Wikipedia talk:Notability (railway incidents)

Discussion

Well, I've made the proposal, so let's discuss this, reach a consensus and hopefully produce a guideline. Mjroots (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems OK at first read to me. A couple of points to consider:

1) With bridge collapse, should we include tunnel collapse?

2)(a)The scope includes 'heavy rail' (which links to the railway article) but presumably the scope also encompasses narrow gauge lines (are these classed as 'heavy rail')?

2)(b)And what about miniature railways -- I'm thinking specifically of the RHDR here. There have been two level crossing incidents on this line which resulted in the death of the train driver in each case. I know we are treating LC incidents separately; the point here is that we must be certain our scope clearly includes a railway like this in case, God forbid, it should be the location of a crash. The term 'heavy rail' again would not obviously include it.

2)(c) perhaps the scope would then read "...maglev systems, including narrow gauge, miniature and heritage railways."

EdJogg (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

In reply to EdJogg, 1) I'm not sure if we need to specify tunnel collapses. If the line was blocked for a week or more they'd qualify under A4, otherwise possible qualification under D1. 2a), yes, miniature railways would be covered. The two RHDR accidents mentioned would qualify under A2. 2b) These are covered under "light rail" but it could be included for absolute clarity. Mjroots (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Added "including narrow gauge, miniature and heritage railways". Mjroots (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added "rapid transit" to the list of modes, innpart to adress the concerns of definitions also questioned by Ed here. Specifically while "maglev", "monorail", and "tramway" are well defined (even if tramway is not a universal term), and "light rail" is usually understood to mean a system of lighter-weight, lower-capacity trains that mostly surface run in exclusive rights-of-way, "heavy rail" could refer to either anything thts part of the general railway network, or to "rapid transit", which is by definition separate from the general railway network. By listing rapid transit separately, it clarifies which version of "heavy rail" we mean. Indeed, it may be best to just avoid the term "heavy rail" in the first place.

Other, smaller concerns. Firstly, I think the use of the word "accident" in the title and the body may be a mistake. "Accident" has connotations of no fault and chance that are inappropriate for a guideline that covers such events as acts if terrorism. The more neutral "incidents", which doesn't have the same connotations is better, I think.

Secondly, the notability guidelines are generally good, but come off as a little pasenger rail centric. It should more explicitly cover freight accidents as well. Certainly, many of the guidelines already are applicable, but a specific mention to avoid potential misunderstanding of the scope is not a bad addition.

Finally, I strongly believe that incidents with fatalities of trackworkers should be bumped up from a "D" grade notability to at least a "C". Trackworkers are railroaders, and it does a disservice to them to treat fatalities among them as having so little notability.

Just a few thoughts.oknazevad (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

First point, this could be reworded to "accidents and incidents". Second point, freight is covered at minimum by A2, A3, A5, all of sections B and D. Final point, working on the track is a dangerous activity, and sadly there are many deaths each year. Apart from occasional exceptions such as the Tebay rail accident, these really have to be considered non-notable; as do the many instances of vehicles being hit by trains on level crossings. Maybe in the latter case multiple deaths (10+?) could give enough notability for either a stand-alone article or a mention in an article on the line / (nearest) station. Pedestrian fatalities generally would also be non-notable. Mjroots (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Accident has been reworded to "accident or incident". Mjroots (talk) 09:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just found Talk:List of rail accidents/Criteria for inclusion; it's linked from a banner at the top of List of rail accidents (2000–2009). How much overlap is there between the discussions? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In reply to EdJogg, tunnel collapses should be included. Mjroots (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposing changes to wording

Please post any proposed changes to the wording in the format

• E1 This is the current wording
• E1 This is the proposed alternative wording

Thanks. Mjroots (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change to A3

• A3 it results in legislation imposing a change of railway operation

More of a quibble - legislation is different to the Rule Book. I know what you mean (and agree with it) but the wording could be better.

• A3 it results in changes being imposed on railway operation Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Many accidents have resulted in changes in operation, but relatively few have resulted in a Government forcing a change on a railway company by an Act of Parliament. I think it is important here to make that distinction. Mjroots (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean - you are limiting that condition ONLY to legislation. (In that case the incident should really be MUST have an article rather than SHOULD.) I would prefer to have the Rule book mentioned in there somewhere - it would clarify what you mean by A3; and probably any incident which necessitated a change in the Rule book should have an article. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, try this:-

• A3 it results in changes being imposed on railway operation by legislation an Act of Parliament (or equivalent legislation) Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't use "Act of Parliament" specifically. The more generic "legislative act" or simply "legislation" makes it a more general and universal term. Not al legislatures are called "parliament", let alone capitalized. oknazevad (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense, so I've altered it. Mjroots (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change to C1-3

I've noticed a problem, which will require a rethink of the whole section.

