Talk:Railpage Australia

Archive
I think it might be worthwhile archiving some of the older discussions from the talk page. Thin Arthur 06:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk:Railpage Australia/Archive 1 now created. Thin Arthur 07:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Talk:Railpage Australia/Archive 2 now created. The Null Device 14:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Talk:Railpage Australia/Archive 3 now created. The Null Device 07:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review
I've nominated the entire article for peer review.Tezza1 20:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Learn how to do it properly before making a fool of yourself. 61.193.244.20 06:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I support an independent peer review. I hope the other regular editors here pledge their support.124.176.64.118 02:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I support peer review but I don't see what reviewing the previous version would achieve. We know it needed cleanup and sources. The AfD discussion concluded this too, which was why the cleanup was started (and only just started) and citations added. A peer review could only conclude the same thing - that it needs cleanup and sources. The Null Device 02:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

More cleanup proposals
All those reliable sources discussed in the last AfD, add them now. I added the reference to the earliest known article. I also suggest changing the inline links (a URL inside single square brackets) into footnote references with the full link title and accessdate. I changed the Geoscience Australia link this way and added two to the Parliamentary Library. Did anybody else know that Railpage was given as a "Key Internet Link" for the information of out elected representatives? I certainly didn't until I looked! The Null Device 08:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I must apologise as I'm not excellent with the Wikipedia interface. I've had the article open in editing for a couple of hours to overhaul it and I might have lost a couple of your edits when I saved it.  If I have, please accept my apology as it was not my aim. 59.167.89.251 08:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem and no harm done. I've incorporated most of your edits and most of my own, only removing some where they doubled up. It still needs further cleanup. The Null Device 08:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice work. I agree that it still needs further work, and think the History section is a good candidate.  In the general section I edited the "largest railway-oriented web-sites in Australia[citation needed]" part to use the source in the opening (Fairfax) by saying its the largest online rail community in Australia.  I agree that it's also the largest railway oriented site in Aus as well, but can't neccesarily find a source for that change in wording.  Was there something else you had in mind for that?


 * Need the title of the Heidelberg and Valley Weekly article. The Null Device 08:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Full head of steam". I've got a couple of scans from it if required.  59.167.89.251 09:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Feel free to add the journalist's name (add |last=lastname|first=firstname to the cite). The Null Device 09:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What was the date of this article in the West Australian and how should it be included? The Null Device 09:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You have cited Mr Morgan as a individual involved in the operational aspects of Railpage, There's an article about him here, Herald Weekly Sun, June 13, 2004Tezza1 20:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You've been told before that article is irrelevant to this article. Why are you flogging the very dead horse? Doctorjbeam 23:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Submissions pending unprotection
In terms of the article, lets pull apart what we have here section by section so that we can discuss what changes need to be made right off the bat when protection is removed. That way, if we have disputes in future we can revert to what we decide below as a common-ground while discussing possible changes. When participating in this discussion, please be sure that if you are replying to something already here - that you indent by one bullet (*)(**)(***)... to make it easier to read for everybody and to ensure everyone has their say. Please also make sure that you sign. Obvious vandalism (eg; "Railpage sucks doodle") can and should be reverted by anyone in this section, and if somebody forgets formatting, please help them out and leave them a message on their talk page to let them know how to fix it next time. 59.167.89.251 16:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Overall I think it's worth looking at some comparable sites. Category:Internet forums is useful but Railpage is not just a forum. Some articles in Category:Community websites may also be useful. One vaguely comparable site is Airliners.net which is principally a photo site with a discussion forum added later. Whirlpool (website) has a good structure.


