'Helpme' pages removed - see 'history'

‏الإصدار 7.13.0 MhmmedAlshehri (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

For pages like this you can make the links nicer and easier to understand by doing this:

*

*

*

gives:

• nice name
• another nice name
• Steamrail Victoria Forums - thread title

Wongm (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How's this?

The W article

I'll start on the MT and E articles.

If you tack ~~~~ onto the end of your posts it adds your name, time, and date.

An example link would be Peter J Vincent: AW - First Class Sitting Car Wongm (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see your contribtions on railway history. Your E carriage article got me fired up - we cannot give NSW a free kick, as Robert Lee has done! Robert is NQR about the design of the E cars (not to detract from his valuable book). Carriage design in NSW was nothing like as advanced as in Victoria, and the Pullmans were only used for sleepers. I hope to add something of the background of the E carriages and rollingstock design. Might I suggest you research the humble Z van? They were so characteristic of the VR over such a long time - right back into the mid 19th Century, and still with us into the 1970's. I cold help you out with a few historical photographs. Mav62 (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My next pages that I want to do, include a page on the BCPL cars (linked to the MT car page), an APL/BPL page, and something on guard's vans. Any preference?

Steamtostay (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Starting on the Guard's van page, I have a few questions. This is my main source. So, which should I include in the article? I was going to start with the plan 6-wheel Z-van and it's variations (D, ZL, ZP, etc.). Should we have separate pages for these, and, say, the 'power vans' (PCJ, etc.,) or the purely passenger vans (C, etc.)?

finished, Linky. It only covers the Z vans and their alternatives, such as DH, H, ZZ, ZL, D, etc. Opinions?

I've never been much of a fan myself in creating articles on subjects where there is a heap of info up on the net already. It is one thing to say that, when not everyone can get their hands on books covering other less covered subjects. However, everyone else is free to do what they want to do, as long as you aren't doing a copy and paste of stuff from elsewhere.

The pages you have done are a bit 'gunzel heavy' as well - more of the numbers and dates than descriptions of the interior and what they look like and stuff like that. I did a bit of work on the N / Z / S set pages a while back - you might get some ideas there.

Finally - some photos would be nice. Most of the older stuff I don't have photos of myself, and you can't just upload any old photos you find on the net - you need to get permission. Wongm (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, about the info being available elsewhere. However, Wikipedia is more likely to show up on a Google than PJV's site, and in some cases I've merged info from there, and other sites, into one page. This makes it easier for the junior researcher, like myself, and it was one of the main problems I faced about five years ago when I started my 'HO scale Rollingstock Shopping List". Also, a lot of the other sites are out-of-date; for example, V/LineCars reports September 2007 as the most recent update.

The Gunzel Heavy thing, well, there's not much I can do about that. I don't have ANY of my own photos (because my father doesn't like me going out Gunzelling alone!), and like you said, I can't copy from elsewhere. Plus, believe it or not, I've only once been on a v/line train - and that was a sprinter from Geelong to Melb in July, 2001

BTW, I've finished the fifth page: Power Vans

Steamtostay (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)reply

I will be doing more about the vans, so should the CS or DS vans from the Spirit of Progress, be on the existing 'S' page, or a new page? What about Murray or Norman?

Steamtostay (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)reply

I know what you mean about PVJ's site - even Googleing obscure things and it doesn't pop up. The CS and other non sitting cars were part of the original Spirit consist - might as well cover it there, as with the DS. A page like Victorian Railways dining cars might be an idea for a 'top down' view of all the different types of cars, and on to the 1980s snack bars that came later. The 'New Deal' is a topic that isn't really covered online - a Newsrail mag a while back covered it. One of the Newsrail mags I have laying about has a history of railway catering for the other suggestion I just made. Added photos and links to the power van page too. Wongm (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)reply

I might try to do the dining cars thing, but it'll take a while, because I'm at school tomorrow and thursday (I've had the last four days off). I'd have only small blurbs about Murray, the BRS's, the BG's and so on, with 'main article' links going to their respective parts of other pages.

I think we need, now, to define the difference between the S cars and the SoP articles, as well as defining the difference between the N sets article and the Victorian Railways New Deal article when we make that. I'd also ask someone else to do the article on the 'New Deal', because I don't know enough about it.

