Template talk:London rail accidents

This template is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport articles

Trains: in UK / Operations

Trains Portal

This template 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

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This template is supported by WikiProject UK Railways.
	This template is supported by the Operations task force.

Ordering

This seems strange in alphabetical order as it depends on what each accident has been called - the names of these things are unlikely to have been standardised. Wouldn't date order work better? Secretlondon 23:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion

This list is very incomplete and the selection seems somewhat arbitrary. Is it really worthwhile when there are other similar categories available which it seems to partially duplicate, such as Railway accidents and incidents in London? If retained, shouldn't it be expanded to bring it up to date? Several significant Underground accidents/incidents are missing, for example. Hyperman 42 (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyperman 42: Regarding duplication with lists: see WP:CLN. As for inclusion criteria, I would say that there needs to be a standalone article devoted to the accident. Almost all of the present list do have one; but one (Holborn (1980)) doesn't, it's a section within the article about the station. That one should probably be removed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, very helpful info. The converse may be whether some accidents in the list merit a separate article and therefore one should be added. I agree that Holborn isn't significant enough to count in the separate list. On the other hand, Northwood is one of only four (or five?) accidents actually causing fatalities and therefore seems to merit a separate article. Hyperman 42 (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]