C1 - C3 should have the word 'only' inserted between 'it' and 'results'.

As it is currently written, an incident, however colossal, will be considered non-notable if a trackworker is killed (for example). I know I am reading this literally, but that is what we must do here. The trouble is, using the word 'only' here could imply that the incident is not considered significant -- which could be insensitive to any surviving relatives -- rather than reinforcing that the sole outcome was the killing of the trackworker/suicide/pedestrian. As you may guess, I haven't been able to think up suitable words to rewrite it.

-- EdJogg (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a think about this. When we talk about notability or significance, it is is Wikipedia terms. Any accident that kills a trackworker / pedestrian is going to be significant for their relatives and close friends, but I think that discussion is outside our remit. Mjroots (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As for occasional exceptions to section C, this accident at Moreton-on-Lugg looks as though it may be one. It appears to meet B4, but we'll need to wait until the final report is released before we can be sure. Mjroots (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think using the word 'notable' is important here, as it underlines the fact that we are considering the significance of the event in terms of Wikipedia coverage, rather than anything more subjective. It is subtle, but I think that considering someone's death as 'non-notable' is safer (and less emotive?) than saying it is 'not significant'.

To get round my original concern, I have adjusted the wording to emphasise that there is a hierarchy to the criteria. I hope this is acceptable. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the adjusted wording is fine. I've tweaked the text of D1. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've given D1 another tweak. Mjroots (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Which ones can be covered?

Would the two huge LIRR accidents of 1950 in Rockville Centre(actually 32 died, not 29) and Kew Gardens qualify for their own articles? Or the one in Pineola, Florida in 1956, which now has a sign on the Withlacoochee State Trail? ----DanTD (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sign marking the site of the "Great Train Wreck of 1956" in Pineola, Florida.

Both those accidents should be notable enough to sustain their own articles. Mjroots (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A1

Why would the death of a person on a train be more notable than a person off the train? Simply south (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Traincrew have no choice, they have to be on the train because their work dictates it. Passengers are under the care of the railway that is carrying them, and expect to reach the end of their journey still alive. Motorists, pedestrians and would-be suicides choose to be on the railway. Trackworkers are a separate issue, but due to the nature of their work most accidents involving them must be seen as non-notable, Wikiwise. Mjroots (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In some cases motorists and pedestrians do not choose to be on railways but end up on there due to some accident that was not their fault. Simply south (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Such as the Selby rail crash? (it was the motorists fault, but he wasn't on the line intentionally) - covered by A1 and A2. Other similar accidents may be notable enough under section D. Mjroots (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Adoption of the guideline

Discussion seems to have gone quiet, which I take to mean that there are no violent objections to the proposal. Therefore, I propose that the guideline be adopted as of 1 March 2010. This leaves a week and a half to air any final disagreements and proposed changes. Mjroots (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Having just skimmed Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines (which is linked from the banner) where does this guideline fit? Obviously WP:TRAINS can adopt and use it whenever, but is there anything else needed to make it sufficiently 'official' within WP's rules? -- EdJogg (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. The guideline has been created by consensus, and is subject to alteration by consensus. Once adopted, a brief note at the relevant WPs would be in order. Mjroots (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Adopted

Per the above discussion, the guideline has been adopted. Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Disputed

I'm not sure I buy this.

1. No argument establishing or justification for the need for the guideline is presented.
2. The guideline does not define "incident"
3. It establishes notability using criteria which can fairly easily be met by what seem to me to be non-notable incidents. Damage to a bridge support can easily take a branch line out for more than a week. Is that an incident? Is it notable?
4. It continues to rely on more general notability criteria in the get-out clauses (case-by-case) in the lower order clauses
5. I'm not happy that a mere 7 wikipedians in a period of less than a month constitutes great evidence of community consensus. Indeed I tend to think that the process of the establishment of this guideline does not well follow Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Good practice for proposals. I see a very few announcements of the process afoot, but nothing, for instance, in the village pump.
6. I note, for instance, that Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Notability has been open for about 10 months and is still an essay. That seems much more appropriate to me; not least it possibly provides the necessary time for the guideline to be fully hashed out (assuming such a guideline is required, of course). The layout of the aviation guidelines seem better thought out, to me, with worked examples of classes of incident normally found in other articles, versus examples of incidents that merit their own article. Aviation are also in a deliberate beta test phase.