Finally, I noticed, your editing of the PCO, PCJ part of the power van article has a few errors. Remember that PCO 1 and 3 were turned into PCJ's, so only PCO 2 and PCO 4 are left. As the article reads now, PCO 4 disappears altogether, while PCJ491 (PCO 1) splits it's identity between VLP and GSR. Could you clarify this?

...PCO 1 was refurbished and re-entered service with Great Southern Railway in 2007.

PCO 1 is in plain grey...

Should these read PCO 4? Steamtostay (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)reply

Correct about PCO 4 smacks head. I though I had already started scattering red New Deal (Victoria) about, but I guess I haven't. The xxx type carriage pages are about the train, SoP is about the train that used the S cars (and the Z stock as well later on), New Deal mentions the N cars were part of it. The non sitting SOP cars did get the S classification in the 1980s, so are S type carriage. Wongm (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)reply

So we need to add Murray, CS, DS, and Norman to the S type carriage article. Could I get you to do the 'New Deal' article? Do you need any new rollingstock pages in order to create it? As for the Dining car article, I just spent about an hour on PJV's site, and there is no class, no individual page, nothing! They are spread around into all the other pages. How about, I start the article with info on dining cars in general, and then we can allocate research between us to add.

BTW, I've changed the Trailer page again, check the MTH and 1300 headings. Also, take a look at the A Class in this photo!

Steamtostay (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)reply

The 'Brief History' book has 2 pages in the front with a general history of tank wagons - I might tackle a article on that soon. Wongm (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)reply

Sounds good. I'll finish the Bogie Guard Vans thing, and then maybe do the open wagons, the G and I series in general.

Steamtostay (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)reply

BTW, my original idea for this article was for it to focus on oil wagons in particular, with chlorine/alcohol/ammonia/tar/gas/etc. in Miscellaneous and the DW/WT's in Way and Works. Your thoughts?

That would leave the fuel oil trucks, LFT, OT, TW, VTBA, VTOA, VTQA and VTQZ wagons. Do you plan to include the VKKF Flat Wagon? Finally, PJV puts the Weedex into this group - I think that should be in W&W instead, what about you?

Steamtostay (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)reply

Hi Anothersignalman! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)reply

Hello, Anothersignalman. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Skamecrazy123 (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).reply

And another oneedit

Hello, Anothersignalman. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by NtheP (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).reply

It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!

	Teahouse First Birthday Badge
	Awarded to everyone who participated in the Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year! To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

--Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 22:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Victorian Railways fixed wheel passenger carriages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hampton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)reply

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Victorian Railways bogie guards vans may have broken the syntax by modifying 16 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)reply

Hi signalman
You mentioned gooseneck-type couplers in large bogie boxvan for car parts. Are these couplers still in use? Would it be possible to get a dimensioned drawing? What particularly interests me is the vertical offset between the coupler head and the shank.
Regards, Peter Horn User talk 18:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)reply

Sorry, I'm not sure where to look. You could try contacting the ARHS as a starting point.

Most of the work I've been doing here is mainly a merge of everything already online (and solving conflicting reports), because I was sick of having to look in four or five different places every time. Anothersignalman (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)reply

OK, I had to go through ARHS to find ARHS. So now I'll find (a) website(s) and hopefully email addresses. Thanks. Peter Horn User talk 19:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 19:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)reply

Eureka: Contact us Peter Horn User talk 19:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Victorian Railways K class, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Pacific. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Victorian Railways bogie guards vans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Zorro. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited V&SAR Overland Carriages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Coast Railway. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the N type carriage page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)reply

Hello, Anothersignalman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)reply

You can take a look at what I did here. I think that's much easier to read even though I didn't manage to stack it horizontally. Huon (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)reply

Table looks pretty good, I'll see what people think of it. Anothersignalman (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)reply

Asked a few colourblind people (limited sample), and their response was that the only issue with the table style was blue text on blue background.

