Talk:Railpage Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Railpage Australia article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Peer review A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

This template adds articles to Category:Requests for peer review.da:Skabelon:Evaluering de:Vorlage:Review el:Πρότυπο:Κριτική άρθρων ja:Template:査読依頼 it:Template:Vaglio ru:Шаблон:review fi:Malline:Vertaisarviointi zh:Template:Peerreview
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:
  • Withdrawn, 20 May 2006, AfD#1
  • Keep, 26 Feb 2007, AfD#2
  • Speedy Close, 23 July 2007, AfD#3
  • Speedy Close, 26 July 2007, AfD#4
  • Speedy Close, 2 August 2007, AfD#5
  • Speedy Close, 2 August 2007, AfD#6
  • Speedy Close, 6 August 2007, AfD#7
  • Speedy Close, 11 August 2007, AfD#8
Archive
Archives
Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4


Contents

[edit] Archive

I think it might be worthwhile archiving some of the older discussions from the talk page. Thin Arthur 06:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Railpage Australia/Archive 1 now created. Thin Arthur 07:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Railpage Australia/Archive 2 now created. The Null Device 14:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Railpage Australia/Archive 3 now created. The Null Device 07:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Railpage Australia/Archive 4 now created. Thin Arthur (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] More cleanup proposals

All those reliable sources discussed in the last AfD, add them now. I added the reference to the earliest known article. I also suggest changing the inline links (a URL inside single square brackets) into footnote references with the full link title and accessdate. I changed the Geoscience Australia link this way and added two to the Parliamentary Library. Did anybody else know that Railpage was given as a "Key Internet Link" for the information of out elected representatives? I certainly didn't until I looked! The Null Device 08:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I must apologise as I'm not excellent with the Wikipedia interface. I've had the article open in editing for a couple of hours to overhaul it and I might have lost a couple of your edits when I saved it. If I have, please accept my apology as it was not my aim. 59.167.89.251 08:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem and no harm done. I've incorporated most of your edits and most of my own, only removing some where they doubled up. It still needs further cleanup. The Null Device 08:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice work. I agree that it still needs further work, and think the History section is a good candidate. In the general section I edited the "largest railway-oriented web-sites in Australia[citation needed]" part to use the source in the opening (Fairfax) by saying its the largest online rail community in Australia. I agree that it's also the largest railway oriented site in Aus as well, but can't neccesarily find a source for that change in wording. Was there something else you had in mind for that?
  • Need the title of the Heidelberg and Valley Weekly article. The Null Device 08:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    • "Full head of steam". I've got a couple of scans from it if required. 59.167.89.251 09:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! Feel free to add the journalist's name (add |last=lastname|first=firstname to the cite). The Null Device 09:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You have cited Mr Morgan as a individual involved in the operational aspects of Railpage, There's an article about him here, Herald Weekly Sun, June 13, 2004Tezza1 20:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • You've been told before that article is irrelevant to this article. Why are you flogging the very dead horse? Doctorjbeam 23:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Submissions pending unprotection

In terms of the article, lets pull apart what we have here section by section so that we can discuss what changes need to be made right off the bat when protection is removed. That way, if we have disputes in future we can revert to what we decide below as a common-ground while discussing possible changes. When participating in this discussion, please be sure that if you are replying to something already here - that you indent by one bullet (*)(**)(***)... to make it easier to read for everybody and to ensure everyone has their say. Please also make sure that you sign. Obvious vandalism (eg; "Railpage sucks doodle") can and should be reverted by anyone in this section, and if somebody forgets formatting, please help them out and leave them a message on their talk page to let them know how to fix it next time. 59.167.89.251 16:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The current version is a good start at revision and in general I support the specific comments/suggestions below. Thin Arthur 05:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Summary

  • I feel the article summary is suitable. The statements made in it are correct and verifiable (even the 'largest' part - check the Heidelberg Valley reference for confirmation), and the information inside it is concise. In my view, this could be left alone. 59.167.89.251 16:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

