Talk:CBH class/Archive 1

February 2014

The main reason in the 2,400 byte reduction has been the consolidation in the Background section, there was some duplication. Unecessary soundbites from employees also removed. Cites taken from 17 to 26. Mo7838 (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted all of the recent changes, to the text and to the infobox.

There are three main reasons why the recent changes to the text were inappropriate:

• The lead section was reduced to a single sentence. According to MOS:LEAD, lead sections are supposed to summarise an article, not just introduce it.

• Most of the rest of the article was converted by the changes from an article specifically about the CBH class into what could have been a generic "fill in the empty spaces" article about just about any class of diesel locomotive. The CBH class is most notable for being a key part of three completely new business ventures, by the owner (CBH), the operator (Watco) and the builder (Wabtec). So much was clear from the article in its original form, but was almost completely absent from the changed article.

• Most of the additional references added by the changes were either non-independent sources (ie one of the three organisations mentioned above), or an unreliable source (railpage, which, relevantly, is just another wiki). While it is acceptable to publish quotes (identified as such) from non-independent sources, it is usually not appropriate to rely upon them as proof of the truth of what is said, especially if a reliable independent source is available (as in this case).

There are two main reasons why the recent changes to the infobox were inappropriate:

• A large number of unbulleted lists were replaced with line breaks The latter method of creating lists is deprecated in Wikipedia, particularly in infoboxes, for good reason, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#List styles.

• Most of the rest of the changes to the infobox had the effect of removing non-breaking spaces that had been inserted, as recommended by WP:MOS, to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements of data that would be awkward if divided between two lines, see MOS:NBSP.

It is possible that small portion of the text changes can be reincorporated on the basis that they update or expand the article in a manner that complies with WP:MOS. I will consider that possibility some time in the next week or so, but I do not have the time to do it now. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

---

1) Infobox: If formatting error, a 'best of both worlds' solution should be found. Infobox was replaced with current version of Template:Infobox locomotive. Various hitherto unpopulated fields were filled.

2) Lead: Version introduced may have been too short, but reinstated version is too long. Some of the points are too detailed for a lead, eg quoting both the entry into service and official handover date. These also fail MOS:LEAD by not being mentioned in the body of the article and need to be moved down. Likewise a description of the relationship between CBH Group and Brookfield Rail, and the location of its ports is too much detail for a lead, and again not mentioned in the body.

3) In some sections there is detail that pads the article out rather than being encyclopedic:

i) Vague statements like "an encouraging number of proposals" not required, likewise no need to mention tender cut off date, better to state: On 13 December 2010 CBH awarded....

ii} CBH operations manager quote not required, any new capital investment is going to improve efficency

iii) Mentioning that 6 parties were shortlisted to bid and that MotivePower's was selected because it would be the best option, is not required, that's how any tender process works, would only be encyclopedic if they didn't pick the best option

iv) That MotivePower hoped it would be the first of many export orders is not relevant to the article, maybe at MotivePower, but even that would be dubious

v) How a component was manufactured and by which plants isn't encyclopedic, that a prime mover passed through a number of plants is standard process, given the establishment of "centres of excellence"

vi) No need to mention bogies as trucks, I believe the latter is an American term

vii) Not encyclopedic to mention names of competition winners

viii) That it took 7 weeks for the journey from the US to Fremantle is not encyclopedic

4) While cites from CBH Group and Wabtec are primary and do contain a promotional element, they do provide a useful source of dates etc and back up secondary sources in the event of link rot. As Wabtec is a listed company, it's not going to be putting out false statements to the New York Stock Exchange.

5) While Railpage etc are enthusiast sites, short of a company publishing its fleetlist, any list compiled is likely to be from enthusiast's observations, even in trade press such as Motive Power. While an enthusiast site and potentially a little out of date, Railpage is moderated and it is fair to assume WP:GOODFAITH and include, different story if it was a forum. Mo7838 (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Response:

1) I will reincorporate the newly populated parameters in the near future. It is easier to do that than fix the formatting problems one by one.

2) The length and level of detail you criticise is normal, acceptable and expected for the leads of featured and good articles about transport machinery. See, eg, Boeing 767, SS Edmund Fitzgerald and RMS Queen Mary 2. Such length and detail is unusual in articles about locomotives only because most locomotive articles are of low quality. However, the four paragraph lead of LNER Class A4 4468 Mallard (a B class article) refers to three different specific dates, amongst other details. Material that is not mentioned in the body should be added to the body, not removed from the lead.