Incidentally, is there a way to have some fields in the table automatically calculated? For example, the column "capacity" is based on manually calculating the total number of seats across all carriages in that row, but if it could be done automatically that would be quite useful. Anothersignalman (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply

That said, I'd still argue that this level of detail, without any reliable published sources (and no, a closed Facebook group is not a reliable published source), is excessive - I appreciate that you have invested a huge amount of effort in gathering that information, but I'm not sure Wikipedia is an appropriate venue for such intricate details as the numbers of specific carriages or timetables. If you're looking for an off-Wikipedia site to host such content, Wikia may be worth a look. Huon (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)reply

I was under the impression that Wikia was for fiction, but if I can find some non-fiction pages in there I'll recommend shifting the content across as part of the planned Vicsig rebuild. What data would you leave in the pages, and what would you move to the Wikia page, using Victorian Railways S type carriage? That's probably the most complete out of all the articles I've written. If you're in the mood, could you perhaps create an example at User:Huon/Victorian Railways S type carriage, or User:Anothersignalman/Victorian Railways S type carriage, with what should be left here? Anothersignalman (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)reply

I've been reading up on the Wikipedia definition of "reliable published sources". Following links in the article leads to Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states that the requirement for a source to qualify is that it must be "made available to the public in some form".¹

• 1. Published - I suppose the core of the problem is how to define "the public" - I've been treating it as 'the vast majority of people likely to visit the (section of the) article', most of whom would have access to the facebook groups already or who can gain access, just like a public library requiring membership (including proof of ID) to borrow books. That's probably different to a non-enthusiast perspective, where "the public" would mean everybody with an internet connection - to use the library analogy, anybody with the means and time to travel to the relevant library and obtain the document/s. So I'd argue that at least some content on forums and facebook threads should meet the definition of "published", depending on the audience.
• 2. Reliability - Within those sites (railpage, facebook etc), I've been careful a) link to the individual posts, not threads or sites in general, that are the relevant sources, and b) to only cite reliable resources, which I judge from my own experience going back to September 2005. The posts at the end of the URLs are by sources who have proven to be correct (within the context of rolling stock allocations in Victoria) many times over, and that makes them reliable. I suppose I could add a note in the References section along the lines of, "posts by Person 1, Person 2 & Person 3 are considered reliable in this context", for example.

Anothersignalman (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply

Again, I think you misunderstand Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources. In this context, "published" means something that's gone through some kind of fact-checking process (e.g. books are proofread by the publisher, journal articles get peer reviewed, corporate webpages and press releases must be approved by that company's PR department). On the other hand, personal websites, blogs, and social-media posts do not have to go through this rigorous process, and thus anybody and post anything to the Internet and make it appear legitimate; however, they cannot be used as sources on Wikipedia (and for good reason). This policy has nothing to do with the trustworthiness of the individual poster, so arguing that so and so is "reliable" is moot. Please stop adding these types of citations. Thanks! – voidxor 21:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)reply

What makes you think publishers proofread books, beyond a quick spell-check? Journal articles are only peer reviewed in reputable journals, but there are probably hundreds of journals that publish anything if you pay them,² and web pages / press releases are often what the source wants you to think, not what actually happened. Agree that websites, blogs, forums and posts don't naturally go through scrutiny, but it is possible to cross-reference them or to prove that people are who they say they are, which should be able to turn an otherwise disallowed source into a permitted one. The policy page states that:

   "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Since the people I've mentioned have all had their work published elsewhere (Newsrail etc), they should be cleared. It would help if I could produce a list of those people, but not sure where to stick it.

Incidentally, re Huon's comment above, the talk page for WP:IRS clearly says:

   "Do sources have to be free, online and/or conveniently available to me?
       No. Sources can be expensive, print-only, or available only in certain places. A source does not stop being reliable simply because you personally aren't able to obtain a copy."

That means a closed group/forum is perfectly acceptable, if I manage to overcome the issue re it being facebook. Anothersignalman (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply

Just found this bit:

   Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums and electoral manifestos.

That goes against what you said above re press releases being reliable/verified sources.

Anothersignalman (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply

While not likely to be applicable here, given the non-controversial nature of the material, but something published by an individual or organisation is subject to the laws of defamation. Hence the publisher will go through a degree of fact checking before publishing. Unlike say an anonymous post on social media where the law is a bit grey.