  • The screenshot is accurate, the site type correct, the owner correct (it does not require an ACN below it, as no other articles using the website infobox template include it), the 'created by' could either be removed or left - there is a lot of Railpage 'creators' it seems, so the term there seems most accurate - the launched date is correct, although the circa could stay or go, and the current status is correct. 59.167.89.251 16:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Is the owner correct? Owning the domain name is not the same as owning the actual site. The Null Device 02:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General

  • There needs to be a citation added to the 'largest in australia' claim - the Heidelberg Valley article claims it as the largest, so it can be the cite. I'm reasonably happy with the rest, perhaps apart from what the site provides - as I feel it could be written better, and with more detail.
    • Rather than "claim" you could use "reported by" and use the Heidelberg and Valley Weekly article as the source. The Null Device 07:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I gather then that there are no objections to saying it is the largest, as reported by the Heidelberg Valley Weekly? Doctorjbeam 23:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)doctorjbeam
        • Don't even need to use that many words so long as a citation is given to the claim. Done. Thin Arthur 23:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

[edit] Uses in Society

  • Lots of nice cites in this section which is good. I like the information in the section, but would be interested in seeing if there was a nicer way of setting it out. 59.167.89.251 16:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • At the time of protection it was still a work in progress. As I said at the time, it still needs more cleanup. It sorted out the examples with citations in roughly chronological order. The Null Device 02:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The site is often quoted by Kel Richards (himself a railfan) on ABC Newsradio but it's too hard to track down a specific quotable instance. The Null Device 07:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hosting Services

  • This is a newer section than most, however I feel it's relevant and speaks to the character of the site. This section could probably be filled out further, and maybe set out a little better. 59.167.89.251 16:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Hosting, Technical and Development could be combined? The Null Device 00:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technical

  • I feel that the technical side rates a mention in some capacity, however I'm not sure of the best way to do it. 59.167.89.251 16:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what an in depth technical discussion achieves. A one line summary of the OS and the software should be enough for a general audience. The Null Device 02:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Whatever remains of the technical details, I think it would do well to be integrated into the hosting section. --Evan C (Talk) 11:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't know that the technical section needs to go into much depth. Are the nuts and bolts of the site relevant to a general article? The Null Device 08:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Some mention of the moderation system may be useful. The warning system is analogous to Karma (Slashdot), in fact new versions of PHP-Nuke have user Karma built in. Nuke itself was created as a Slashdot-like web news system. The Null Device 03:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The warning system seems to be somewhat less intensively used than Karma systems; only for when the rules are clearly broken. --Evan C (Talk) 11:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
      • That, and the warning system isn't globally viewable. It's not used as an indication of how much that user has contributed to the site, it's an indicator of how much they've broken the rules Doctorjbeam 03:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)doctorjbeam
        • Fair point. A one line summary should be enough, possibly with a "similar to" analogy with Karma. The Null Device 08:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm still not convinced of the similarities between the warnings system and a karma system. For a start, the warnings are only viewable by the moderators. Secondly, when you reach a 100% warning level your account gets banned - when you reach 100% karma, it shows you're the most respected on the site, and the biggest contributor. They're not the same thing. However, there is a karma system coming in RP3. Perhaps that would be better to mention? Doctorjbeam 00:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Makes sense, but would be better to wait until karma is actually working before adding it (WP:CRYSTAL). 150.203.56.20 03:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
              • Also, Karma can be abused more than Warning Levels, Karma shows how popular one is with the site as a whole, Warning is how much the moderators hate you. I wouldn't mention karma until RP3 is up and running. Perhaps upcoming features of RP3 should be mentioned. What do we think of that? Yellow Thirteen 06:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
                • Uh...no. The warning system is an indicator of how much you've broken the rules. See the RP FAQ for more information: http://www.railpage.com.au/faq-6.htm#9. If you have evidence to the contrary, then by all means show us. Doctorjbeam 21:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
                  • I don't think it's relevant to go into that level of detail. The warning system is a small part of the forum which is only part of the site. Thin Arthur 06:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Waiting for the protection to be removed so I can re-add the citations that were removed Doctorjbeam 03:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Site Development Staff

