Talk:Conway Scenic Railroad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ownership[edit]

What owns the railroad? Is it for-profit? JNW2 09:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Bm4266, 25 July 2011[edit]

I ask that the section about the dining car fire be removed. It serves no purpose, as there are many sites that talk about on going events at the railroad. This site should only provide general information about the railroad. Events about, fires, derailments and the likes, is unnecessary for this page.

Bm4266 (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: I removed what fire departments responded but as I see it the incident should still be included on the page as I believe that it is a notable incident. Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the section in question. I agree, this page is for general information only. Railroad.net and other similar sites cover current events, such as last years derailment and the two fires that happened this year. We should not be cluttering this page with non general information. b&m 1566 — Preceding unsigned comment added by B&m1566 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have done so against the general agreement of the others editing this page. It may become non-notable a few years from now, but it hardly is cluttering the page at this point. You don't have any connection to the railroad, do you? --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-> Ken who is the general consensus? And why is the mention of the fire needed? Should the second dining car fire be put on here? Should the we add the brush fire? How about adding a line in that the 7470 just made the first trip to Hazens? Maybe last years derailment should be added in? We can mention the yearly railfan weekend, thomas the tank... do you get my drift? You allow one you allow this to become cluttered. I say remove it. And no I have no ties to the railroad.B&m1566 (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1566 - I update this page often, rewording to make things sound better, adding tidbits of information, etc. Although we seem to have similar views, let the fire section stand as is for a while. In a few months or so, we can think about removing it but in the mean time, I plan to reword it and make the information a little more clear.Bm4266 (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Conway Scenic Railroad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information that hasn't been released to the public.[edit]

Hello. I notice that (in many locomotive sections) that there is information that isn't publicly known (Ex. #7470 has a crack in it's pipe, which makes it out of service indefinitely.). Information that has been known (Ex. 252 broke down . . . it has been acknowledged on their Wheel Report that it will be fixed.) should be included, but unimportant information (specific details, amount of time, etc) shouldn't be included to reduce space. This is especially important for the #72 page. You don't need to be specific and say "#72 is now at St.Laurence and Atlantic awaiting to go to NHC..." could be simplified to "#72 is currently on it's way to N.Conway." Let me know if otherwise, but thank you for reading this. GP38-252 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GP38-252 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to release any information if they chose not to and the Wheel Report hasn't been updated in a long time. A lot of information is from inside sources or first hand knowledge. The last time I saw the 7470 (over the summer) parts to the tender trucks were spread out all over the floor inside the roundhouse, I was told cracks were found in both trucks. - Bow Jackson — Preceding unsigned comment added by BowJackson (talk • contribs) 16:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Locomotive roster[edit]

