 20 years, and I cannot recall the last time a team rotated drivers between seats like this. I am concerned that the outcome of the discussion will have negative effects on other championship articles. If a perfect solution cannot be found, I would prefer to settle for an imperfect solution here if it meant preserving the integrity of other championship articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by QueenCake

Summary of dispute by cherkash

Summary of dispute by Tvx1

Talk:2017 FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship#Order_of_Toro_Rosso_drivers discussion

Volunteer's notes: I'm neither taking this nor opening it for discussion, but I am informing the filing party ‎Wikipediaeditperson that it is his/her obligation to notify all the other listed participants by leaving a notice on their user talk pages. This tag can be used for that purpose: {{drn-notice|Talk:2017 FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship#Order_of_Toro_Rosso_drivers}} A notice on the article talk page will not suffice to fulfill this obligation. If all other listed participants have not been notified by 16 November 2017, 18:00 UTC then this listing will likely be closed as abandoned. The discussion on the article talk page appears to be sufficient to satisfy our requirements. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@TransporterMan, It's all done now - I have left a message on each of the users' talk pages. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

To quote Eric Cartman, kewl. But let me ask you this: Do you really feel that moderated discussion can achieve consensus on this problem? We don't here at DRN just pass judgments, we attempt to "grease" the discussion process to help editors come to consensus by avoidance of incivility and structuring discussion to focus on the real issue and avoid rabbit trails and side issues. Is that what this dispute needs, or does it really need something closer to (gasp) voting? If it really needs the latter, then the best route might be a RFC filed at the article talk page (which would result in this DRN filing being closed). Just 'sayin and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@TransporterMan Weighing in here as one of the participants, albeit not the main three or four, I am not sure DRN is the correct process. The discussion has become bloated and repetitive, but there is a consensus that the current table is inadequate, and all participating editors have expressed their own opinions as to how to improve it. What is needed is an ending, perhaps the oft-maligned vote that simply picks an option and then everyone moves on. RFC is probably the correct venue. QueenCake (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

As another irregular participant, I'd just like to concur with this. Happy to help the proceedings along, but I'm holding back until the DRN/RFC wrangling is concluded. Waysiders (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

If I am being honest, I would also agree with @QueenCake - I think it may have been a mistake taking this discussion to DRN, as I fear the discussion will merely continue here. This probably will mean we continue to make little or no progress. Perhaps RFC will give us a more conclusive outcome. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - I don't speak for other volunteers, but I know that I don't intend to try to moderate a discussion with such a large number of editors. I think that some other volunteers feel the same way, that trying to moderate a discussion with so many participants would be like trying to herd half a dozen cats and half a dozen dogs and three rabbits. I would suggest that the editors follow the advice of User:TransporterMan, although if someone wants to try to lead a discussion, I will stay out of the way (rather than get run over by the cats and dogs). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@TransporterMan, I felt that the talk page was just going round in circles, with many of us editors simply regurgitating arguments brought up several comments ago and no real progress being made. I am hoping that this DRN will help us all converge on a single proposal, whether this be one of the current proposals or something in between. I am a little bit fearful that even with this DRN, we may still continue to make no progress, and an RFC would then be the only option. However, I feel a moderated discussion may help us all to work together. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@TransporterMan — although there are a large number of editors involved, not all of them are particularly active in the discussion. Only about half of them have been regularly contributing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

As @Prisonermonkeys has said, not all of the editors have been regularly active in the discussion. However, I fear that some of them may have stopped contributing, as they may have felt a bit fed up that their contributions were going unnoticed, as the discussion was not making any progress. This is why I have included all the editors from the discussion in this list - clearly they all had their reasons to make a contribution, and I wanted to give everyone who had an opinion the opportunity to contribute at DRN. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards