Wikipedia

Discussion in 'UK Railway Discussion' started by VTPreston_Tez, 21 May 2012.

Should we help out on this page and later Wikipedia pages related to trains??

Poll closed 4 Jun 2012.
  1. Yes, then Wikipedia

    20 vote(s)
    60.6%
  2. No, scrap the idea altogether

    12 vote(s)
    36.4%
  3. Yes, just this page

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. No, but other Wikipedia pages yes

    1 vote(s)
    3.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. VTPreston_Tez

    VTPreston_Tez Established Member

    Messages:
    1,159
    Joined:
    26 Jan 2012
    Location:
    Preston
    this.
    I believe that (ignoring my annoying comments that I posted waaaaaaaaaay before I even knew anything about trains) we should all take part in updating this list by using discussions here and on the talk page here.
    Verdict? Should we help repair the abandoned rail sections of Wikipedia starting with this issue or just leave it? People never go on the talk and I have tried to get attention by simply adding the station to the list for it to be removed and not hearing anything of them again.
     
  2. Registered users do not see these banners - join or log in today!

    Rail Forums

     
  3. matchmaker

    matchmaker Member

    Messages:
    841
    Joined:
    8 Mar 2009
    Location:
    Central Scotland
    Yes, but we have to be careful that we don't post any inaccurate information. For a supposed rail enthusiasts/users forum, there is some shockingly bad information posted here sometimes!
     
  4. starrymarkb

    starrymarkb Established Member

    Messages:
    5,985
    Joined:
    4 Aug 2009
    Location:
    Exeter
    yes with a lot of enthusiast myths too.

    IIRC Forums don't meet their standards for reliable sources
     
  5. wintonian

    wintonian Established Member

    Messages:
    4,889
    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Location:
    Hampshire
    They don't

    Wikipedia is a good project that anyone can participate in, however its not as simple as sticking in a bit of text, there is copyright to consider, neutrality and backing the information up with reliable sources.

    It can seem a quite overwhelming to start with but most of it is common sense and is centred around discussion were people are unsure how to proceed.
     
  6. DarloRich

    DarloRich Veteran Member

    Messages:
    19,207
    Joined:
    12 Oct 2010
    Location:
    Work - Fenny Stratford(MK) Home - Darlington
    I have updated the various pages relating to UK railways and had the alterations deleted by others who seem to think they "own" the pages. I have removed "enthusiasts facts" and replaced the with actual facts and had them deleted and replaced by the same "enthusiasts facts" ! I did some work to the Class 67 page to try and make it a bit more intresting and accessible to to "normal users" rather than spotters

    For instance:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Rail_Class_67&oldid=469019307

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_67

    I just dont bother now.
     
    Last edited: 22 May 2012
  7. Schnellzug

    Schnellzug Established Member

    Messages:
    2,926
    Joined:
    22 Aug 2011
    Location:
    Evercreech Junction
    "In 2012 Arriva Trains Wales began the lease of three class 67s from DB Schenker to replace its class 57s on its Wag express service" [in the version that isn't yours] isn't, perhaps, the most helpful. I've never really been sure what Wag Express means.
     
  8. OxtedL

    OxtedL Established Member Quizmaster

    Messages:
    2,271
    Joined:
    23 Mar 2011
    I think the link you've given there may be a bad example of what you're suggesting. You appear to have added quite a lot of uncited information (and a fair bit of it could be "trivia" as the person who undid it all said) to the article, and unsourced information about matters such as what livery different stock is currently in really is not what Wikipedia needs any more of - you're correct in saying that there's a lot of enthusiast trash in many articles.

    I have before now tried to remove information that I thought was substandard only to have it reverted because what I replaced it with was equally unverifiable.

    Going back to the OP, if you were trying to organise a systematic team to improve articles, then a site which is external to Wikipedia really is not the place to do the bulk of the organisation, as the Wikipedia community really need to be able to see what's going on if they're to avoid having a nervous breakdown.

    The same goes for asking for an opinion on edits.

    The railway side of the Wikipedia is often appalling organised compared to some sections, and this is mainly because there are so many people all trying to throw in their differing personal ideas.
     
