Wikipedia

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

  • Yes, then Wikipedia

    Votes: 20 60.6%
  • No, scrap the idea altogether

    Votes: 12 36.4%
  • Yes, just this page

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, but other Wikipedia pages yes

    Votes: 1 3.0%

  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

VTPreston_Tez

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2012
Messages
1,159
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.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

matchmaker

Member
Joined
8 Mar 2009
Messages
1,070
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!
 

wintonian

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2010
Messages
4,889
Location
Hampshire
yes with a lot of enthusiast myths too.

IIRC Forums don't meet their standards for reliable sources

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.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
24,449
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:

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
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.
"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.
 

OxtedL

Established Member
Associate Staff
Quizmaster
Joined
23 Mar 2011
Messages
2,425
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.

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:

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
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.
 

Tommy3000

Member
Joined
14 Feb 2012
Messages
34
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.
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.
 

telstarbox

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
4,983
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:

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
24,449
Location
Work - Fenny Stratford(MK) Home - Darlington
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.

That is the wrong bloody link without the citations! Trying to be to clever there. I have given up anyway.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,453
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
 

Ivo

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2010
Messages
7,307
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.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
22,639
Location
Redcar
"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.

Fixed that for you ;)

Class 67 Wiki page

Another problem is that some information can be correct yet hard to reference

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?).
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
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.
 

VTPreston_Tez

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2012
Messages
1,159
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...
 

Ivo

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2010
Messages
7,307
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
 

wintonian

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2010
Messages
4,889
Location
Hampshire
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

Why haven't I thought of that? :(
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
26,632
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
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.
 

Ivo

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2010
Messages
7,307
Location
Bath (or Southend)
All four stations are in the same NR type category though, as 'National Interchange 'B' stations'.

One in all in?

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...

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.

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.
 

Lampshade

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2009
Messages
3,575
Location
South London
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.

I did all the Lancashire stations the day the stats were released, I'm not doing the whole country though :lol::shock:
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
9,450
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.
 

andykn

Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
230
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)
 

Stewart

Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
127
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

If an issue is politicised then Wiki becomes worse than useless due to vested interests editing posts.
 

VTPreston_Tez

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2012
Messages
1,159
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top