  • I don't mind this section being added as it provides elaboration to the "Railpage Development Team" line in the infobox. Most articles on websites include some form of section on who creates the site, so Railpage_Australia probably shouldn't be any different. 59.167.89.251 16:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed. The Whirlpool page states who the past and present developers are. I gather by the silence that there are no objections to this? Doctorjbeam 23:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)doctorjbeam
      • Merely mentioning/listing them should not be a problem. Thin Arthur 23:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Sections

[edit] Other changes

  • Is it worth adding [[Category:Internet forums]] and [[Category:Community websites]]? The Null Device 03:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I think it is Doctorjbeam 03:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)doctorjbeam
      • Done, since this is (or ought to be) non-controversial. The Null Device 03:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Have to make sure there are no other unsourced claims. Thin Arthur 23:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Are footnotes actually required to "prove" that the site uses PHP-Nuke or similar details? The official policy (WP:V) is that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". I don't think that's likely to be challenged as unsourced and what software the site uses doesn't materially affect the scope of the article. There are now just over 30 references and now there is a critical mass of secondary sources, the number of primary sources (referencing railpage.com.au) should be pruned down to the most useful half dozen or so. "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." (WP:NOR) The Null Device 09:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There are now six citations on Google Scholar.[1] Thin Arthur 06:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia

An Arbitration case about Tezza's actions has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia/Evidence.

Thin Arthur 02:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Good work Thin Arthur, Tezza's gone!!! Tezza banned!. I've left something on your talk page:).
Can we remove those idiotic tags now? The article also needs tidying up and expanding.Alcofan (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Dancing on someone's grave - especially *before* he's dead, it's a proposed banning, remember? - is very distasteful, to my mind. Add that to the fact that your comments on the arbitration page got it locked[2], would make me wait until the arbitration is over, i's dotted, and t's crossed.Johnmc (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Wait until it's signed, sealed and delivered, then break out the champagne. But it is a victory for common sense that pretty much everything he's alleged has been thoroughly discredited. 203.30.75.12 (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
All I did was follow Wikipedia's dispute procedures. In the end it was his own actions that got him banned, not mine. The phrase "enough rope" springs to mind. Thin Arthur (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Tezza1 is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

With the case having been resolved, I will unprotect this article. Editors are urged to edit and improve the article and to take into account some of the comments that were made during the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tezza Gone

See, Tezza's gone.
Thankfully the Arbitrators have disregarded Tezza's sock claims. Next time, take a zero tolerance approach to aus.rail editors like that - shoot on sight.
In retrospect, there was really only one DFC - Tezza. Alcofan (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Site development staff

I think it would be appropriate if we list the site development staff in a tabular format, that gives us the flexibility to add other notable members such as moderators, and longer term members. Any agreement? Alcofan (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Do they really need to be listed at all? Railpage itself already lists who the moderators are. The question is do other wiki articles on websites include the information. Wongm (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the rationale for listing site development staff was that other forum articles list their staff, and that this set a precedent. Myself, I'm not sure. I don't think the article will lose much if they're not listed. As for listing moderators - well, I'm a railpage mod, and I have no desire to see my name up in Wikipedia lights. Johnmc (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Bromage

I've added two additional references (including one from The Washington Post) that cite the founder of Railpage, David Bromage. At first glance, these references seem to be "weak", with David being mentioned as "a model train enthusiast", but I think these references will add strength to David's and Railpage's notability. Alcofan (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Those references are about an unrelated subject and do not even mention Railpage so I have removed them. This article is about Railpage, not about its founder. If you want to start a BLP article about him go right ahead. 201.91.17.205 (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I'd just like to thank everyone who's kept this article vandalism free and up to date.

Feel free to delete this section, I just want the contributors to know their work is really appreciated :) Doctorjbeam (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)