Bottom line: no need established, and unseemly haste to promote, for me, render this guideline void. I suggest the way forward is a) demote the page b) establish consensus for need c) take a very great deal more time to establish the guidelines, preferably with reference to examples in wikipedia articles as Aviation has done d) take very much more time before calling for guideline status and when you do, give more than 10 days notice of your intention to promote.

All the advice I've seen says "Legislate in haste, repent (or repeal) at your leisure". --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, the proposed guideline was advertised at the relevant wikiprojects - WP:TWP, WP:UKT, WP:TRAM and WP:UKTrams. It's proposed adoption was also notified on this very talk page, with a reasonable timescale for editors to raise objections and/or propose further additions. Had there been serious objections or a large number of proposed changes, then I would have been happy to delay the promotion to guideline status. The discussion here, after some initial tweaking, settled down fairly quickly as I had hoped it would because I thought carefully about the proposal before I made it.

The need for this guideline is to help cull the various lists of railway accidents of the many non-notable accidents that occur. This subject has been discussed at various venues many times. Now that we have something to point to, the lists can be improved by the careful removal of such incidents.

If you feel that strongly that the guideline should be demoted, please feel free to raise the issue at the appropriate place. I note that you did not contribute to the discussion or raise any objection until after the guideline had been adopted, although the proposal was advertised in advance. Mjroots (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have raised the objection at the appropriate place, and my objections still stand. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

A link would be helpful, please. -- EdJogg (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me be more clear. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines states that this talk page is the place to raise objections, the disputed tag having been added to the "guideline" pages. So being told by Mjroots to raise objections in the appropriate place is not very helpful. And after asserting that more could have been done to advertise the intent to formalise this advice as a guideline, to be reprimanded for being unaware of the page is equally or more unhelpful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I was assuming there was somewhere else that you had to raise the objections, whereas, as you have now pointed out, the 'appropriate place' is this very talk page.

Just to note that I did query whether due procedure had been followed (see #Adoption of the guideline above). Not knowing the procedures, it was not my place to express my concerns any more strongly than I did.

EdJogg (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, this has automatically been raised at the Village Pump, see:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Notability (railway incidents) has been marked as a guideline

EdJogg (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, I didn't know where to direct you to raise the issue, which is why I said to raise it at the appropriate place - which, as it turns out, is here. Now we are agreed that the issue has been raised at the appropriate place, can we now get on with sorting this out?

WP:AIRCRASH mentioned above is still being argued about because people cannot seem to agree on what is a notable accident and what isn't. Let's keep that discussion over there though. When I proposed WP:RAILCRASH, I specifically wanted to avoid the deletionist arguments of "if it doesn't meet this criteria, then it isn't notable at all", hence the wording at the bottom of section C and the inclusion of section D. If a good case can be made for the inclusion of a accident that would otherwise fall under section C, then it should be considered. Accidents falling outside A and B, but not within C may also be notable due to the particular circumstances. Again, they shoud be considered on their merits. It think it was the adoption of this approach which meant that there wasn't a lot of argument and counter-argument when we were discussiong the proposal. Mjroots (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think part of the trouble for me is that in seeking to avoid the deletionist arguments, you've over-egged the inclusionist argument. My bus hitting a railway bridge and taking the line out for a week is now by your definition article-worthy, when it really isn't notable. In short, I think the current guidelines are seeking to legislate, and not to guide. There will always be boundary issues; these are not solved my making your boundaries sharper and better defined. And it is for that reason that I find Aviation more compelling, because it seeks to guide given the ambiguities, whereas Railways seeks to define as if ambiguities do not tend to exist.

You mentioned lists of disputed accidents. Could you point to any evidence that there is a problem that needs a guideline as a solution.

