Talk:Stratford TMD

Stratford Works and TMD both need work

Both the Stratford Works and this article needs a lot of work. There's a lot of material in this article that does not have inline citations, WP:V far too much detail (lists of loco allocations in 1922, for example) WP:NOTDATABASE and a fair bit of what I suspect is copyrighted material (Text from the souvenir brochure for the TMD Open Day, for example). WP:COPYVIO Whether the sources that are listed are reliable is another thing worth looking at. WP:NOR If anyone desperately cares for this article, feel free to make a start on fixing this - otherwise just a heads up that I may return in a few weeks to cut chunks from these articles that fail basic Wikipedia standards... Turini2 (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I do and will fix some of this with more references but have a lot on at the moment - I will raise this in the rail group as well.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Davidvaughanwells: In response to your message here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Stratford_Works_and_Stratford_TMD -

Define excessive? I think the allocation of engines to an engine shed is a key part of the story and its a summary of how that changed over the years.
— User: Davidvaughanwells 08:40, November 20, 2021‎ (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTDIRECTORY & WP:NOTDATABASE - allocations of every single engine allocated, built or used on a site; or the type/use/age of every building on the site isn't notable. This information is superfluous. Having a line like "In 1925, 529 locomotives were allocated at the site - including notable engine X and notable engine Y" would convey significantly more information to the reader. You state that they are "key part of the story" - okay, tell that story! At the moment, my perception of the allocations are that it's just an indiscriminate list of stuff.

Furthermore, if this information had been reproduced from a (single) source - reproducing that information would fail copyright. It would be better to direct the reader to that source if they want that information. WP:NOFULLTEXT "In Wikipedia articles, quotes of any original texts being discussed should be relevant to the discussion (or illustrative of style) and should be kept to an appropriate length."

Its been there for several years and no one has yet objected and I am aware of at least two editors who have looked at the page and not found it a problem
— User: Davidvaughanwells 08:40, November 20, 2021‎ (UTC)

Time present doesn't equal sustained inclusion if it fails basic standards. I'm discussing it first to hopefully fix things, rather than just removing it!

I thought about the copyrighted material but seeing it was out there on the web anyway and the organisation that produced it does not exist and it was a leaflet rather than a book then who exactly is going to object?
— User:Davidvaughanwells 08:40, November 20, 2021‎ (UTC)

"Do not plagiarize or breach copyright when using sources." WP:YTCOPYRIGHT Can't be plainer than that. Anything that Wikipedians didn't write in their own words - should be removed from these articles. Thanks to Murgatroyd49 for removing the BR Open Day bit, btw.

You also suggest there is more copyrighted material - such as?
— User:Davidvaughanwells 08:40, November 20, 2021‎ (UTC)

Any large chunks of text with just one source fills me with concern - L P Parker, Facilities at grouping (1921) in the Stratford Works article etc. WP:NOFULLTEXT, as above.

You also mention original research - my main sources are the GER society journals, the books I own and anything available on the internet
— User:Davidvaughanwells 08:40, November 20, 2021‎ (UTC)

There's significant chunks of both articles without citations. Without citations, how can we know that the information is verifiable or reliable? Many of the sources seem to be closely related to the subject, and there's really not that many sources given - "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Hence my additional query whether the sources are reliable. WP:GNG Turini2 (talk) 09:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

For personal reasons I will not be able to carry out any corrective work until well into next year so I will leave the next steps to you. --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Davidvaughanwells: I hope you feel better soon - your health is most important! Turini2 (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)