    Last edited: 22 May 2012
  9. jcollins

    jcollins Veteran Member

    Messages:
    30,249
    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    The thing that makes little sense to me is the two headings are "Major railway stations in Britain" and "Railway stations of London." Shouldn't the second be something like "Major railway stations in Britain (London area)"?

    I noticed from the discussion page that someone said Preston is not big enough but Manchester Vic is based on passenger entry/exit figures. Meanwhile, Liverpool Lime Street is included and Liverpool Central is not.
     
  10. Tommy3000

    Tommy3000 Member

    Messages:
    34
    Joined:
    14 Feb 2012
    Aye, nothing less than a published source or a reliable website (the definition of which varies; I've found that the websites of well-known railway societies are acceptable) will do. I wrote the article on Herne Hill railway station and almost every sentence had to be referenced to pass peer reviews. If your additions aren't sourced, they'll be removed, so there is no point in simply correcting articles.
     
  11. telstarbox

    telstarbox Established Member

    Messages:
    4,238
    Joined:
    23 Jul 2010
    Location:
    Wennington Crossovers
    On the whole I find Wikipedia's coverage of railways pretty thorough, sometimes even for the smallest stations, particularly in contrast to their coverage of other business sectors which can be quite thin.

    Even a published source isn't infallible - the Daily Mirror got burnt by referencing false information on a Wikipedia page relating to FC Omonia ahead of a Man City game. Of course, since it was published in the paper, that could now count as a "reliable source" according to the Wikipedia rules :P
     
    Last edited: 22 May 2012
  12. DarloRich

    DarloRich Veteran Member

    Messages:
    19,207
    Joined:
    12 Oct 2010
    Location:
    Work - Fenny Stratford(MK) Home - Darlington
    That is the wrong bloody link without the citations! Trying to be to clever there. I have given up anyway.
     
  13. telstarbox

    telstarbox Established Member

    Messages:
    4,238
    Joined:
    23 Jul 2010
    Location:
    Wennington Crossovers
  14. jopsuk

    jopsuk Veteran Member

    Messages:
    11,727
    Joined:
    13 May 2008
    I've noticed poking around edit histories before that some of the user names making "controversial" edits (ie wrong ones!) are often ones that used to be on here or other message boards, often ones that have been banned for whatever reason
     
  15. Ivo

    Ivo Established Member

    Messages:
    7,308
    Joined:
    8 Jan 2010
    Location:
    Bath (or Southend)
    East Croydon should be there; Bristol Parkway, Cardiff Queen Street and Southampton Central should not be.

    That is all I shall say on the matter. There is little point in editing these stations because some half-wit will invariably negate said change.
     
  16. telstarbox

    telstarbox Established Member

    Messages:
    4,238
    Joined:
    23 Jul 2010
    Location:
    Wennington Crossovers
  17. ainsworth74

    ainsworth74 Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    18,720
    Joined:
    16 Nov 2009
    Location:
    Redcar
    Fixed that for you ;)

    Class 67 Wiki page

    This is quite a problem with some railway things. For example we all know that the WAG Express is now hauled by 67s but a quick Google showed up nothing that could be used as a citation on Wikipedia (unless they allow photos of it as a citation?).
     
  18. Schnellzug

    Schnellzug Established Member

    Messages:
    2,926
    Joined:
    22 Aug 2011
    Location:
    Evercreech Junction
    I think the problem with the 'Pedia is that while it's a very useful source of handy information, the amount of that information and the way it's presented can be inconsistent; for instance, there's a very useful list of British Heritage railways , but information such as, for instance, rolling stock at each, can be rather inconsistent. For instance, under East Somerset Railway, it says "Locomotives There are no locomotives permanently based here." which seems curious to me.
     
  19. VTPreston_Tez

    VTPreston_Tez Established Member

    Messages:
    1,159
    Joined:
    26 Jan 2012
    Location:
    Preston
    Should we just make our own Wikia then? At least a start would be to vote on the "Major stations" template before I have to use full-on force to get attention there...
     
  20. Stewart

    Stewart Member

    Messages:
    127
    Joined:
    31 Aug 2011
    I wouldn't trust Wikipedia for very much at all.
     
  21. wintonian

    wintonian Established Member

    Messages:
    4,889
    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Location:
    Hampshire
    I wouldn't write an academic paper using material from it, but as a general guide and if it has proper references then it is useful.
     