I'm at work right now, so no time to work on this right now; expect this conversation to take some time. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It began on 3 December 2009 with me reverting these edits and then starting a thread at the article's talk page. Comments were received, although slowly; and the trivial additions continued, like these. Consider the statement "No one was killed or injured"; the editor who added it must therefore have been aware of its relative unimportance. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Can the "guideline" tag please be removed until outside views have been actively sought? What I see here is about four editors writing a proposal and then deciding among themselves that it is a guideline. Did you not think of opening an RfC or advertising it on CENT? This proposal is significantly more lenient than WP:EVENT, and as Tagishsimon says it attempts to legislate rather than guide. Guidelines should be based on existing practice, not setting rules that editors must follow. Fences&Windows 14:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Mjroots (talk)

The example of the bus given above is a) a roadcrash, and b) highly unlikely. FYI, this would not be seen as worthy of an article by myself. When I mentioned bridge collapses, I had more in mind the example at Stewarton in 2009, which was caused by a (lack of) maintenance error. Another bridge collapse probably worthy on an article is the derailment at Ely in 2007, which is covered at Ipswich_to_Ely_Line#Freight_train_derailment_June_2007. There is no rush, we have plenty of time to discuss this and sort out any difference, tightening of wording, clarifications etc. Mjroots (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I started to post an objection last night when I saw the notice that it was a guideline. This did not receive any proper advertisement nor appropriate discussion at all. Advertising to a few projects and a consensus of what appears to be 5-6 editors from those projects is not nearly enough to make a new notability guideline. Further, projects can NOT create notability guidelines. This was not properly proposed nor put to the community as a whole, which would include notification at all of the relevant notice boards, and possible a banner notice. Further, I agree with Tagishsimon's breakdown that this is not a necessary, justifiable, nor necessary guideline in the least. Railway incidents are not so special that they need a special notability guideline versus, say, plane crashes or any other news event. Mjroots, it seems more like what your project(s) were aiming for was a Manual of Style regarding the contents of lists, not a notability guideline.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, the aim of the proposal was partly to trim the various lists of cruft per the examples given above. Any accident falling under section A should at minimum be at least mentioned on Wikipedia, even if it doesn't have it's own article at the moment. OK, I'll put my hands up to not having followed the proper procedures in publicising the proposal - anyone can mess up now and again. I'm not sure what you mean about the notice boards, as all relevant WPs were notified. A train crash is a generally significant event, and has been since the L&MR opened in 1830. The question is what is notable enough for an article, what should be covered under the line/station articles and what is really non-notable, Wikiwise. This is why I feel that there is a need for something we can point editors to, especially if we are removing material from lists and articles. Mjroots (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• So why do we need this when WP:EVENT already exists? I don't believe any other disaster (natural or not) has anything more overarching than EVENT and the GNG, I don't see why we need to handle railway accidents as anything special. Basically, this is too narrow in scope to be a general guideline. Now, mind you, if there is a project that deals with railway incidents, you can have additional criteria as part of that project's guidelines for articles, but these are generally to clarify further exclusions. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

To give an example of how the propsed guideline works, see the South Eastern Main Line article. There are 13 accidents listed.

1. 1865 - Meets A1, A2 and A5, has its own article.
2. 1877 - Meets A4, mentioned in article on line. Folkestone Warren Halt wasn't open at the time of the event.
3. 1905 - Meets B1, has its own article.
4. 1909 - Meets A2, mentioned in article on line and Tonbridge station.
5. 1915 - Meets A4, mentioned in article on line and Folkestone Warren Halt
6. 1919 - Meets A2, mentioned in article on line and Paddock Wood station
7. 1927 - Meets A1 and A2, has its own article
8. August 1957 - Meets A1 and A2, has its own article
9. December 1957 - Meets A1 and A2, has its own article
10. 1958 - Meets D1 - mentioned in article on line
11. 1961 - Meets D1 - mentioned in article on line at Paddock Wood station
12. 1967 - Meets A1 and A2, has its own article.
13. 1969 - Meets A1 and A2, has its own article.
14. 1999 - Meets B4, has its own article.

