Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

Iridescent (talk | contribs)

1 user group
402,835 edits
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Iridescent (talk | contribs)
Administrators
402,835 edits
Tag: Reverted
Iridescent (talk | contribs)
Administrators
402,835 edits
Undid revision 997169236 by Iridescent (talk) I wouldn't have—AFAICS the disruption was a single now-blocked IP—but someone else has actually done so
Tag: Undo
Line 127: Line 127:


Dear all can the page on the class 332 please be locked to prevent Vandalism please. [[User:Maurice Oly|Maurice Oly]] ([[User talk:Maurice Oly|talk]]) 23:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Dear all can the page on the class 332 please be locked to prevent Vandalism please. [[User:Maurice Oly|Maurice Oly]] ([[User talk:Maurice Oly|talk]]) 23:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
:
:No. ‑ [[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] 08:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:33, 30 December 2020

Shortcut

Cites

Recently there have been spot fires flaring up on multiple UK railway articles of the need for cites and what are and aren't acceptable. Thought it might be timely to have a centralised discussion so the issues can be discussed.

The core policy is Verifiability. Basically for anything to be added it needs to be backed up by a reliable source.

These are two types of sources; those classified as reliable sources and can be used, and those that are classified as self published and can't be used.

Sources that can be used as cites

Sources that cannot be used as cites

I'm sure there are other examples that people may want to add or discuss. Metro140 (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting post. Whilst I understand that personal observation is not permitted (and social media often means other people's personal observation) there is an awful lot of interesting stuff that has to be left out. One source I have recently acquired and used is a CD of Ipswich Transport Society Journals and a lot of the rail content there is based on personal observations by others at the time. An example "40xxx and 40xxx have both been recently observed on Mistley ammunition trains". I know the ITS has many rail employees and has a great in depth knowledge of the rail scene. Could I use this (and other entries) to justify adding "During the mid-1970s ammunition trains worked tp Mistley Quay" in the Mistley railway station entry? --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always concerned by the lack of citations in articles for modern train operating companies and rolling stock. These often seem to be trying to be more up to date than the enthusiast press. To compound this, I often see lists of rolling stock changed but leaving the original citation; if the details change then the citation needs to be replaced. For historic information it doesn't seem to be such a great problem and I'm more tolerant of self-reported information that has been printed in old journals provided we take reasonable care to check that it isn't refuted or corrected in a later edition or book. Geof Sheppard (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to it Geof, I was making a similar point and got an edit conflict, so put me down as a +1. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As much as social media etc. is frowned upon as RSs, I don't see why photographs of something (that can be found by searching and/or linked tom in a non-ephemeral manner) cannot be used as citeable evidence of something. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would depend on the particular image, a judgement would have to be made as to whether it shows what it purports to. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter may be useable in some circumstances, especially where official rail industry accounts are involved. Mjroots (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends what it is. I'd say for saying "we now have this new unit" then probably ok, but "look at our stats" not so much. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a recent example, see Talk:Pacer (British Rail)#Northern Trains; notifying Maurice Oly and Neith-Nabu. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - a perfect case of valid use of a non-POV statement by a train operator on their official Twitter account being used as a valid source to ensure that information on Wikipedia is up to date and accurate being incorrectly flagged up. Neith-Nabu (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that verified Twitter accounts used by TOC should be allowed as a source but as a very last resort I.E. when no other news outlets cover something.

I use Manchester united football ground railway station as an example, services there were suspended in 2018 due to health and safety concerns. How do we know this? Because Northern was asked on Twitter about it and said that was the reason why would they make up as reason as the only TOC serving that station only they would know why services were suspended.

Without Twitter we would not able to confirm why services had been suspended.

I understand that anybody could claim anything on Twitter, but I feel like as a last resort when no other sources are available verified Twitter accounts used by TOC should be allowed. Maurice Oly (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with many of these lists is that they are a hotchpotch of old and new, cited and uncited information. Re Geof Sheppard's point there is the ability to reset by using published lists that cover entire classes or TOC fleets, e.g. the annual publications from Platform 5. But then as soon as somebody makes a change, the integrity falls apart.
Ultimately many things originate from a personal observation, but if reported in a reputable publication, there will be editorial controls in place to try and minimise inaccurate reporting. In answer to Davidvaughanwells' question, inhouse journals like that of the Ipswich Transport Society are probably ok as there is an editor to exercise control.
The problem is more with social media and internet forums is that anybody can anonymously write any 'man at the pub told me' tosh and there is no vetting process. The problem with accepting Official Twitter accounts as reliable sources, is where do you draw the line? Plenty of accounts that claim to be official accounts of organisations and people turn out to be fake. Metro140 (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On transport society etc. publications/in-house journals: I would have no hesitation about using such publications, and indeed I have done in the past. I write regularly for one myself (a relatively niche one), and can confirm that there is stringent editorial oversight by an overall editor (I am the editor of one section). Similar publications I know of, from a range of societies in southeast England, have similar levels of integrity. If the publication has an ISSN, even better. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Metro140: I would define official Twitter acconts as acconts with the blue checkmark aka twitter verified accounts for example @Northernassist etc. Maurice Oly (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Metro140: Maurice Oly (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template problem