While enthusiast magazines like Newsrail do rely on contributions from various sources some of whom the editor does not personally know, to protect its reputation, he is likely to run it by someone knowledgeable to check for reasonableness, rather than publish carte blanche and then have to publish a retraction. Beachbo (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply

I noticed there is a {{convert}} error at Harris (train). It can be seen by searching for "convert:" (with the colon). Mouse over the message to see more detail, or click edit and preview to see a much more prominent message.

I think the following is what is wanted, but it would be better if you were to confirm this and make the edit. There is no need to use fractional tons because convert has been able to do the following for a couple of years. Using LT gives the name in full, while lt gives an abbreviation. In the first example, it is necessary to include "|0|Lcwt"—convert gives a junk result without it.

• {{convert|46|LT|0|Lcwt|6|qtr|t|2|abbr=on}} → 46 long tons 0 cwt 6 qtr (46.81 t)
• {{convert|30|LT|16|Lcwt|2|qtr|t|2|abbr=on}} → 30 long tons 16 cwt 2 qtr (31.32 t)
• {{convert|32|LT|6|Lcwt|t|2|abbr=on}} → 32 long tons 6 cwt (32.82 t)
• {{convert|37|LT|8|Lcwt|t|2|abbr=on}} → 37 long tons 8 cwt (38.00 t)
• {{convert|46|lt|0|Lcwt|6|qtr|t|2|abbr=on}} → 46 LT 0 cwt 6 qtr (46.81 t)
• {{convert|30|lt|16|Lcwt|2|qtr|t|2|abbr=on}} → 30 LT 16 cwt 2 qtr (31.32 t)
• {{convert|32|lt|6|Lcwt|t|2|abbr=on}} → 32 LT 6 cwt (32.82 t)
• {{convert|37|lt|8|Lcwt|t|2|abbr=on}} → 37 LT 8 cwt (38.00 t)

Please check any other similar articles you may have edited. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply

Thanks, I've been wondering how to code that for a while now. Will fix. Anothersignalman (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply

Finished, I think. Have I missed anything? Anothersignalman (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply

R type carriageedit

Many thanks for your edits. Unfortunately some of it is using posts on the Railpage forum as cites. Irrespective of a personal opinion as to the reliability of an individual poster, forum discussions are not considered reliable as described at WP:SELFPUBLISH. Sorry if I am coming across as a bit of a bureaucrat, but if something is only supported by an invalid cite, an editor may come along in the future and delete. Better to write an article with what can be backed up by reliable sources. Beachbo (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply

Guessing you're referring to my note on the talk page of the R type carriage page? Until 2041 there won't be any official documentation available, so in the meantime the only knowledgeable sources are Daryl Gregory (cited in some other articles), the Newsrail 1986 and Comeng Vol.4 books (which I need to re-hire copies of, so that I can add the inline citations), and recollections from the individuals involved in the development of the projects. Kuldalai is one of two or three "established experts" I've been able to find who were involved at the time, and he chose to publish information on Railpage (and other people choose to publish on Facebook). I have followed up those comments with personal emails to the people involved, and discussed in person, but I'm not sure how to reference those discussions since they can't be replicated by a random person and even the target audience for the article would struggle. As a temporary solution (until I can get copies of the printed sources) I can live with reversing deletions of the content, daily if necessary. Anothersignalman (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply

DERM pageedit

That's the wrong way to go about it! WP:BURDEN requires the uploader (that'd be you) to provide reliable sources. If you can't do that (and it sounds like you can't), then anybody is welcome to remove come along and remove the content. I'm sure that's what Beachbo is referring to, and also what I'm struggling with on Diesel Electric railmotor (VR). Please read the policies that we are linking you to before continuing to revert. For example, I removed some original research, and linked to our original-research policy in my edit summary, then you reverted with no explanation and without addressing my concern. It's seems that you didn't bother to read the policy. – voidxor 20:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)reply

Re references and reliable sources in general, I'll address that in the other thread to keep everything together. Going to bed now, will look at it again when I next have a chance.

Re DERM upgrades, I added a reference to one of the many pages with photos of the upgraded vehicles. The link is to Mark Bau's site, which is one of a handful of recognised reliable sources in the railway community, at least when it comes to provision of photographs, such as of 55RM and 61RM post-upgrade. 1 refer to the photo captioned "RM 55 and 61 were extensively rebuilt in 1978, these photos show RM 55 in its rebuilt state." Other sources disagree with the "1978" bit (plus or minus a year, but still late 1970's), but the photo clearly shows the aesthetic changes.