Mjroots (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I also oppose adoption of this guideline. I won't be cliched and cite WP:CREEP, but I honestly don't believe that WP needs an entire guideline to cover railways incidents. I do believe that the GNG covers any railway crashes that deserve an article. If the crash is truly that notable, it will receive significant coverage. Angryapathy (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I support this guideline. It is very well written, and makes good sense. Sebwite (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Except, Sebwite, I can construe A4 to allow me to add my bus collision with bridge resulting in 1 week line outage, under A4. And that being the case, I question whether the guidelines do make good sense. YMMV, of course, but when making law, it behoves one to make it well. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Except, Tagishsimon, you are talking about a road accident, not a railway accident. Mjroots (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Mjroots, I'm talking about an incident - a thing not defined in the guideline - which triggers automatic right to an article, according to the guideline. "An accident or incident shall be considered notable enough to sustain its own article if A4: it results in the blockage of a railway line for a week or more, or the permanent closure of a railway line." That is all the definition we have in the guideline. There are no qualifications which suggest a train must have been involved. Merely an incident which blocks the line. Bus hits bridge and renders line useless for a week, would indeed quality. And that's a major part of my point: as it stands, the guideline is not well enough written to prevent stupidity like this turning up with a sanctified demand for its own article in its hot sweaty hand. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Query -- Is there scope for the project to adopt this list as an 'internal' guideline, to be used as a starting point for assessing incidents? If so, it would not need to be elevated to a WP-wide guideline, since it would only really be used by project members for clarification of existing guidelines. (NB -- I don't have strong feelings for or against this proposed guideline, despite contributing to the early discussions. I was responding to a general request for help.) -- EdJogg (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that this is needed as a guideline? Why is the WP:GNG insufficient for railway incidents? Are there any examples where a railway incident was clearly notable but could not meet the GNG for some reason (or vice versa)? I also don't like the idea of declaring certain things automatically non-notable. That seems like it has the potential to distort the usual "burden of proof." Mr.Z-man 19:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The idea behind the guideline is to guide editors to making an informed decision on whether or not a particular accident is going to be sufficiently notable or not. Although section C states that accidents falling under that section would be generally non-notable, even that section allows for the fact that there are going to be some accidents meeting that criteria which will be of sufficient notablility to sustain their own article - such as the Tebay rail accident in 2004. Some accidents that fall under section A may not get a stand-alone article not because of notabilty concerns, but because of a lack of material available to create a decent article. In these cases, addition to the line and station articles will be sufficient. There's no point in creating a stub for the sake of it. Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If the whole basis for "should there be an article on this incident" is "is there adequate material", then surely the GNG (which is about having adequate material) should be enough? Mr.Z-man 00:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Then you get the problem of every single level crossing accident, suicide etc being added to the various lists. These are often covered even in national news sources, so could be said to meet GNG. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• This page can't become a guideline because criteria A7, G4, and NN2 of the rules-making rules have not been met. Which is to say, rely on WP:EVENT for determining whether an incident gets its own article, and go with a much simpler set of criteria, expressed in prose and not marked as a guideline, to determine what goes into a handful of specific lists on Wikipedia.--Father Goose (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as written Far, far too broad. Implies that every terrorist incident that ever occurs, every infrastructure collapse, and almost every fatal accident, is deemed notable, if it involves a railroad. Unfortunately such incidents and fatal accidents are routine WP:NOT#NEWS for the most part. Sad but true. A better guideline for accidents generally would be possible, but one specifically for rail and of this breadth - oppose and disputed. Notability just isn't that broad. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick thought - avoiding excessive proliferation, WP:Notability (events) covers major transport accidents and incidents, does it not? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This doc wasn't written with the intention of broadening notability criteria, but with the intention of putting a cap on trivial occurrences, see the comment and examples that I gave above 14:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC). --Redrose64 (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Precisely! I think we are generally agreed on what a notable accident is. The problem lies with defining the line between an accident which is likely to be notable, and one that is likely to be non-notable Wiki-wise. Mjroots2 (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