3) The detail is appropriate; it just isn't usual for articles about locomotives, because such articles are usually of low quality:

i) referenced, and encyclopedic because it was a new venture;

ii) capital investment is often written off eventually as a big mistake;

iii) tender processes do not always work the way they should, see, eg, Lockheed bribery scandals, Boeing KC-767;

iv) are you kidding?

v) Wikipedia is for general readers, not experts in locomotive construction; this type of information is normal, acceptable and expected in articles about automobile models;

vi) the CBH class locomotives are manufactured in the USA by a USA based company for export to Australia to be operated by a subsidiary of a USA based company on behalf of an Australian company, and therefore both terms should be used;

vii) the article Flag of Australia is a featured article, and names (and also describes) all five winners of the 1901 competition to design it (amongst many other people); the Mallard article names various drivers and fireman, what's the difference?

viii) few general readers would have detailed knowledge about how long it takes to transport a large object from the USA to Western Australia; the article First Fleet states how many days it took to sail from England to Australia, what's the difference?

4) The best way to address link rot is to archive the secondary online sources or rely upon reliable print sources. Some of the reverted text was inaccurate and contradicted by the newly added sources, eg it was grain that had been deregulated, not rail.

5) Trade press, by definition, has links with the trade as well as with enthusiasts. According to WP:RELIABLE, "'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)" and "open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable". Motive Power is a well established reasonably priced widely available conventional news reporting magazine that publishes a national fleet list annually and updates it every two months; Railpage is an enthusiasts' forum Bahnfrend (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

---

1) Infobox replaced with current version of Template:Infobox locomotive which corrects the 'Americanised' terms eg railroad. Hitherto unpopulated fields have been filled.

2) Agree &  Disagree Not so much the length but the level of detail, eg quoting both the entry into service and official handover date, the former would be suffice, but the latter is noteworthy enough to include in the body. These also fail MOS:LEAD by not being mentioned in the body.

3i)  Disagree The article doesn't need to go through the full procurement cycle of: decided to buy, called for expressions of interest, received responses, selected shortlist, issued Invitation to Tender, evaluated tenders, selected preferred bidder, awarded contract. Not that this article goes through all of these, but can be stated in a more concise way. Statements like "an encouraging number of proposals" lack precision and are just waffle. Would be more beneficial if the other bidders were identified. East Midlands Trains is a good example, short, sharp and to the point.

ii)  Disagree Operations Manager quote doesn't state if purchase was a success or not….couldn’t of anyway as it was written before the locomotives had arrived. Is an unnecessary quote adding no value.

iii)  Disagree Tender process is a critical factor in the Lockheed bribery scandals and Boeing KC-767 articles as it was irregularities in this process, which influenced the result. The procurement for the subject of this article was routine and thus not encyclopaedic.

iv)  Disagree Am I kidding? No deadly serious. Wiki is about recording what did happen, or given a statement of intent from involved parties, has a reasonable chance of happening. That a company had ambitions of selling more of a product is not of note.

v) Agree

vi)  Disagree The article is about an Australian class of locomotive and is flagged as Australian English. Just because something is manufactured in another jurisdiction doesn't mean it shouldn't comply, eg HMAS Perth, British Rail Class 70. Thus no need to add American terminology, measurements should be given in metric before imperial, dates in dd/mm format, metre not meter etc. Conversely MPI MP33C should be written in American English.

vii)  Disagree Regarding Mallard, the driver and firemen on the record run are worthy of mention, they did after all set a world record. Yes they had a good tool under them, but there was an element of skill required to get to 126mph. But as for the other crews, I would question the need to mention. The legacy of the winners of the Flag of Australia competition was a bit more substantial than a couple of names painted on the side of a locomotive. Again I would question the need to name, although that one was only 14 is of note.

viii)  Disagree Huge difference, the First Fleet was at the time one of, if not the, longest maritime expeditions undertaken up to that point. Given the appalling conditions that resulted in 48 deaths during the 36 week voyage, is far more relevant. By comparison the shipping of a piece of mechanical equipment from the West Coast of America to Western Australia must have occurred thousands of times by 2012 with over 100 locomotives for the Pilbara alone. A quick search indicates that 6 weeks is about the norm for this journey. Whatever the reason for the slightly longer journey time, the 100 tons of CBH locomotive in the hold of the 76,500 ton MV Tysla wouldn't have been why.

4) Agree , but nonetheless primary cites do potentially 'future proof' the article in the event of a secondary cite not being web archived and is fair to assume WP:GOODFAITH.

5) Agree Mo7838 (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Second response:

1) The substance of my criticism is that you converted an infobox that complied with WP:MOS into one that didn't. You have not responded to that criticism.

2) What you seem to be saying is that the lead of an encyclopedia article should contain only minimal information, and not be interesting to read. That is the opposite of what is required of the lead of a featured article in Wikipedia.

