Talk:British Rail Engineering Limited

Trains: in UK / in Scotland Mid‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Transport in Scotland (assessed as High-importance).

This article lacks references.

removal - copyright

diff

The text removed is the same as http://www.railwaybritain.co.uk/british%20rail%20workshops.html , without explicit licensing information it can't be used here. Sorry. It can be used as a source though.Sf5xeplus (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doncaster Works sold to RFS?

Did RFS buy Doncaster from BR? Is there a good source, apart from this book title?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Doncaster-Works-GNR-Woods-Tuffrey/dp/0950869198/

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graces

The footnote at the bottom of http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/BREL says "Sources of Information [1] Wikipedia"

So we can't cite it as a source.

(Also, it is a wiki)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: In your edit summary, you wrote: "Graces' isn't a WP mirror." To help, I have dug up these old versions of the article. This is the original 6 March 2007 version of the Graces Guide, which is a verbatim copy of the 24 Feb 2007 version at English Wikipedia. Both versions contain the sentence that I removed the footnote from: The historic site at Wolverton in Milton Keynes was progressively run down until the 1980s before finally being relegated to maintenance duties only.

With that confirmation in hand, I removed the footnote again.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is being a wiki a problem? The point about WP's sourcing rules apply to open, public wikis (because of the editors) not "wikis" (because of the CMS platform). Graces Guide can be seen as SPS, but is usually robust and well in excess of WP's usual "Scrape anything off the web, it's OK" approach.

As to Wolverton, then just what is the problem here? Go and find another source if you want - there's plenty out there. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to delete anything about Wolverton. I only wanted to delete the footnote link to Grace's, which is circular. WP:CIRCULAR explains why we can't cite it:

do not use ... publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources

That's all.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]