Jump to content

Talk:Potters Bar rail accidents

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

Requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Potters Bar derailment → Potters Bar rail crash — According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), articles should use the common name of an event if there is one. A Google search for "Potters Bar rail crash" returns 12,100 results whilst "Potters Bar derailment" returns only 1,140. Admin assistance required as new page name is currently a redirect. Adambro 19:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

[edit]
  1. Support. The move to derailment was made after the Grayrigg derailment page was moved from Grayrigg train crash by the same editor without prior discussion on either page. He cited a weak claim in the edit summary as follows: moved Grayrigg rail crash to Grayrigg derailment: "crash" implies one vehicle hitting another. This page was Potters Bar train crash and then moved by the same editor minutes later. However, the Hatfield rail crash (another derailment) hasn't been moved as of when I posted this, and nor should it be. Lugnuts 22:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. As discussed on the Grayrigg train crash page, the standard naming convention is to use (quote): "..a particular common name for the event ... even if it implies a controversial point of view", and that "The spirit of these guidelines is to favour familiar terms used to identify the event." In view of this, it is clear that the term "rail crash" has been significantly favoured in common parlance. As regards the point that the above convention applies solely to 'controversial' events - the overall principle outlined in the root of the naming conventions section at WP:NAME is: "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists. The preceding would also seem to address and resolve the argument made by the editor that terms like "crash" are not what industry officials may use. - HTUK 01:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - in opposition to the move

[edit]
  1. It's clear from the first page of those search results that "...derailment" is the title used in all the formal reports and by official bodies. Andy Mabbett 19:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

The article you cite appears to be concerned with the uncontroversial naming of "events and activities such as military conflicts and terrorist incidents", such as "bombing " vs "massacre" or "terrorist outrage"; not the accurate naming of events whose name is politically uncontroversial. Andy Mabbett 19:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per my comment above, note that WP:NAME states: "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists. - HTUK 01:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...derailment" would seem to meet all of those criteria, particularly ...ambiguity. Andy Mabbett 09:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the train derailed, it eventually crashed into the station. Whilst i am in support if this does move, wouldn't it make more sense to put this as "Potters Bar railway accident"? Simply south 23:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Potters Bar derailment to Potters Bar rail crash as the result of a move request.--Stemonitis 14:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Document Images

[edit]

I've been rooting through some old files and photos and found the letter I received sent to all Jarvis employees when the 2002 rail crash happened. Is this worth uploading at all? The picture I have isn't great as I had to use my digital camera to photo the paper rather than scan it in as my scanner's dead in the water, I just thought it may be useful to the article. Stuey 182 00:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Potters Bar rail accidents. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potters Bar rail accidents#1946

[edit]

Hi Redrose64 ! Like I said, thank you for joining in with trying to clarify Potters Bar rail accidents # 1946. I have to apologise, too, that my edit summary, responding to your query, was totally not clear enough.

I should probably have started this talk-page section then. And, coming here now, I’m seeing that the article section was already flagged as needing work.

For anyone joining us: the point under discussion is that “Unlike road signals, a rail signal, once observed showing a proceed aspect, will not normally change against the driver observing it;” the issue is how to present that point in the article.

Its relevance and importance are fairly clear if you read the 1946 Report closely.

The edit-history up to now is as follows:


Edit Summary Diff Editor Comment - in hindsight
clarification [1] SquisherDa (slightly sharper use of railway terminology)
amplified citation of authoritative Ref, + other Ref dropped [2] SquisherDa dropping citation of a low-reliability source “blaming” the local-train driver
accident summary amended to agree with authoritative Ref [3] SquisherDa
Rescuing orphaned refs ("PBHistory" from rev 879246835) [4] AnomieBOT oops - I mishandled a multi-cited source
why is this inside the ref? [5] Redrose64 fair question: so far as anyone could see, I had simply made an editing error
Presenting the point about aspect changes in a footnote because (1) it’s a general point, not specific to the detail of this accident causation; and (2) if placed anywhere in the main text, I think it would rate a [citation needed] . . I saw it in an RAIB report - and it’s plainly important - but I have no idea which report! [6] SquisherDa my explanation totally failed to clarify that the point, though general, has very specific importance in relation to this accident
don't put text intended to be interpreted as footnotes inside an unrelated ref. If you want it to appear as a footnote, mark it up as such; but even so, it's not exempt from WP:V [7] Redrose64 good advice generally, of course. But the point relates - very closely - to this source. WP:V: not exempt, of course - but in a note I think it should be no problem: see discussion below
→Notes: new section [8] Redrose64

The requirements of WP:V seem meetable without trouble. There are two. First is that everything in an article should be supportable, if challenged, by a WP:RS. There’s no difficulty there (if only because of the RAIB report I read). Second is that for anything where a challenge is likely, a suitable RS should actually be cited.