3) Similar comments apply to what you seem to be saying about the article as a whole. For an example of a featured article written in the style you criticise, see Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery.

i), ii) and iii) Your comments here appear to be based on three different premises with which I cannot agree.

Your first premise is that there is such a thing as a routine procurement process for a co-operative company wanting to procure multiple examples of complex, valuable tailor-made capital machinery, to be supplied in three distinct sets of specifications, for the purposes of setting up a costly new venture. In fact, procurements of such complexity are an art rather than a science, involving trade-offs between such important factors as technical suitability, innovation, reliability, capital costs and running costs, etc. Also, the number of tenders submitted may be significant. In the early 1980s, the Australian Army procured Landrovers instead of Mercedes-Benz G-class vehicles because although the latter were more suitable for the Army's intended uses, the former were a lot cheaper. Thirty years later, new G-classes are replacing the old Landrovers, not because the Army's procurement priorities or the prices of G-classes have relevantly changed, nor because the G-classes are now also being supplied as 6x6s, but because Mercedes-Benz was the only bidder for the latest tender.

Your second premise is that if your first premise is correct, then there was nothing unusual about this procurement. In fact, CBH's decision to publicise its reasons is unusual; evaluation processes are commonly kept "commercial-in-confidence", with the consequence that nobody outside the procuring entity, and perhaps also the successful bidder, ever really knows why a tender bid was accepted, or not accepted. Perhaps the reasons were publicised in this case because CBH, as a co-operative making a substantial investment in a new business, wanted to assure its members that it had made a sensible decision in relation to that investment.

Your third premise is that an encyclopedia article should simply state that "a tender was awarded to [name of winning bidder]." In fact an article written on the basis of a premise of that nature will never be highly rated by Wikipedia.

The article Hawker Siddeley Harrier is rated as a good article. It has a section headed "Tripartite evaluation", which sets out a detailed description of the procurement and evaluation of nine prototypes, followed by a section headed "P.1154", which describes in detail the ultimately fruitless development process for a supersonic Harrier to meet a NATO requirement that was later cancelled. The article is on the watchlists of more than 50 editors. If you are serious in the views you express, I would suggest that you post on that article's talk page a proposal that the first of these sections be deleted and replaced by "Nine prototypes were constructed and evaluated", and that the second section be deleted and replaced by "Hawker and Bristol later partially developed a supersonic version of the aircraft to meet a NATO requirement that was later cancelled." I would be suprised if any such proposal were to achieve any substantial support.

iv) What you say here involves an obvious fallacy. That the successful bidder was hoping to initiate a new export business by winning the bid is itself a fact of some importance, as it is a fact likely have influenced the terms, and therefore the competitiveness, of its bid, and may also have led the bidder to overstretch. In light of the winning bidder's hopes, it is not surprising that the locomotives were ultimately delivered late, and that the winning bidder is now building three more locomotives as compensation. Similarly unsurprising is that the winning bidder has also managed, since winning the bid, to sell similar locomotives to another Australian buyer for operation in Australia.

v) Noted.

vi) You accept that an article about a US-built locomotive operated by a subsidiary of a US company in Australia should use metric units of measurement, spelled the Australian way, followed by the corresponding imperial units. Yet you also assert that such an article should say "bogies" instead of "bogies (trucks)". I do not understand this inconsistency.

vii) The legacy of the winners was not just "a couple of names painted on the side of a locomotive", but also the naming scheme for the whole class. To play a prominent role in dreaming up a scheme for naming locomotives that is later implemented is inherently more likely to be notable than just driving a fast steam locomotive fast.

viii) The long shipping times are not irrelevant pieces of information. Distance is deemed "... more often than not ... to be important as an economic factor." Presumably one reason why the sea voyage took seven weeks instead of six weeks is that it began on the east coast, not the west coast. The fact that a locomotive built in Idaho for delivery to Western Australia was shipped from the east coast, not the west coast, is the sort of counter-intuitive information that is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia aimed at general readers.

4) Noted.

5) Noted.

Bahnfrend (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

---

As we still seem to be a fair way apart, we may need to go down the WP:3O avenue to resolve. As the trail is already going to be a bit difficult for anyone reviewing to follow, and will only become more so, I propose that once we settle on the Style of English, the issues be consolidated into a fresh section.