this was added in the last 20 minutes. I think it fails all the proposed criteria. It's unsourced; but it did occur. I'm inclined to revert. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've now had time to read Talk:List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom and see where the frustration is coming from. Equally, right now, it is not clear - as someone said on that page - whether the list is a list of all accidents, or a list of notable accidents. Until there's a shared assumption on that score, no progress will be made, and worse, you'll remain in Hard cases make bad law territory, where a particularly emotive set of circumstances (someone adding what are for you very vexing additions) leads to the design of illiberal laws which fail to deal with the underlying problem. I find it odd that a leap has been made from trying to sort out the List page, to deciding to legislate for stand-alone articles - for which existing notability guidelines are probably sufficient. I suggest this whole discussion and guideline should go back into the List page for now; and if & when that is sorted out, think about emerging to guide the stand-alone articles. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I also think this is too broad, and I don't feel like sufficient thought has been given to the implications. I'm astonished that this page even contemplates declaring major notability for every single week-long closure of a miniature railway at an old amusement park (A4) -- even if the line was normally only operated on the weekends -- or that a breakdown they decide not to repair ("permanent closure") is so obviously notable. Such an occurrence might (or might not) be reported outside of the owner's immediate area, but this page would declare it to always be sufficiently notable to deserve a completely separate article.
  In addition to my strong recommendation that the most important, very practical, and most widely accepted information be added to WP:EVENT or put as a purely informational suggestion in WP:RAIL's projectspace, I request that any future endeavors towards a separate guideline please "describe" rather than "prescribe". That is, pages like this should be written more like "If a heavily used line was permanently closed as a result of a specific incident, then editors usually prefer to have a separate article about the incident," not "This page declares that any incident resulting in the closure is notable enough for a separate article." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  Your comment regarding miniature railways does rather highlight the inadequacies of what was drawn up. I advocated the inclusion of narrow gauge, miniature and heritage railways in the definition to ensure that any relevant incidents were not immediately ruled out-of-court. My prototype was the RHDR (see above) which, although miniature, is every bit a 'proper' railway as a national mainline. A head-on collision would be just as (potentially) notable on this line. But I agree that A4 could be literally taken to cover maintenance works at a theme park! -- EdJogg (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  The RHDR (15" gauge) has had more than its fair share of level-crossing dodgers, who seem to have the blasé attitude "it's just a toy train, it will stop immediately/it can't hurt me". Whilst many such incidents were non-notable, some of these have resulted in train crew fatality and therefore qualify under A2. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  I know it's a bit of a soapbox of mine, but: Writing (good) policies and guidelines is far more difficult than the average person would guess. You have to write something that's sensible and accurate and helpful -- and then go back through it with the idea in mind that someday, a blithering idiot will attempt to interpret it (in his favor, naturally). I haven't figured out how to re-write this page to exclude the obvious nonsense while including the obvious good sense; all I can say is that, while there are some potentially useful ideas here (although WP:EVENT may be perfectly sufficient), this page really isn't ready for prime time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose adoption as a notability guideline. WP:EVENT is more than sufficient to cover this area. In addition, guidelines should describe common practice, this does not appear to do so. The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support An eminently sensible list of points against which notability can be clearly verified. My only quibble would be over A4 - perhaps this should be lengthened in the absence of any other criteria being met? Lamberhurst (talk) 08:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, because WP:GNG and WP:EVENT seem to already encompass the vast majority of events that would be covered under this guideline. I don't really see any added value in having these specific criteria. Also, some criteria depend on potentially controversial definitions—I don't think that's desirable. (For example, using terrorism as a criterion can be controversial—was it an act of terror, or of resistance against oppression, or both?) Also, many of these criteria are very arbitrary, without any obvious rationale. TheFeds 19:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, because the inclusion criteria are highly subjective and are not based on verifiable evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose promotion to a notability guideline. I'm not convinced that anything more than WP:GNG and WP:EVENT are necessary to cover "railway incidents". Location (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Inclusion guidelines need community-wide acceptance. Topical wikiprojects can document their own standard practices, but if those practices contradict wider consensus, then wider consensus always wins. This is far too specific a topic for its own community-wide guideline. Gigs (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

We've heard your objections...

...so how are we going to fix this?

I think it has been well established as to what a notable accident is. There have been one or two red herring thrown in to the above discussion, such as Whatamidoing's argument about the amusement park line scenario. As both I and Redrose64 have stated, the main aim of the guideline was to try and draw the line at the point where certain types of accidents and incidents should generally be regarded as non-notable, but recognising that there would be cases when such an accident or incident would be notable enough for a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. The main aim of section D was to ensure that an argument could not be used to say, "the guideline says no and that means no". What the guideline is actually trying to say is "the guideline says generally, no; but if you can make a damn good case here, then we'll accept it."

