Talk:South African locomotive history
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Tarpeistar in topic Off-topic content
 | This article is written in South African English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Off-topic content edit
I note that this article weighs in at over a quarter of a megabyte, and that it contains a huge amount of text that is not related to the history of locomotives in South Africa. Obviously a lot of work has gone in to this, but I'm not convinced. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- See the introduction, particularly the third paragraph. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 12:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw that before making my comment here. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Regardless, it's still absurd. Those who want context can follow the see also links. Take 2013, for example, there are fifteen points only one of which has to do with South African locomotive history. It's time to eliminate the off-topic stuff. Jimp 19:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yoko Ono, Osama bin Laden and an Icelandic volcano? It's off the rails it is! Shenme (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- I have removed the off-topic content. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Seven years on and much of the content still appears not be related to locomotives, most of the text is about the opening of railway lines. The article had 360 images that bore no relevancy to the text which I have today removed as they were causing massive WP:STACKING issues. They were clearly in breach of WP:NOTGALLERY. Large sections of the remaining text remain uncited. Perhaps we need consider whether the article is worth retaining? Tarpeistar (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- I have removed the off-topic content. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yoko Ono, Osama bin Laden and an Icelandic volcano? It's off the rails it is! Shenme (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Regardless, it's still absurd. Those who want context can follow the see also links. Take 2013, for example, there are fifteen points only one of which has to do with South African locomotive history. It's time to eliminate the off-topic stuff. Jimp 19:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw that before making my comment here. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Redundant article? edit
The remaining on-topic content consists of a list of locomotive classes in order of their year of introduction. Since the tables at List of South African locomotive classes can be sorted by year, is this article redundant? -- John of Reading (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, not even close. For one thing, those tables are arranged by separate railway, not as a whole for all of South Africa and South West Africa. For another, even after you, um, trimmed it down, this page is still more than just a list. But, since you plus two have already made up your minds, why even bother asking? André Kritzinger (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Vandalism of a great article. The article is very well put together article of the major South African Locomotive historical events. Many items directly related to the development of the South African railways (mining, colonial struggle etc) have been unkindly stripped from the article with no insight into the railway's historical development. -- Firefishy (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)