I will list my issues, you can respond immediately below each point in a different font or colour. Those that are agreed on can be actioned and removed. Once all the outstanding issues are on the table and a 7 day period with no further activity has elapsed, the article can be put up for review. Mo7838 (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Reversions

Two editors discussing and disagreeing does not allow one to revert another, as the conversation above simply does not suggest that editors have reached anything like consensus - and reads as WP:EDITWAR - to do a WP:POINT revert is not what wikipedia is WP:ABOUT satusuro 01:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. For the record none of the posts constitute an edit war. Editor A made an edit, Editor B reversed stating he/she would incorporate changes into article. As Editor B has not done so after 4 days, but has been regularly active on Wiki, Editor A has made further changes based on dialogue on the article's talk page. Mo7838 (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

because you are trying to game the system by reverting once every couple of days doesnt mean you are not edit warring. Two editors who have made substancial contributions to the article both disagree with your changes, the process is be bold -> revert -> discuss you have been bold others reverted and engaged in discussion, you responded and reverted ignoring fact that the discussion had reached no conclusion, an editor has agian reverted you as no consensus for the change, you reverted again... As your edits removed significant reliably sourced content I am restoring it to where it was prior to your original edit, please seek consensus by engaging in discussion or you may be blocked. Gnangarra 05:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I find the assertion that I am trying to "game the system" highly offensive. My edit today was made after dialogue between disagreeing editors and was significantly different from original post. After reversing original post User:Bahnfrend stated he/she would insert changes where appropriate, as this hadn't happened after 4 days despite editor having been active on Wiki, thought it only fair to advance. Nevertheless will accept decision of 3rd party and work with other editors to resolve. Mo7838 (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Your actions appear to be Wikipedia:Gaming the system, "A warning from an administrator is usually the best way to prevent gaming, because a clear warning should help correct both good faith mistakes and bad faith games.". I think you'll find WP:OBLIGATION explains better why your assumption created this. Gnangarra 08:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I have a life outside Wikipedia. My wife gave birth to our third child earlier today, and the fact that we already had two children is an indication that I have more to do than just edit Wikipedia. I devoted part of yesterday to adding some sourced content to Westrail, and, as indicated above, will be editing the present article again shortly. Bahnfrend (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations Gnangarra 13:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Style of English

One of the key things that needs to be established is should the article's style be flagged as Australian English or American English.

As the article is primarily from an Australian company's perspective, I believe Australian English is preferable. Yes it is about an item manufactured in the United States, and because no others have yet been produced, is by default the article for the MP27CN and MP33CN classes. But if any more are produced, then separate articles would be set up from a manufacturer's prospective as per MPI MP33C and would logically be written in American English. Mo7838 (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought that as the locomotives have all been designed to comply with Australian regulations, and to be operated in Australia, then all the articles about the locomotives should be written in Australian English. However, and as MOS:COMMONALITY indicates, any terms "... that are uncommon in some varieties of English, or that have divergent meanings, may be glossed to prevent confusion, for example, the trunk (boot) of the car was ....", and therefore any rail terms that are used in Australia but not the USA should be glossed in that way. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Reduction of information

A part of the discussion above suggests that 'reducing' content in the article is something that has guidelines, common sense or MOS backing for this article.

In view of the issues in relation to the connections with a range of issues that exist between the State Government, Brookfield Rail, CBH, - legally, and informally, any extra information about this class is important for the wider context to be linked. To remove information regarding any aspect of the actual construction, delivery and utilisiation of this locomotive class is relevant to a range of issues that could, depending upon the interest of editors who have this article on watch, be expanded into the realm of the complexity of issues. If it was something constructed in-house in the former WAGR system, it would be a totally different matter. The fact that the locomotive was even made reflects on a range of issues that the government politicians, the line operator Brookfield, the other former grain hauler Aurizon, as well as the government transport authority were all aftually caught out by. Any further information regarding minutiae of the construction and the usage, is in fact of relevance on a somewhat fraught political environment where the stakeholders or interested parties are not just one (as in the WAGR era), but up to four separate entities with quite varying agendas and an extended behind the scenes series of mediation, court cases and machinations in the public political sphere. Any extra information, rather than tidy up should be encouraged, as to do otherwise is losing the point of the context of the class and its existence. satusuro 10:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Is proposed that the existing infobox be replaced with the current version of Template:Infobox locomotive. As well as having had more fields added since existing version, per WP:COMMONALITY will also eliminate terms unique to the United States, eg railroad.