  22. Ivo

    Ivo Established Member

    Messages:
    7,308
    Joined:
    8 Jan 2010
    Location:
    Bath (or Southend)
    The best thing about Wiki from an academic perspective is that its sources tend to be pretty good. So, essentially, don't quote it - but do check out where the material has come from. That alone made the difference between me getting a First and a 2:1 on a Sociology essay a few months ago :p
     
  23. wintonian

    wintonian Established Member

    Messages:
    4,889
    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Location:
    Hampshire
    Why haven't I thought of that? :(
     
  24. swt_passenger

    swt_passenger Veteran Member

    Messages:
    17,947
    Joined:
    7 Apr 2010
    All four stations are in the same NR type category though, as 'National Interchange 'B' stations'.

    One in all in?
     
  25. Paul Sidorczuk

    Paul Sidorczuk Veteran Member

    Messages:
    24,556
    Joined:
    17 Apr 2011
    Location:
    The most select part of rural Cheshire East.
    The "annual passenger" figure on the information panel of each railway station (on certain railway stations) seems to be quickly updated from the latest available figures on quite a number of railway stations, but there are others that now are quite out of date. I am aware that there is no set body in charge of this and that the figures are all readily available elsewhere, but if you are looking at a group of railway station pages, it is good to see these figures, just out of sheer interest, to see the "ups and downs" that do occur.
     
  26. Ivo

    Ivo Established Member

    Messages:
    7,308
    Joined:
    8 Jan 2010
    Location:
    Bath (or Southend)
    Those categories don't count for anything. I have used this example before, but I fail to see how Westcliff, a station of roughly ~1M uses per annum, should be classified as an F1? That is utterly ridiculous.

    East Croydon is far busier than the three I suggested removing put together. It also has the third highest level of Interchange on the network, behind fellow TfL stations London Bridge and Clapham Junction, and can thus boast a combined figure of 27M - just a couple of hundred thousand behind Glasgow Central (including both entries/exits and interchange). Ultimately, it would be fairer to compare East Croydon with Stratford - which is in. Those two and Clapham Junction should be the only three stations within the M25 but outside Zone 1 to qualify.

    Otherwise, perhaps someone could tell me what is so "major" about the three I suggested eliminating? Southampton Central is some way short of being a major destination on the railways, and the other two pale in significance to their respective sister stations to the south...

    I seem to recall a thread about this matter last year, and possibly the year before, in which various members practically hijacked Wikipedia in an effort to fix this. There seems to have been no such discussion this year.
     
  27. Lampshade

    Lampshade Established Member

    Messages:
    3,554
    Joined:
    3 Sep 2009
    Location:
    South London
    I did all the Lancashire stations the day the stats were released, I'm not doing the whole country though :lol::shock:
     
  28. WatcherZero

    WatcherZero Established Member

    Messages:
    8,935
    Joined:
    25 Feb 2010
    More experienced Wiki technicians would normally be eventually persuaded to write a bot that took the ORR data and updated all the station pages at the same time, though usually happens several months after the data becomes available. In the mean time people tend to update their local stations individually.
     
  29. andykn

    andykn Member

    Messages:
    230
    Joined:
    5 Feb 2012
    FWIW here's my idea for the major stations list:

    I think the criteria should be more definitive. For example, to be included a station must meet the following criteria:
    • At least 6 physical platforms in use (single tracks with a platform either side to count as one; island platforms, provided trains stop on both sides, count as two)
    • At least x million passenger movements
    • Fewer than 10% of timetabled passenger trains pass through without stopping
    • At least 4 separate routes into the station (except Termini). A line through the station counts as two routes.

    The list of "Most used stations according to passenger movements" (or similar) should be a separate list; List of railway stations in Belgium Andykn101 (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
     
  30. Stewart

    Stewart Member

    Messages:
    127
    Joined:
    31 Aug 2011
    If an issue is politicised then Wiki becomes worse than useless due to vested interests editing posts.
     
  31. VTPreston_Tez

    VTPreston_Tez Established Member

    Messages:
    1,159
    Joined:
    26 Jan 2012
    Location:
    Preston
    now this thread has been mentioned by yours truly on the page following proposals to revive the template, I think we should make a discussion on what the new template should look like. Maybe do a bit of IRC/xat discussion or post here.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page