I have boldly deleted much of the extraneous information in the locomotive roster, none of which had any citations to reliable sources. Please do not restore any of it unless it is supported by reliable sources. Original research is against Wikipedia's policies. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations you destroyed factual information. Who gave you the right to do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3005:2106:7A00:293B:5E9:F6A0:90F3 (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia's policies on original research WP:OR and reliable sources WP:RS. The content that I removed violated both of those policies (and Facebook does not count as a reliable source). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You did it gratuitously but don't worry other people that have built up the page over the years with factual information, will fix the mess you just created, so do us all a favor, if you don't like it find another website to browse, we don't need people like you destroying it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3005:2106:7A00:293B:5E9:F6A0:90F3 (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like that Wikipedia's policies require information added to articles to contain references to reliable sources, it is you who is on the wrong website, I'm afraid. Show me reliable sources that substantiate the original research I removed, and I will add back anything I can attribute. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Enough with the policies, what are you the Wikipedia police? No, your using the policies to push your own agenda, there's something on there you didn't like and you and Bow, a few others, kept going back and forth changing the same thing over and over again. If you really wanted to use the policies as your justification to do what you just did, you would have erased the whole page, because 90% of it is not referenced information, it's general knowledge and all the information you deleted on the roster was just that. Let me ask you this, do you go above the speed limit when driving your vehicle? Do you come to complete stops at stop signs or do you roll through, when no cars around? So, let's put the policies to rest and acknowledge the fact that you destroyed half the page because there was something you didn't like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3005:2106:7A00:293B:5E9:F6A0:90F3 (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with the subject of the article itself (as my username would indicate, I am interested in trains). I simply want Wikipedia to be verifiable. I have no further interest in debating this with you, since you clearly are assuming bad faith on my part and think Wikipedia's policies don't apply to you. Since you have rightfully pointed out the roster is not referenced, I will go ahead and delete everything that does not have references to reliable sources. If you wish to object to my actions here, there are places on Wikipedia for dispute resolution. I do not recommend pursing that however, unless you can point out ways in which I have violated Wikipedia's policies.
I recommend that you do not continue making personal attacks towards other editors. I am not going to raise any issues with your conduct thus far, but further incivility may require me to. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transandotherthings: You have removed information against the general agreement of the others editing this page. Unless you are the author of that information, please see rules against removing information added by others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_removal At this time I ask that you restore the information you have removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bm4266 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bm4266: That won't be happening. See WP:RVREASONS. I will not restore content that has no citations to reliable sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then add [dubious – discuss] to the information and encourage editors to further discuss the information provided, again your not the only one who edits the page and your going against the general agreement of everyone else.
Strange how an account with no edits for 10 years suddenly appears and wants to lecture an active editor about how consensus and Wikipedia policy works. This reeks of WP:MEATPUPPETRY. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clear disclosure, I learned of this dispute from Trainsandotherthings. It's pretty clear this removal is being discussed off site with the sudden influx of editors, some long dormant. Please understand that discussions on Wikipedia are based around our policies, regardless of how many people show up to say something is useful, etc. First and foremost, WP:V is a core policy above guidelines like Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute, and an essay like Wikipedia:Content removal has no actual weight, simply providing advice. There's a difference between a sentence or two being inaccurate and entire swathes of an article being completely unsourced or unreliably sourced. A great deal of information that is useful to fans or enthusiasts will never be found in reliable sourcing, and the bottom line is: That information isn't actually suitable for Wikipedia. See also WP:NOT. A fan wiki like Fandom may be better suited if this is the kind of deep interest content you're interested in working on.

Finally, the content remains forever in the article history. At any time, editors are free to restore content that they can provide proper sourcing for. Nothing has been permanently lost. The WP:BURDEN to add or retain content though lies with the editor who wants to include it. So you're responsible for finding appropriate sourcing before restoring. If you can, great. If you can't... it stays removed. -- ferret (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to chime in here, while I personally thought there was too much information on each engine (almost enough to create a whole page of their own), I never felt it was my place to remove someone else's work (regardless of the rules), so I tried my best to keep it factual going off first hand knowledge and making minor corrections as others seemingly kept/keep adding to the pile. Yesterday, when I restored the page, I thought something was wrong (why not facebook was down) and was not aware it was an edit. I had a quick personal response with Trains... and he/she showed me the rule and I went on with my day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BowJackson (talk • contribs) 19:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restorations[edit]