Additional fields to be populated:

• length
• width
• height
• locoweight
• primemover
• aspiration
• alternator
• tractionmotors
• cylindercount
• topspeed
• trainbrakes

Fields where data to be amended:

• builder: amend wikilink to reflect MotivePower Industries redirects to Wabtec
• railroad (now operator): amend to Watco Rail only, don't believe CBH have ever operated a rail service in their own right
• disposition: replace 'in service / on order' with '22 in service, 3 on order' Mo7838 (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I have modified the infobox and added the additional data for which I am aware of a reliable source. I have not made the first two of the three amendments suggested above. The locomotives are made by MotivePower, a subsidiary of Wabtec. The MotivePower redirect is likely to be transformed into an article eventually. In the meantime, to link the builder parameter directly to Wabtec would be a bit like saying that EMD locomotives are made by GM (in the past) or Caterpillar (now). The operator with the open access agreement is CBH; Watco operates the trains only as subcontractor to, and on behalf of, CBH, and has no separate open access agreement. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Have replaced existing infobox with up to date of version Template:Infobox locomotive as existing template is missing some fields, factoring in points made above. Additional fields populated:

• length
• width
• height
• locoweight
• aspiration
• alternator
• topspeed

All are from a published secondary source, will be included in the addition of cites to be added to the article in the near future. Mo7838 (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

As a previous attempt to edit was met with some resistance, and an attempt to resolve through talk page was heading in a direction that made resolution unlikely, will have another go, hence the rather detailed list. This is a proposal as to how the amended article would appear:[1] Mo7838 (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• User:Mo7838 comments in green
• User:Bahnfrend comments in black

My general comment on this proposal is that it is, for the most part, nothing more than an example of disruptive editing. The editor who made the proposal has recently made a substantial number of disruptive edits to a substantial number of articles. Those edits have persistently involved poor grammar (eg "The X class are ..."), poor spelling (eg "Port Headland"), the transformation of infoboxes, leads and other article elements that comply with WP:MOS into ones that do not, the insertion of unsourced material, the insertion of inadequately cited referencing, the unexplained removal of relevant, properly referenced material, the use of misleading or inaccurate edit summaries, etc. All of these edits now need to be examined closely by another editor, and substantially reversed, augmented, or otherwise changed. The further editing work so created will be a considerable waste of other editors' time. Yet the same editor who created that unnecessary, timewasting, work is now proposing, in essence, that a substantial number of edits that have previously been reversed by three different editors, for reasons that have been validly explained, by reference to Wikipedia editing policies and practices, should nevertheless still be made, simply because that editor still wants those edits to be made, on bases that have already been validly debunked. Again, this is, for the most part, a substantial waste of other editors' time. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

---

As it was hoped that the revised list of items suggested for amendment, would result in a more concise list of the pros and cons for the suggested changes, rather than degenerate into an attempt to discredit an editor, I will respond here and minimise case by case responses below.

I reject the assertion that I have made anything but goodfaith edits. No doubt I have made errors, don't we all. Port Headland is I would imagine, quite a common misspelling, given that it has been set up as a redirect to Port Hedland, when it arguably should have been deleted. Upon realising the error in other places, editor has redressed.[2] Yes some posts, have been made applying common sense or precedent set in other articles, eg renaming articles,[3] rather than that of the Wiki manual, but more than happy to abide by when pointed out.

The 'transformation' of infoboxes has involved replacing old ones with the up to date version, that has been enhanced by multiple editors to create a consistent platform across all like articles. Hitherto unpopulated fields have been filled and those not done so left blank rather than deleted, so other editors may be able to add to. Can't see how that edit[4] be judged as anything but constructive.

If I focus on some of the articles that have been edited in the editor's home state, WAGR H class (diesel) had been flagged for 4 years as requiring a cleanup. Two cites moved from 'Notes' section and three added [5], still not perfect, but surely better than it was. Hamersley & Robe River railway article increased by 25%, cites taken from 25 to 40.[6] Yes some edits have resulted in a net deletion to content, but this is largely duplication, padding or fancruft.

The previous changes this article which were made in goodfaith, but as was in danger of developing into an edit war, was discussed with other editors and in the interests of harmony and proper process, was agreed a more consensual approach be taken.[7]

While appreciating the editor's good work in creating the bulk of the article, I fail to see how the suggested changes, that add information and take cites from 17 to 37, are not at least worthy of discussion rather than being dismissed as disruptive editing.

Editor has previously agreed to some of the suggested changes, and understandably previously may have decided to 'hold fire' pending other issues being resolved. But it would probably now be appropriate if this was actioned before taking discussion further. This may resolve some of the issues, and will provide something more tangible to base discussions on rather than assumptions being made on what may or may not be actioned. If we could perhaps set a time frame, say 7 days from Bahnfrend's next post. Am open to other suggestions. Mo7838 (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

---

• 1) Lead: Delete official launch date, date entered service suffice for lead, transfer to body.
• 2) Lead: Relationship between CBH & Brookfield Rail too detailed for a lead, transfer to body with cited added.
• 3) Lead: Location of grain terminals too detailed for a lead, transfer to body with cited added.

The present lead is neither too long or too detailed. The proposed new lead is too short, too lacking in detail, and includes several grammatical errors. A lead is supposed to be a summary, not merely an introduction. The proposed new lead is not even an adequate introduction. For an example of a lengthy and detailed lead that is acceptable and expected of a well written article in Wikipedia, see the featured article German battleship Bismarck, which was on the front page only a few days ago. I have already acknowledged that there is some material in the lead that is not also in the body of the article. That material should simply be added to the appropriate part of that body, not removed from the lead.