Updating usage stats with the publication today of the ORR 2019/20 figures, I find articles that use the "Infobox London station" template don't display the 2019/20 figures, though I've added the new figures in the same way as usual, and hidden the oldest ones. I've done Morden South railway station and Mortlake railway station so far, with the same results. I don't pretend to understand how to edit templates, if that's where the problem lies... Stations outside London that use a different infobox template don't have this problem. Johnlp (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can fix this, just as I have done each year for some time now; but I don't see the point because you-know-who appears to be intent on destroying {{infobox London station}} just like {{infobox GB station}} and others. The whole business has got me down, severely, and my heart just isn't in it any more. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can see what needs to be done here, which is to add the code for the 2019/20 stats to the Infobox London station template, but I wouldn't trust myself to do it. Maybe I'll feel braver tomorrow. Johnlp (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Different template problem

Second problem. Attempting to add interchange stats where none have been recorded before produces a problem at Motherwell railway station. Where interchange stats have been recorded before (eg Morpeth railway station), there is no difficulty. I can't see what is different about Motherwell. Johnlp (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This problem is unrelated to the post above, because Motherwell doesn't use {{infobox London station}} - it used {{infobox GB station}}, and whilst I would have helped (indeed, fixed it) in the past, the article now uses {{infobox station}} and I no longer have the desire to do so, all the pleasure has been taken away from me. I've unwatched hundreds of articles, even though there have been a large number of recent bad edits, because I simply can no longer be bothered to check the edits of various IPs and newbies. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is {{pad=2em}}. It should be {{pad|2em}} ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you. Johnlp (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old usage stats

With the latest updates of stats, I've noticed that when AnomieBOT changed the station infobox template recently, stats from more than five years ago, which were previously commented out with <!-- -->, have been removed (e.g. [1]). Was there agreement to do this? — O Still Small Voice of Clam 18:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: Cards84664 20:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecated / non-visible parameters are usually removed as a matter of content (see various deprecation bots like PrimeBOT task 30). There's not really any way to retain them in the substitution. If that data is still needed for some reason, it's in the history of the article I suppose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm sorry to see the historic usage figures simply discarded: I for one find them interesting. It would surely be possible to retain them within the new template simply by putting <!-- --> around the years being put in the background, and then doing the annual update as it's been done over many years. Johnlp (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While on this subject, are stats supposed to be round up to the nearest thousand? For example, if a station had 760,952 entries and exits is it displayed as 0.760 or 0.761? I’ve seen the latter on some articles. SK2242 (talk) 08:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Unless below 100,000, in which case the full figure is used. Johnlp (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UK Railway figures 2019-20

Hi. Having gone through over 2,560 UK railway station articles in the last week, Wrenbury railway station was the last station I needed to update the railway figures for. Thanks to everyone who has helped with this tedious task this year. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just spitballing, and to link in with your comments on historical data above, why do we show last 5 years in the infobox? eg: why not pop all the historical data onto Wikidata, show only the latest year's data in the infobox, and then have a line graph / bar chart somewhere else in the article (also fetching data from Wikidata) with historical data? Some very, very rough examples of what I mean: User:ProcrastinatingReader/sandbox4. [advantage of wikidata is, aside from representing the data better technically, it'd allow other projects to use it too] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. Bear in mind that any solution would have to take into account situations like Norton Bridge, which only display old data since it is now closed. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 15:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what "problem" this would solve. I find it interesting to be able to see a trend in the infobox and also, on occasion, an exceptional event. Johnlp (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There two separate things here. The wikidata part would save User:Pkbwcgs (and others) fingers from turning into bloody stumps every year as they plough through all 2,560 stations and update the data. They could simply upload all of it to Wikidata with one simple script. The graphs charts and status quo figures is a separate thing and should be treated as such. - X201 (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1995 Accident at Bognor Regis

I've added a couple of accidents to the Bognor Regis station article. A search of the Railways Archive reveals a 1995 accident. Further searching reveals 4CIG 1710 collided with the signal box. Not sure that website is useable as a reference though. Can anyone come up with a better source please? Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't have a British Newspaper Archive subsription at the moment, but if anyone here does there are a couple of articles about it in these search results. You can see from the article previews that it was an unmanned runaway but you need to pay if you want to see more than that. — GasHeadSteve [TALK] 18:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling stock year standard format

So I want to check with everybody here how we should format rolling stock tables for TOCs in terms of year built as a standard, I noticed this issue while I was formatting tables last night.

Examples of how we could format tables in terms of train build dates are:

1975-1985 1975-85

Those two dates are random and just examples of formatting, but they show how I think we could format tables in terms of rolling stock year build dates in terms of a standard format.

I look forward to hearing editors input on this matter. Maurice Oly (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the Manual of Style: MOS:DATERANGE. The preference there is 1975–1985, using four-digit years and en-dashes. Bazza (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazza: ok thanks for making that clear. Maurice Oly (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Class 33

I've been a very good boy this year and Santa has rewarded me handsomely. I got a copy of Simon Lilley's new book on the Class 33s (Lilley, Simon (2020). The Class 33s A Sixty Year History. Manchester: Crécy Publishing Ltd. ISBN 978 191080 9662.). The article is in sore need of improvement, which I should be able to achieve using the book as a reference. As a first step towards this, is there any objection to converting exising book references to {{sfn}} format? Mjroots (talk) 10:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mind you I got Broderick, Nick; Bright, Thomas (2020). "Britain's Preserved Locomotives" (3 ed.). London: H Bauer. {{cite magazine}}: Cite magazine requires |magazine= (help) which is somewhat of a sourcing heaven for a certain subset, won't do a dirty diesel though. Surviving Covid-19 was a better present but hasn't improved my grammar/spelling.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lock the class 332 page please

Dear all can the page on the class 332 please be locked to prevent Vandalism please. Maurice Oly (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F997169423