Fair enough re the bent frame thing, I need to recheck that.

Re the DERM rebuilds, I've found other written sources:

• Bray, Vincent & Gregory, Preserved Rolling Stock of Victoria, 2013, ISBN 978-0-9806806-4-5, p.62 - "RM 55 was rebuilt and lengthened 11/1979." & "RM 61 was rebuilt and lengthened 1978".
• DERMPAV site - 55RM: "In 1978 the car had a major overhaul with engine relocation and seating rearrangement." & 61RM "In 1978 the car had a major overhaul with engine relocation and seating rearrangement." This page is already referenced on the DERM article.
• Peter Vincent's website, transcripts from official records, sources referenced

And photo sources, showing external differences between the normal DERMs and upgraded units:

• VicSig 55RM entry
• VicSig 61RM entry
• victorianrailways.net, written by Mark Bau - the original one I linked to
• Peter Vincent's website - he's also one of the authors above
• Norm Bray's flickr account - he's also one of the authors above
• Rob O'Reagan's website

Are any of those sources good enough? Why or why not?

I also noticed that you removed my link to the facebook thread where the Yarra Valley Railway claims that they will acquire 55RM ex South Gippsland Railway.³ It's an official statement from the YVR, so why is it not considered reliable? You can't say it's because you don't know whether that's a real page or not - it's fairly clear if you look at any of the other posts there. Since the vehicle is owned by Victrack and allocated to the Newport museum, then suballocated to SGR, there's no other way they could get permission to transfer it, and no reason to think they're lying. Anothersignalman (talk • contribs) 17:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply

As WP:SPS says, and as I and others have been repeating for awhile now, self-published sources are not considered reliable on Wikipedia. I'm really not sure why this is so difficult, but I'll try to answer anyway:

• Pretty much anything with an ISBN is formally published, and thus reliable.
• Organization websites (e.g. DERMPAV, VICSIG) are put together by a group, so I'd be inclined to say that they are okay as well (though it's a bit of a gray area, so others may disagree).
• Personal websites (e.g. pjv101.net, victorianrailways.net, robx1.net) are self published, and therefore not reliable. Yes, there is an obscure policy exception for individuals who are very important within their field—like research professors who are authorities in their subject area—but in general I'd just avoid using personal websites altogether. And no, railfans who are well regarded in the railfan community do not meet this requirement.
• Social media (e.g. Flickr, Facebook, Twitter) is also self published, and thus not reliable.

Hope this helps. – voidxor 05:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply

Its difficult because the rules seem arbitrary, both in writing and in application. For example, I checked your link to the ISBN page. There's nothing magical about having an ISBN attached to your book, all it means is that you had $42 (now $44)⁴ plus enough to print a few copies at the local library or post office. They offer immediate supply of the codes, which means they can't proofread anything or even check that you are who you say you are.

Can you provide any examples of experts who do meet the self-publication requirement? The text on WP:SPS looks to me like it was written explicitly to allow content from posts by people like Vincent, Bray, Gregory, and to a lesser extent O'Reagan, Bau etc., because they are the leading (read: only) experts in the field of Victorian Railways rolling stock history. (Also, you don't get to claim that one part of the rules is "obscure". It's all relevant.) What disqualifies "railfans who are well regarded in the railfan community"? For reference, the quote from the page:

    Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

I also don't see why it matters where something is published, only who does the publishing and whether they can be confirmed as an accurate source of information. There's a lot of irrelevant stuff on social media, but serious discussions do happen there on a daily basis; and often smaller organisations find it easier to post details on facebook, where a post can be assembled in perhaps half an hour, rather than on a website which requires intricate coding. Did you actually check the YVR link? Or are you just looking at the "facebook.com" bit and assuming it's unworthy? Anothersignalman (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply

Further discussion should probably take place here:

• Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Reliability of social media sources representing companies.
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sources for articles on railway vehicles in Victoria, Australia.

