Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian Transport/Sources

Proposals to accept websites as reliable

I'd like to eventually propose the following self-published sources be approved by this Wikiproject as being reliable sources. Out of all the various self-published website, I have found these to be extremely reliable on their content (sometimes more reliable than published sources).

Vicsig - Possibly the most accurate and up to date website relating to both railways and tramways in Victoria (more up to date some of the available official railway documentations).
VictorianRailways.net - Has uploads of official diagrams and documents.
Chris's Commonwealth Railways Pages - Reliable due to where the information has been sourced from.

-- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of them should be considered reliable sources. Most of the information on the websites are either official sources or sourced from them, and I no issue with that. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to add nswrail.net to this proposal, as it seems to be in the same boat as Vicsig. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add minnipasiding.com.au as reliable regarding Eyre Peninsula railways. We need to add more sources to this list regarding things like heritage/enthusiast organisations, museums, aviation, road transport, and the missing states/territories. Fork99 (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is a problem. If we had enough editors, it really should be a situation where automatic double checking is carried out - some projects do this - not distrusting the advocates of sources - but simply eliminating any doubt.

There are some atrocious online 'opinion' items which we should try to avoid at all costs. JarrahTree 11:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding PTUA

I'm not sure if PTUA should be considered reliable. From what I can tell, they are more an activist organisation that frequently uses its website to spout its opinions on transport, so I'd like to get some input from other editors before changing it. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would also agree that they’re not a neutral source. Maybe for public transport data and statistics, but not for any other information. In a similar vein in New Zealand, I wouldn’t consider Greater Auckland (advocacy group) a reliable source either, just as another example. Fork99 (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, commentary and information about their actions, and things related to their article Public Transport Users Association on the other hand, should come from outside sources. Fork99 (talk) 06:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of that, I’ve placed a neutrality disputed tag at Public Transport Users Association, it is almost completely reliant on the PTUA website. It could definitely be improved, news organisations and the like mention the PTUA all the time. Fork99 (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes to the page, and the tag on the PTUA page. I reckon it could be significantly extended too, with information about campaigns and the presidents over the years. Perhaps a group project for people to work on? JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]