• 4) Background: Split into two sections, Background and Locomotives.

The proposed "Locomotives" heading is inappropriate. The whole article is about the locomotives.

• 5) Background: Rewrite to bring info down from lead, expand on the timeline.
• 6) Background: Expand with detail of commencement dates, Aurizon contract extension.

The rewritten background is not well written. It includes information about stopgap arrangements in 2012 that are not part of the background to the construction and entry into service of the locomotives.

• 7) Background: "An encouraging number of proposals" to be deleted. Vague statement lacking precision, would be of more value if bidding parties were identified.

The quote is taken from the CBH media release. The sentence could be altered by deleting "An" and substituting "According to CBH, an". CBH has not publicly revealed the identities of the other bidding parties.

• 8) Background: Quote from Operations Manager as to why locomotives purchased not required, can be taken as read any new capital investment will improve productivity.

This is one of the assertions of the editor that has already been debunked for a valid reason. The views of the Operations Manager are rightly included as background to the construction of the locomotives. He was not merely a driver, media commentator, or rail enthusiast.

• 9) Background: Delete number of companies who bid, again would be more beneficial if they could be identified. Is also uncited.

Again, this material is taken from the relevant media release, which said how many bids had been received, but did not identify the bidders. The material is relevant and cited; there was a one character typo in the citation that I have now fixed.

• 10) Background: Delete "MotivePower hoped would be many international contracts" reference. Article is about a class of locomotive, not a manufacturer's future sales aspirations.

Again, this is relevant background to the submission of the successful bid, and may help the reader understand why the locomotives were delivered late.

• 11) Locomotives: Add reason for additional 3 locomotives.

Yes, but the stated reason in the proposed edit is not detailed enough. According to one of the cited sources, CBH was entitled to a monetary sum in compensation, but decided to order more locomotives instead, because it needed extra locomotives. That the locomotives were delivered late is one thing; that the new business was successful enough that CBH would rather take more locomotives than the cash to which it was entitled is another, much more important, thing. The proposed amendment mentions the former, but not the latter.

• 12) Specifications: Delete references to trucks, article is flagged as Australian-English and thus terms unique to other jurisdictions shouldn't be introduced, bogies is wikilinked for readers in doubt.

This is one of the assertions of the editor that has already been debunked for a valid reason.

• 13) Specifications: Delete horn type, not notable enough to have a field in Infobox, so not required.

The horn type is unsourced information added by another editor. I blanked the information because it was unsourced. However, as any person who has heard the CBH class's horn will know, the horn is loud and distinctive, and therefore of interest. Various other Wikipedia articles about locomotives comment on their distinctive sound, eg British Rail Class 50. The unsourced information should therefore remain as it is, so that it can be unblanked when a reliable source can be found for it.

• 14) Livery & naming: Delete references to competition winners, not significant.

I repeat my comment about item 12.

• 15) Service history: Consolidate into Locomotives section.

As observed above, the proposed "Locomotives" heading is inappropriate. The proposed section it heads is about construction and delivery. It should therefore be kept separate from the section about service history.

• 16) Service history: Delete reference to 7 week transit time. Shipment of heavy mechanical equipment from USA to Western Australia is a routine event, journey time is on par with normal shipping schedules, not noteworthy.

I repeat my comment about item 12. Whether it's routine or not, it's relevant and interesting to general readers, eg a 10 year old boy who lives in Toodyay and has never travelled overseas.

• 17) Reactivate dead cites via web archive, additional cites to be added. Mo7838 (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

See my comments above about citations. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Length of discussions and provisos

Note WP:DEADLINE and WP:DEADHORSE come to mind. Bahfrend has alluded to a change in his time available due to family circumstance, and to continue a discussion this long and convoluted is somewhat difficult for an outsider to follow what the hell is going on.

Also WP:POINT is close approaching as this lengthens much longer.

If the editors continue to edit and apply ideas explored here, there is also the issue of whether subsequent edits on other articles in fact are replicating unresolved issues here. I do not think that Mo for instance should touch another loco article with a summary Tidy Up - that would be bad faith editing.satusuro 06:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I did quantify my time length suggestion, with 'am open to other suggestions', fully appreciate editors have more pressing commitments, 7 days was merely a suggestion, not a demand. If you wan't to ban me from editing articles, I'm sure you know the process. Mo7838 (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Process ?? hahaha, just try keeping up with some of the more contentious subjects, editors from all perspectives make the circus a lot more firey than this page. At least youre civil.