Anothersignalman (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply

The issue is that regardless of an editor's opinion on the level of expertise of a poster, that forum discussions are generally not accepted as reliable. Otherwise I could go set up an account on the Raipage forum as John Dunn (the author of the Comeng book), wax lyrical for a while, and then quote it here as a cite. Hence I have removed the hidden Railpage cites from the R type carriage article, as they are not compliant now and short of a change in policy, won't be in the future. Beachbo (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply

Re Railpage, could you do that consistently for over ten years, across multiple forums with the same username and writing style, without being caught? Also, John Dunn passed away in 2012, so I think you'd struggle in that case. My point is that generic rules only make sense to a point, and some allowance has to be made for common sense within the context. Anothersignalman (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply

As stated below, it is far better to have an article, even if less detailed, that can be backed up by compliant sources. Otherwise someone may come along and deem that the article is largely uncited and put it up for deletion. Beachbo (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply

Would you object to my restoring the forum posts after I've properly added inline citations from the acceptable secondary sources? Anothersignalman (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply

And in reality some of these articles are hard to read, being bogged down with technical details like endless list of carriage numbers, when a higher level overview would be more appropriate. South Australian Railways steel carriage stock being an example, with listing every change in configuration, reclassification, repaint etc making it clunky. Beachbo (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply

In the case of the SAR Steel cars, they've had a far more complex history than most types, relative to fleet size, so it's somewhat necessary. I can try to rewrite to make it less "clunky", but honestly that's really just my writing style. The content can't be changed, but my personal gold standard is generally something like the Victorian Railways E type carriage page. I just don't have enough information to pad out the SAR steel cars article. I expect that'll change in the next year or so, as more models are being produced and when reviewed they are usually accompanied by class histories. Anothersignalman (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply

Model railway sectionsedit

As for the model railway section, I'll clean it up a bit before I restore it, but I think it is important information relevant to the vehicles. After all, the only people with any interest in the page will be historians or enthusiasts, so probably half the target audience for the page will be interested in the model railway aspects (and Trainz/etc simulators, but I don't know enough about those). I have considered writing a new page, say, Models of Victorian Railways Locomotives and Rolling Stock, with every current page having a link to that list, but it seems rather clunky. What do you think? Anothersignalman (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)reply

I think it unlikely that such an article would pass the general notability guideline for inclusion in the encyclopedia. As Huon said in the other thread, Wikia might better suit your needs as a railfan trying to track details that may be considered small potatoes on Wikipedia. – voidxor 00:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply

The general notability guideline you linked to says, at the top, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." There's about fifty years' worth of articles and reviews for the products in question which I can reference, plus primary sources (or via wayback machine) from the manufacturers listing the products. For now I'll do my own version of the page, and if necessary later on the code can be transplanted to the redlink above. Anothersignalman (talk • contribs) 17:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply

Articles and reviews would likely make great sources, so long as they aren't self published (e.g. on a personal website or blog). Primary sources are less preferable, but often still suitable. I think creating a candidate article in your own user space is an excellent idea. You can submit it at articles for creation (AfC) when you think it's ready to become an article, and the good folks at AfC will give you feedback on whether the subject matter is notable, and whether your sources can be considered reliable. – voidxor 05:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply

Noted and appreciated, thanks :) Anothersignalman (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply

This section may help. While of some interest to a small percentage of the readership, we need to remember that we are trying to inform the wider audience. While a high level review maybe ok, listing every permutation is a bit over the top, and listing prices fails catalogue policy and could be interpreted as promotional. In time the price will also become irrelevant, e.g. that something cost $100 in 1987 is of little relevance now. But agree with Voidxor's post above that probably not required at all. Beachbo (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply

Without having actually done a poll on the topic, I expect that around half the visitors to each of the rollingstock articles would be interested. What's the threshold? Fair enough re pricing, I suppose. Anothersignalman (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply

There's no threshold because readership is not how we gauge notability. I think Beachbo's point was just that it might not be as notable as you think. – voidxor 04:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)reply

Hi Anothersignalman

There is a pile of drafts that were started, but never included a lede sentence or a reference. Are you in a position to turn these into stubs so that they can again become articles?

Draft:South Australian Railways C Class Draft:South Australian Railways F Class (First) Draft:South Australian Railways G Class Draft:South Australian Railways Ga Class Draft:South Australian Railways Gc Class Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=User_talk:Anothersignalman
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.