For the second requirement, a brief remark in a citation should be OK anyway - is unlikely to be challenged - given that the point is obvious when you think about it and only the more thoughtful readers are likely to look at a citation footnote.

But meeting WP:V doesn’t really hit the spot if the remark just looks like an editing error anyway. So my plan now is to include the point in UK railway signalling - in context there, it is very unlikely to be challenged. Then, if the note in Potters Bar rail accidents includes an explicit phrase directing the reader to that signalling article, the intent should be obvious and the note won’t look like a muddled edit.

I’ll develop the Potters Bar rail accidents # 1946 section - a need already flagged on this Talk page - using the 1946 Report as the basis. And I’ll make the note there more explicit, both in the way I’ve described, and in clarifying that the reason it mentions the point is that the point matters when reading the Report.

Before I do any of that, I’ll change the mention in the lede of “the latest” accident! To me, ‘latest’ carries favorable connotations (newest, most recent, most up-to-date) which are badly out-of-place here.

I’ll monitor here for replies, anybody!?

SquisherDa (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be split

[edit]

I think this article probably started as an article on the 2002 crash then some genius realised that there had been a few other crashes before and added those as well.

Sensible comments welcome. Tony May (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2002 incident is easily the most serious and well known. You would have to be a railway buff to be very interested in the others. The 2002 accident should probably have its own dedicated article. WP:TOPIC applies here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I find myself thinking that no, the article should not be split. I can see advantages in splitting. But so far the main reasons *for* splitting, when looked at more closely, seem to turn into reasons *against* (!) - see below.

And it’s hard to see how to split the article. You’re right, Tony, it originated with the notorious 2002 derailment. But people grew up knowing of 1946 as “the” Potters Bar crash (see edit summary). And would we split off 2002 but leave 1898-1946 lumped? (Under what title?)

Where other articles need to link - to 2002 specifically; rather than to Potters Bar as a dangerous bottleneck! - they can link direct to ..#2002. (In fact maybe we should check through “What links here” for that purpose.)

On the main arguments so far, *for* splitting:

(1) railway buff / very interested: yes (ish: again, see summary); but bringing together four accidents within one article provides perspective / context. Non-buffs may well find it helpful to recognise tht railway accidents are not a new thing? tht fairly serious accidents are not merely a product of post-Thatcher organisational difficulties?

(2) WP:TOPIC: there’s a big sweet spot between over-focus and digression (“While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject”: not really where we’re at here.) Coordinating four accidents at the same place along a timeline isn’t digression. (Organising knowledge is maybe part of the point of an encyclopaedia?)

(3) 2002 “most serious”: 1946 was a triple collision (two expresses) with 1000 passengers at risk.

(4) “completely unrelated”: no, the 1898 accident looks like a ‘prepeat’ of 1946 - a train on the up slow line failing to stop before the crossover to the up fast, when that crossover is set against it. The big difference is that in 1946 the signaller made an ill-fated last-moment attempt to rescue the situation, and derailment wreckage extended far enough to involve both main lines. The big similarity is that both accidents are apparent SPADs, ? at the same signal.

I couldn’t say how closely related those two accidents actually were. But the comparison is clearly instructive. So separating the two reports would clearly be, to that extent, unhelpful. (Not an issue, though, if splitting 2002 leaves1898-1946 still ‘lumped’.)

I should add tht I’m glad of Tony May’s recent edit (even though I think it needs reverting!!) It wasn’t till the new phrase made me think about it tht I realised how similar 1898 and 1946 really are.