Please note that the admin watching this page (with at least an edit above) is the admin, I am not, I just happen to have a very large edit count and have suffered this place for too many years. I would suggest from where I watch, that I cannot emphasize enough that to edit a loco article with 'tidy up' as summary is not good behaviour while this discussion continues. satusuro 06:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree this page has become too convoluted. Hence suggestion on 10 February 2014 that a fresh section be created with the pros and cons for changes listed in a more concise manner. This is the process now being undertaken. Once all editors have had their say and a 7 day standstill period has elapsed, article can go for WP:3O or equivalent if more than 2 editors. I intend to abide by umpires' decision, I presume other editors will and that hopefully will bring the issue to a close. Mo7838 (talk) 06:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for 30

I have offered various comments re the process involved in this discussion, and that to anyone reading this argument to date would underastand there is a new editor (reltively speaking) who doesnt like context or extra information, and a more experienced editor who is not going to let a small argument get away with self justification against the bigger picture - please feel free to correct me on this.

I am quite sure there is a need for both parties to understand to go to the lengths of discussion here is counter-productive - as my posts have indicated deadline, deahorse and other similar essay would say, get off your horse and get on with your editing.

The warning that I would give Mo7838, is that to use an edit summary like tidy up is as bad as my own add edit summary (none of us on wikipedia are perfect, that is why we have fun here) - it says insufficient about the edit. If I was indeed a reviewing editor, I would say that more precise edit summaries, and more regular explanations about what you think you are doing would be more appropriate.

Wikipedia WP:ABOUT and WP:NOT are constantly being circumvented these days by either arrogant admins who should know better (deletes with inadequate explanation or understanding of due process), of relatively new editors who have personal agendas that are deviant from the original intent and purpose of what wikipedia is about. The notion of consensus - rather than endless nit picking arguments - is what is needed in the resolution to this far too long discussion.

What a better resolution here for one measly diesel class would be for the editors to check what they agree on, find where the main points of disagreements are, and get off and out of this talk page and go to the trains project noticeboard/talk page with the remaining issues.

To spend any more time here is outright daft. The essays about deadhorses are so relevent here, I am suprised you cannot smell the dead horse by now satusuro 23:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking at his/her posts on this talk page, SatuSuro has not offered an opinion on the suggested changes merely long winded, philosophical wafflings. If the editor feels that he/she has something to contribute, should be done by joining the discussion. Yes it has become far too long, for the reasons acknowledged on 20 February along with the plan to bring to a conclusion.[8]

As the subject of the article is being disputed by only 2 editors, and a resolution has not been able to be reached, it is fair to seek a WP:3O. To date the article has not been put our for any external review, so all this insistence that a dead horse is being flogged is flawed. Don't know why SatuSuro focuses on playing the man not the ball, if the proposed changes are so outrageous, they will be rejected and that will be the end. Mo7838 (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying the changes are outrageous - sort out what you agree on - take the rest to WP:Trains noticeboard - the dead horse is that you both go on and on and havent gone to a wider audience who are more likely to have a different view - there are a lot more editors watching there who might have a much quicker resolution than this being dragged out any further here - and take care about staying here on this talkpage - the sooner you go to a wider forum, the sooner you might gain a resoution. satusuro 12:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree that the subject of the article is being disputed by only 2 editors. As I read it, the section "Reduction of information" above is a post by a third editor to the effect that the proposed deletions should not be made. That appears to leave only items 4, 6, 11 and 17. I stand by what I have already posted about those items. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

About Third Opinion: I am a regular volunteer at the 3O project. I'm not "taking" this at this time (or probably at all), but only offering some comments about the process. I'm afraid that there may be some misconceptions about what 3O is and does. One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." A 3O is an opinion which can be freely accepted or rejected by the parties in the dispute. By 3O's terms and conditions, 3O's are not tiebreakers and there is a strong argument to be made that they don't even "count" towards consensus. Most regular opinion-givers at 3O are experienced, but we in the dispute resolution community steer new DR volunteers to 3O to gain experience in DR for the very reason that their opinions there cannot do much harm, since they're nonbinding and do not contribute to consensus. For that reason, if none other (such as the offhand nature of 3O's characterized by RegentsPark), I'd be leery of committing in advance to abide by a 3O. But for that same reason, I'd be very open to obtaining one. About the two editor requirement, volunteers at 3O are free to give opinions in cases involving more than two editors; indeed most regulars there will not remove a listing for failing to conform to the two editor requirement unless there are multiple editors involved in a dispute. (When asked what I do, I generally tell volunteers that my own rule of thumb is not to remove a listing unless there are at least four, and usually five, editors involved in a dispute.) If the request is removed, however, there's no two-editor requirement at the other DR processes, DRN, MEDCOM, or RFC (just don't file at more than one at a time; finish one before starting another or the editor who makes the request may withdraw it). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Note on 3O resolution

Recalling Burrough's maxim ("If you cannot be just, be arbitrary"), let me suggest a way forward. There are 17 issues. Flip a (virtual) coin to see who goes first and then alternate picking one of the remaining issues that's most important to you. Any issue you pick, you get to fix as you see fit. (Coin flip winner has an advantage, so the loser would get one extra pick at the end. Or in the middle. Up to y'all.)