It may be that the wording of section leads needs tweaking, as well as individual section wording. As outlined above, please let's have some suggestions and proposed changes so that we can debate them and achieve consensus on the wording / proposed guideline. Mjroots2 (talk) 09:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you are trying to fix a problem in the List of Railway Accidents page, by legislating notability for railway articles. That doesn't work. My assertion (on, I admit, no evidence whatsoever) is that existing notability guidelines work well enough for stand-alone articles. (Put another way, the only explanation provided for this initiative points to the List Of pages.) All this being the case, I suggest you start by stopping trying to legislate the article issue, and concentrate on the List Of issue. You might then get away with something quite like the current guidelines, and could insert a qualification at the top of the article which limits content to notable accidents as codified by the page's guidelines for notability. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I support Tagishsimon's suggestion. Is there actually a problem beyond the 'List' page that cannot be adequately addressed by the existing WP Notability criteria? If there isn't, then we (speaking as a WP:TRAINS member) would be best served by limiting the scope of this guideline to that and similar List articles, in which case we'd be able to come to a reasonable conclusion about the text pretty quickly (and, dare I say it, move on to more productive tasks). -- EdJogg (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The worst recorded railway incident (assessed by number of fatalities), which caused between 2,000 and 4,000 passenger deaths, doesn't have its own article, although it is described in a section of another article... It fails criterion A1 by the way.Ning-ning (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the Queen of the Sea rail disaster? Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the Iaşi pogrom-the death trains. I found it while researching Ciurea rail disaster. Ning-ning (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the caveats at the top of a list...those don't really have much force on their own, unless there's been a discussion about the scope of the article (or it's uncontroversial). If this is that discussion, I have no objection in principle....

But more generally, is there a significant set of railway accidents that would fail the usual notability guidelines but pass this one, or conversely, pass too easily through the usual ones and fail this one? At the moment, I don't see much value in having a separate rule for something that seems adequately governed by existing guidelines and policies. Absent that sort of value, I'd suggest that this proposal should probably be marked as not adopted (once this discussion has run its course). TheFeds 05:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

TheFeds, I think the only real areas where there may be disagreement would concern accidents that solely involve freight/goods trains. Some editors are of the opinion that these are less notable than passenger train accidents (a similar situation exists re aircraft accidents). Even if an accident meets section A criteria, if little more than a stub can be created then it should probably not have an article, but be mentioned under line / station, but without prejudice to an article being created if further sources become available at some point in the future. From the above discussions, it seems that the wording of C needs to be expanded to state that these should not even feature in a list of railway accidents.

I don't think that these proposals deviate greatly from the GNG. With all articles, WP:N is established by WP:V via WP:RS. I'm not trying to change that. Mjroots (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The opposition is more fundamental than that. The inclusion criteria must demonstrate that this guideline does not conflict with WP:NTEMP. There needs to be more than just trivial or routine coverage of an event: there needst to be significant coverage in accordance with WP:GNG. If little more than a stub can be created then it should probably not have an article, then the inclusion criteria should make this clear. Ideally significant coverage from several reliable secondary sources is needed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. This one suffers from being far too "legislative", the guidelines it gives are not particularly tied to coverage (as defined by GNG) or verifiability in any form, and has been pointed out, this is far too specific a subject to have a community-wide guideline on. We'd have a massive proliferation of guidelines if we accepted such a practice. Gigs (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change to section C

C:An accident or incident, if it does not meet any 'A' or 'B' criteria, will generally be considered non-notable if: –

• C1: it results in the death of a track worker or lookout
• C2: it results in the death of a person intent on committing suicide or someone closely associated with that person.
• C3: it results in the death of a member of the public crossing the line, whether legally or not.

There will be occasional exceptions to the above non-notability criteria, to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

C:An accident or incident, if it does not meet any 'A' or 'B' criteria, will generally be considered non-notable if: –

• C1: it results in the death of a track worker or lookout
• C2: it results in the death of a person intent on committing suicide or someone closely associated with that person.
• C3: it results in the death of a member of the public crossing the line, whether legally or not.

Accidents meeting the above criteria generally should not be mentioned on Wikipedia, even in a list of railway accidents. However, it is recognised that there will be occasional exceptions to the above non-notability criteria, to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. An accident meeting the above criteria and deemed notable enough to either sustain its own article or be mentioned in an article on a line or station should also be mentioned in a list of railway accidents.

Is part C necessary?

Is part C necessary at all? The proposal states that incidents which meet part A, B or D are notable; others aren't. Part C just says "effects C1 to C3 neither cause nor prevent notability", which is already the default if we omit an effect from part C or even remove part C completely.