I'd like to note for those slowly adding content back that appropriate sourcing is not currently being included. I'll wait a bit to see if sourcing is added, but as stands, most of the details in the locomotive table is unsourced and will be removed. At best we have a self-published source (See WP:SPS) that backs up which locomotives are at Conway, but the details about each (except past ownership) aren't sourced. First and foremost remember that this article is not a website for Conway itself, particular in regards to reporting their current tours and the like, and a great deal of this simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. These are details more suitable for a fan wiki such as Railroadfan.com, Locomotive.fandom.com, and trains-and-locomotives.fandom.com. You could, if you were so inclined, even make a Conway dedicated Fandom site. -- ferret (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will be removing unsourced information sometime today. The continued addition of unsourced information may require the article's protection. -- ferret (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed anything unsourced or sourced to low reliability sources (fanblogs with no identifiable credibility). Some of this is promotional material and should not be reinstated at all even with sourcing. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure; I found this discussion due to a mention Ferret gave in the WM discord server. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the page has been protected, and unsourced material removed, I will see if I can redo the operations section with references to reliable sources. I may or may not succeed, depending on if I can find sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to contribute, because I have just noticed what I consider to be an issue. I realize that a lot of the information in the page was not sourced correctly, but now several units are entirely gone from the roster page entirely. Just because the information about the units wasn't sourced does not mean they cannot be on the page at all, with a blank information section. 216, 1751, 4266, 573, and 23 are missing. Henry Brighton (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to my previous comment, the issue has since been fixed by someone else. Instead of removing the information entirely, I suggest we try to find proper sources for said information, so we don't have to rewrite the information entirely afterwards. Henry Brighton (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The unsourced information remains stored in the page history. It is simple to restore it if/when reliable sources to support it can be found. Otherwise, it may not remain in the article's present version. WP:V is not optional. There has already been significant disruption to this page, further disruption may result in the page being fully protected. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you. I wont make any more edits without sourcing. Henry Brighton (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick aside and full disclosure for my own involvement.... Trainsandotherthings had nominated a fact from this article to appear in the DYK section of Portal:Trains recently. I agreed that it was an interesting fact, but replied that my hesitance to promote it was based on the presence of the {{refimprove}} banner at the top. We both stated our intentions to improve the article with additional citations. I had hoped to spend some time scouring the resources available to me for information and citations for the article. My time has been busier than expected, and I wasn't able to edit as frequently in the last two weeks. But I support the efforts that have been made to improve citations and encyclopedic content on the article. Slambo (Speak) 15:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

573? 216? 1751?[edit]

Hi, I would like to know what drama has been going on here. I am no admin of any sort, just a dedicated fan to Conway Scenic. The following locomotives are missing from the running roster; 573, 1751, 23 (RDC), 216, & 4266. From the inactive roster, there is no #365 (366? It was the 44 Tonner), and #255, which is yet to arrive. On the former section, no 6505/6516, no #2820, no #1943. What happened to here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GP38-252 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above sections should explain, but the short of it is that there's no reliable secondary sourcing for any of this content, so it fails WP:V. No one has been able to provide anything but unreliable sources/blogs or primary sourcing, and the page should not simply be sourced to primary. We're not a mirror for their website. There's also been disruptive editing and sockpuppetry (use of multiple accounts in violation of our policies) in regards to the content. -- ferret (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found an article on the Conway Scenic Railroad in Trains (magazine) in my magazine collection recently, so I can see if I can expand the article using it as a reference. The article is written by Brian Solomon, who has a connection to the museum, but Trains has an editorial team that reviews things so it should still be considered a secondary source. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brian Solomon is the Marketing Director for the Conway Scenic Railroad, using him as a reference wouldn't that be considered primary sourcing? Under the rules of this website that's not allowed. - Bow Jackson — Preceding unsigned comment added by BowJackson (talk • contribs) 18:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's published by a secondary source, it's a little different. If you were making an argument for Notability (which is not at all in question here, to be clear!), then we would likely exclude this similar to how we exclude interviews, but for facts, it's a good source. -- ferret (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Basically what ferret said. Trains Magazine is a secondary source, and has an editorial team that reviews articles before they are published. This makes it perfectly acceptable for sourcing factual information. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022[edit]

  1. 7470 has now been out of service since December of 2021 according to this article: https://railfan.com/conway-scenic-7470-will-return-to-steam-but-not-soon-enough-for-charters/ . GP38-252 (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. @GP38-252: <- ping --Ferien (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022[edit]

Remove the "undergoing repairs as of august 2020" section from 252's description. It has been fixed and is back in action. ShaneM316 (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2022[edit]

1751 is out of service has bad wheels. 67.255.252.57 (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conway_Scenic_Railroad&oldid=1201125652"