Hi! I put that 175009 had moved to GW last night but it got removed - my issue is I haven't got any references to cite, purely due to none existing (only a few Facebook photos and videos which I don't own the rights to, and unsure if I can use them). What's the best way around this? Wait until a news source comes around (which I can't see likely for the time being)? Cheers! ConnorC2711 (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Connors edit was correct. Please do not revert this. No information on this page is properly sourced therefore if this data is not allowed then the whole page should be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrocks424 (talk • contribs) 00:50 30 January 2025 (UTC)
It has been reverted. Your claim that "no information on this page is properly sourced" is patently false - and if it were true, the correct course of action would be to either delete the article or improve the referencing - not introduce even more unsourced information. Feel free to add the information when it is properly sourced, and not before, as per Wikipedia policy. Danners430 (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your removal can now only really be classed as vandalism. If you look at the table you removed on the Class 175 article, you’ll notice each and every line has a reference to a magazine article or news article. So kindly explain how there are no sources. Danners430 (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, having been to university and spending hours learning about actual referencing and sourcing, I don't believe that magazines are relevant sources. Magazines are written using people's opinions and often don't state fact. The reference at the bottom of the page links to another page on Wiki, not the actual article that confirms stock movement and positions. Even if you were to follow these sources through, many of the items you are trying to tell me is a publicly available source isn't. These 'Magazines' are often stuck behind a pay wall. Members reading this should not have to pay to verify a source. I, along with many others, would argue that your reversion are 'vandalism' and do not allow users to see accurate and upto date information. Jrocks424 (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then take your concerns to the reliable sources noticeboard and start a discussion to have magazines depreciated as reliable sources. As it stands, they are classed as reliable sources on Wikipedia - and it would take consensus for that to be changed. Danners430 (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, random question - are you in any way related to Connor above or the user Jake CC45? I don’t mean in a personal manner, that’s not something that belongs on Wikipedia - it’s just surprising that you seem to have all started editing at the same time in the same areas all at once… Danners430 (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem very quick to jump to conclusion. I have no idea who these people are, do you? What I do know is I have a much deeper understanding of what is accurate and what is not when it comes to certain subjects. I dont need people questioning my understanding on things. I monitor pages on this site all of the time and get involved when I see innocent and accurate edits being removed for no apparent reason. Let's be Frank here, half the stuff on this entire website is inaccurate, false and sourced entirely incorrectly, however I have better things to be doing than constantly reading every article on this website. When it comes to railways, a lot of information is kept private and in reality is 'unsourceable'. In this case, I genuinely believe that there are many sources to prove that the certain piece of stock this has all blown up over has been transferred from one place to another. Find train pathing on RTT, find photos on groups on Facebook. There isnt going to be or hasnt ever been an article to document every single movement of every single train - that would be stupid. However, when accurate information is placed on this website which is publically available, albeit not in your eyes, that information shouldnt be touched. Jrocks424 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You really have no concept of Wikipedia policy and longstanding consensus, do you…
Facebook - unless it’s a post by a recognised reliable source (see WP:RS), then it’s user generated content.
If there is no source to state that something has happened, then have you considered that perhaps it doesn’t belong on Wikipedia? As it happens, there are sources on the Class 175 article. They are sources which are considered reliable. If you dispute this reliability, then take it to the reliable sources noticeboard.
Wikipedia is not an academic institution - it is a community project governed by consensus. If you see something wrong, seek that consensus. Danners430 (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't understand either. You have stated 'it is a community project'. Correct. Stop ruining what people are trying to add to a community. I will add again, information from certain industries are not always readily available for public knowledge. What has been edited is public knowledge. You cannot deny that, it's simple plain fact. You can see the paths (if you understand what a path is). You can see the videos on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and more places. This is accurate information, don't change it as you will be giving out false gen to the readers of this page. Jrocks424 (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'Verifiable facts' - yeah right. I've lost count of the amount of times you have contradicted yourself. For the last time - Sources on that page are unverifiable for the average person, linking to another wiki page and not to an actual article is unacceptable. Jrocks424 (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