It that's not clear, try a thought experiment: amend the proposal by adding "C4. It was raining". Part C then tells us that rain in itself doesn't make an incident notable, but incidents which qualify under A, B or D remain notable even if it was raining. My addition of C4 is clearly a waste of space which can be removed without altering the proposal's meaning. Without wishing to trivialise the deaths of real people described in C1 to C3, maybe those clauses are unnecessary too.

If part C's purpose is to make the proposal clearer without changing its meaning, by expanding on the exclusions in B1 and B2, then C1-3 could become footnotes:

• C1: In B1, "track maintenance staff" includes a track worker or lookout.
• C2: In B2, "railway related activity" includes suicide.
• C3: In B2, "railway related activity" includes crossing the line.

If not, then perhaps part C should be removed altogether. Certes (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That would seem a sensible change. I've always had a problem with 'C' anyway since they should actually say "...if it only results in the death of...", but I didn't change it (as described earlier on this page) since I felt this resulted in rather unfortunate wording. -- EdJogg (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, section C is necessary. This is the one area where the vast majority of accidents falling under these criteria are non-notable, causing the filling of lists with loads of entries where someone got killed crossing or working on the line. Mjroots (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Changed

I've reworded section C as proposed above. This is the one area where the various lists of railway accidents really suffer from cruft and need culling. Mjroots (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The general notability guideline should always be enough

This guideline as written would seem to deny coverage of incidents even if they pass WP:GNG, which I think is a Very Bad Idea. The specific notability guidelines should only serve to ensure inclusion of a full range of content (for example, every player on a national sports team).

This proposal that the death of a worker on the locomotive is noteworthy but that of a worker on the track is unworthy of mention is almost comically offensive. Think of how this would play out to the relative of the person injured who tries to post an article for the first time, especially if there was some safety precaution the railroad could have taken to stop it. Wnt (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the General Notability Guideline is enough; no need for this. Because this guideline pertains to only railroads and more specifically, railroad accidents, I think there could easily be a consensus formed at WP:TWP without needing to make such an specific guideline that will only effect a handful of articles. RaaGgio (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Wnt, nobody is saying that the death of anyone in the course of their employment isn't tragic for their families. There are examples of accidents involving track workers which are sufficiently notable for inclusion. We don't report every road accident on Wikipedia because there are simply too many of them. Unfortunately, with track workers and other people crossing the line, this is also the case, which is why it is necessary to have some form of mechanism which we can refer people to when they complain about their good faith additions being deleted from articles and lists. Mjroots (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The difference is a trackworker is authorized to be in the right of way in the course of their duties, and it is the railroad's responsibility to know where their workers are (within a reasonable leeway). The same cannot be said for trespassers or people walking around crossing gates. Trackworkers are akin to conductors and other trainmen, as they are authorized employees who are in a location because they are asssigned to be there. That's where your error lies; you are lumping trackworker fatalities with trespassers, when they are not equivalent at all.

Regardless of that, this is a failed proposal, simply put, as the consensus on this page (which I agree with) is the General Notability Guideline is sufficientto determine whether an incident deserves its own article, and any list article's contents are determined through discussion on that article's talk page, not by adherence to a notability guideline. Notabilty guidelines determine whether an incident gets an article, that is all. Indeed, including entries on a list that may not meet notability for their own article is not neccessarily a bad thing. oknazevad (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Section A4 "it results in the blockage of a railway line for a week or more, or the permanent closure of a railway line."

I don't really see why the line being shut for a week or more makes a railway incident notable. For example the Chinese cleared their recent railway landslide within 24 hours even though it was pretty major accident.

That the British haven't managed the same here is down to a mix of competence and the accident being on a far less major railway line. There are only half a dozen trains a day on the line to Oban. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Its not really a good indicator of notability. Nor is this entire proposal, for that matter. Far too WP:CREEPy and hugely inconsistent. I'm considering marking this as a failed proposal soon, since its obvious that there is no consensus for it. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

In the old days, railways considered it a point of pride to reopen the line ASAP; plus, they had heavy cranes stationed at major junctions. These days, the cops swarm in and treat the whole area as a crime scene (usually arresting the driver) - and clearup can't begin until they've dusted every rock for fingerprints. Moving the carriages will be difficult now that there are only about three cranes left, none in Scotland. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Wordsmith, I've no objection to this being marked as failed. There has been ample opportunity for discussion now and it seems that the community cannot form consensus over this. Mjroots (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)