This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Clapham Junction rail crash article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 12, 2008, December 12, 2013, December 12, 2016, December 12, 2018, and December 12, 2023. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Although this Accident was a rather major incident on British Railways, the Wikipedia Article of which is rather lacking in the details given by Hidden's Report. Now, I don't know why this is, but would it be okay if I could add a lot of the Detail in MY OWN WORDS to the Article, although the only source I have IS the Report? -- 5.66.251.219 ( talk) 00:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I posted, but I am unable to add References as of yet due to being busy. If someone else can that would be very good. -- 90.218.111.72 ( talk) 00:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Well, I wrote a much more detailed version, but it got deleted. Maybe, if I try to word it differently, it'll be better received? -- 2A02:C7F:A817:1E00:91BF:6588:CF9F:52E4 ( talk) 21:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
But other articles in more minor Railway accidents, like the Abbots Ripton rail accident has more detail then this. Sure I could cut out some of the Information that is a bit laborious (Like a description of the Relay Room,, the Trains that passed the Signal previously I'd say could have been removed almost entirely) but the rest of it I'd say was completely fair. The reason I was unable to source most of it, was because I didn't know how, but if so, it would be ALL from the Hidden Report as previously stated. Heck, just above both mine and your Posts, you can see that I asked if somebody would have been kind enough to source it, but by the time I checked again, it was all removed, and I do understand that quite a bit of it WAS useless. I'll try and make a better article soon-ish and get it to be relatively shorter then my previous attempt. Thanks for the advice. -- 2A02:C7F:A817:1E00:4C9C:11A0:D6F7:6B13 ( talk) 20:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Alrighty, this is for anyone who wants to read about the Article, but more especially for Tagish, the plan I have for the re-write of the Article is to slightly follow the Formula of the Article about the Abbots Ripton rail accident in that it gives a Rough Overview, explanation on the Geography, Signalling and the like, then the Accident in greater depth. I'll try my best to source most of it, most of which will be from Hidden's Report, which I believe Tagish said is okay. -- 2A02:C7F:A817:1E00:10B5:D8AA:91B0:7A26 ( talk) 22:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Following a change to the lede bold text by an IP user, which I reverted, @ Mjroots: suggested discussing a possible title change. Here are some options:
Pages returned by Google search for each option:
Clapham Junction is not disputed (yet).
rail/railway/train may bear on the scope of the article. The memorable event was a crash involving three 'trains', whereas the causes and outcomes involved the broader 'railway' infrastructure of hardware and processes. Is there a useful distinction between 'rail' and 'railway', or are they synonyms?
crash/accident again, the more specific 'crash' specifies the memorable event, while 'accident' is a far broader term.
Alternative titles, other suggestions, and discussion welcome. I'm not trying to start a poll. -- Verbarson talk edits 10:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)