SquisherDa (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't bring perspective, because they are entirely unrelated. Tony May (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, at the moment the article is too diffuse. The article is not going to be ruined if the 2002 accident is made the subject of a full article, with the other accidents covered elsewhere. This is standard Wikipedia procedure. There are also problems with WP:DUE, because no-one can argue that an obscure possible suicide in 1899 is on a par with the 2002 accident. They are, of course, completely unrelated as Tony May pointed out.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I wonder if WP: RECENTISM has some ideas to suggest? 1946 was a pretty big thing at the time, and of lasting memory. 2002 was a seriously important event, well beyond the lives of the victims and others involved. It changed the course of the post-privatisation railway. But - I’ve indicated above my thoughts on perspective. (And on how two seem related: a separate point.) And at the very simplest level - well, yes, all four are related by where they happened.
Rail accidents at Morpeth is an interesting comparison case. 1992 is not related to the recurrent derailments. Nor is 1877 - except tht that’s when someone in public authority first pointed out the curve as an accident waiting to happen. That is, 1877 is unrelated in terms of both causes and consequences - but closely related in terms of railway safety management. Whether two accidents are related is not always a simple question. Naming accidents by location is fairly universal practice; grouping them by location is also usual and - I think - the right thing to do.
If consensus is yes, let’s split, I guess the way to do it is to copy the existing article’s 2002 section, to a new article, and condense the section in the existing article and headnote the section with a “Main article” reference to the new one.
It remains my view, though, tht the article is best *not* split.
- SquisherDa (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Principle of least astonishment is also involved here. Ask an average person about rail accidents at Potters Bar and they will probably think about the 2002 accident where a train jumped the tracks, not an obscure 1899 possible suicide. As the principle of least astonishment says, "If a necessary feature has a high astonishment factor, it may be necessary to redesign the feature." It is frankly poor design to have what should be the infobox image hidden some way down the article, so that the article can deal with an obscure 1899 incident first.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


That’s a really interesting idea! For *content* I’m unpersuaded. (As an argument for predictability, in relation to content it looks like an argument for banality.) But in application to the *structure* and accessibility of an information source . .
For me, the existing structure presents various implicit questions to the reader, on the way to the expected content. (Thus, in your 1899 example, is a suicide a railway accident? What if the incident was what the jury said, an epileptic episode?) And that seems to me part of the job of an encyclopaedia.
( It would be possible to reverse the article’s order, so tht 2002 appears first and 1898 last. But to me that feels like making other people’s tragedies into footnotes of the recent past - millennial / snowflakey. )
How about making each of the dates a link to its relevant section? Burial at one-click depth seems to me an acceptable cost of the contextual benefits of the one-article approach?
[ I’m off to work now, so won’t be able to contribute further till probably tmorw. Maybe other ppl will join in too? ]
- SquisherDa (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents:

  • the primary topic for this article is clearly the 2002 derailment, but it should be located elsewhere and the sole subject of an article. Burying it, as we do now, is bad for the reader.
  • the 1898 incident is non-notable and doesn't need to be covered anywhere. Neither it nor the 1899 incident is even summarized at Potters Bar railway station#Potters Bar rail crashes
  • the 1899 incident belongs to the life of Lord Strafford and isn't notable otherwise as a railway accident
  • the 1946 incident is notable, but we don't have much to say about it. Until such time as we do, it can be summarized in the existing section on Potters Bar railway station.

In sum, I think we should move this article to 2002 Potters Bar railway accident or some such and cut it down to cover only that accident. The 1946 incident can be summarized in Potters Bar railway station until such time as someone writes a standalone article for it. The 1898 and 1899 incidents probably don't need to be summarized there at all. Mackensen (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m still against splitting it (reasons as above) and I’ve moved the infobox re 2002 to the head of the article to see if anyone thinks that‘s better. (I’ve linked it to its section.) I’ve also linked the dates in the lede directly to the relevant sections, and rewritten the lede to relate similar accidents. I still plan to fill out the 1946 section when I can.
– SquisherDa (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I too am against splitting it. All 4 events can be correctly referred to as Potters Bar Rail Accidents. Anyone looking for any one of them will find what they are looking for in this article. They will also become aware of the other 3 accidents. Moving these events to separate places will make at least 3 of them more difficult to find. If I'm wanting to research on the topic of people who were killed by stepping in front of a train, and I don't know all those people's identities, I'll want to look at articles on rail accidents, not look at every article about an individual, just incase someone thought it was a good idea to only place the information there. FreeFlow99 (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

[edit]

Regarding the 2002 accident, there was an aftermath. Safety changes were made; what were these? FreeFlow99 (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2002 accident

[edit]

Someone involved in investigation the 2002 accident has given an account as part of the remembrance of the accident 20 years on. Published by the Office of Rail and Road. Although this could be considered a primary source, there is useful info that could be used to add to the article. Mjroots (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Potters_Bar_rail_accidents&oldid=1202500755"