Or if that's too simple: each of you get 100 pieces of virtual currency and you bid on which issues you want to fix your way. Each round of bidding occurs for all issues, and bids can only be increased (so don't blow your 100 in the first round unless you're trying to make a point). The lucky third-opinion-giver gets to decide how tied issues are resolved. Maximum 12 hours lag between bids (extensions given when asked) and the bidding stops when we've converged onto a solution.

Either one of these will probably leave the article in a state that's not satisfactory to either of you, but the worst case scenario is much better than the possibility of moving on in dispute resolution and having many or most of the changes you want rejected.

If both of you will sign off on either of these two suggestions, I'll pick up the 3O and referee. I'm also happy to listen to other proposals that involve neither one of you getting everything you want. If you want to try for all the marbles, best to withdraw the 3O and take your chances at DRN.

Garamond Lethet
c 22:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The article may have some issues now, but this version of on-line poker would turn it into a dog's breakfast. WP:3O is not about going all out for a win, merely seeking an opinion from a fresh set of eyes who can hopefully give a balanced view based on the pros and cons of suggested changes. Mo7838 (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a suggestion above, find your common ground and agreements, sort out the differences - take them somewhere else and move on, how many times do you have to be told that! satusuro 00:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The logical place to discuss these differences is on the article's discussion page, can't see how it would be logical to discuss else where. As it stands, the article has been put our for 3O. In 7 days it will be resolved one way or the other, either by a 3O editor picking it up, or it not so the request will be deleted. Mo7838 (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

What I'm seeing here is two editors who are maximizing their differences. The discussion (in my opinion) doesn't need, for example, a balanced opinion as to whether or not a field in the infobox should remain blank or be removed. Instead (again, in my opinion) what the discussion needs is a ranking of which issues matter most to which editor. By suggesting to both editors that they think about the problem this way, I'm hoping 15 of the 17 issues fall into the "ok, whatever" category and then we can have a useful discussion on whatever substantive issues remain.

I'm not that concerned about turning the article into a dog's breakfast. I'm much more concerned about retaining both editors. If one "wins", that's much less likely to happen. If both stand to "lose" (but lose fairly), then compromise might be a little more feasible.

I will say that I've never suggested this kind of approach for a WP:3RD before, but then I've never been asked to given an opinion on 17 issues before either.

Garamond Lethet
c 00:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I have been labouring under a misapprehension that the whole idea was to come up with the best possible article. Winning points of order to create an inferior article isn't in my remit. Mo7838 (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This may just be a small difference of opinion, but I find I work better when I'm aiming for "pretty good". I need to expend a huge amount of time and effort to get from "pretty good" to "best possible", and in an environment where someone who knows much less about the topic than I do can come along and edit my work, "pretty good" articles are a lot more durable.

I would agree with you that your overall body of contributions should be the best possible, but in practice I find that means being willing to let go of individual articles in order to benefit the encyclopedia as a whole.

The article as it stands is pretty good, and if the two of you find a way to compromise, it will still be pretty good and you both can get back to the business of improving the many, many worse articles that we have. If you both want to hold out for "best possible", we'll sink a lot of volunteer time into making one article marginally better than "pretty good". I'm happy to help break the logjam any way other than individually adjudicating 17 issues. If both of you want to tell me which ones really matter and which ones you're willing to walk away from, that would be a useful start. Garamond Lethet
c 03:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I created the article in August 2012 and significantly updated it in September 2013. Apart from that update, the article was pretty much stable for more than a year from October 2012 until February 2014, when the editor who wants to make the changes made similar changes without warning to a large number of similar articles, of which this is the most detailed. With only about four exceptions, the changes that that editor wants to make to this article are either the reduction of the lead to a very short introduction, not a lead, or deletions of relevant material for which a reliable source has been cited. The effect of the changes would be to turn an interesting article that complies with WP:MOS into a boring non-compliant one with much less information. As I have indicated above, that would be inconsistent with the Featured Article status of many other articles, such as German battleship Bismarck and Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery, and the Featured Article advice that articles should be comprehensive. So while I don't wish to be unhelpful, I am not keen to walk away from any of the issues. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)