 * The current version is a good start at revision and in general I support the specific comments/suggestions below. Thin Arthur 05:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Article Summary

 * I feel the article summary is suitable. The statements made in it are correct and verifiable (even the 'largest' part - check the Heidelberg Valley reference for confirmation), and the information inside it is concise.  In my view, this could be left alone. 59.167.89.251 16:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

 * The screenshot is accurate, the site type correct, the owner correct (it does not require an ACN below it, as no other articles using the website infobox template include it), the 'created by' could either be removed or left - there is a lot of Railpage 'creators' it seems, so the term there seems most accurate - the launched date is correct, although the circa could stay or go, and the current status is correct. 59.167.89.251 16:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the owner correct? Owning the domain name is not the same as owning the actual site. The Null Device 02:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

General

 * There needs to be a citation added to the 'largest in australia' claim - the Heidelberg Valley article claims it as the largest, so it can be the cite. I'm reasonably happy with the rest, perhaps apart from what the site provides - as I feel it could be written better, and with more detail.
 * Rather than "claim" you could use "reported by" and use the Heidelberg and Valley Weekly article as the source. The Null Device 07:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I gather then that there are no objections to saying it is the largest, as reported by the Heidelberg Valley Weekly? Doctorjbeam 23:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)doctorjbeam
 * Don't even need to use that many words so long as a citation is given to the claim. Done. Thin Arthur 23:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Uses in Society

 * Lots of nice cites in this section which is good. I like the information in the section, but would be interested in seeing if there was a nicer way of setting it out. 59.167.89.251 16:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * At the time of protection it was still a work in progress. As I said at the time, it still needs more cleanup. It sorted out the examples with citations in roughly chronological order. The Null Device 02:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The site is often quoted by Kel Richards (himself a railfan) on ABC Newsradio but it's too hard to track down a specific quotable instance. The Null Device 07:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hosting Services

 * This is a newer section than most, however I feel it's relevant and speaks to the character of the site. This section could probably be filled out further, and maybe set out a little better.  59.167.89.251 16:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Hosting, Technical and Development could be combined? The Null Device 00:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Technical

 * I feel that the technical side rates a mention in some capacity, however I'm not sure of the best way to do it. 59.167.89.251 16:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what an in depth technical discussion achieves. A one line summary of the OS and the software should be enough for a general audience. The Null Device 02:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever remains of the technical details, I think it would do well to be integrated into the hosting section. --Evan C (Talk) 11:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know that the technical section needs to go into much depth. Are the nuts and bolts of the site relevant to a general article? The Null Device 08:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Some mention of the moderation system may be useful. The warning system is analogous to Karma (Slashdot), in fact new versions of PHP-Nuke have user Karma built in. Nuke itself was created as a Slashdot-like web news system. The Null Device 03:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The warning system seems to be somewhat less intensively used than Karma systems; only for when the rules are clearly broken. --Evan C (Talk) 11:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That, and the warning system isn't globally viewable. It's not used as an indication of how much that user has contributed to the site, it's an indicator of how much they've broken the rules Doctorjbeam 03:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)doctorjbeam
 * Fair point. A one line summary should be enough, possibly with a "similar to" analogy with Karma. The Null Device 08:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced of the similarities between the warnings system and a karma system. For a start, the warnings are only viewable by the moderators. Secondly, when you reach a 100% warning level your account gets banned - when you reach 100% karma, it shows you're the most respected on the site, and the biggest contributor. They're not the same thing. However, there is a karma system coming in RP3. Perhaps that would be better to mention? Doctorjbeam 00:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, but would be better to wait until karma is actually working before adding it (WP:CRYSTAL). 150.203.56.20 03:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, Karma can be abused more than Warning Levels, Karma shows how popular one is with the site as a whole, Warning is how much the moderators hate you. I wouldn't mention karma until RP3 is up and running. Perhaps upcoming features of RP3 should be mentioned. What do we think of that? Yellow Thirteen 06:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh...no. The warning system is an indicator of how much you've broken the rules. See the RP FAQ for more information: http://www.railpage.com.au/faq-6.htm#9. If you have evidence to the contrary, then by all means show us. Doctorjbeam 21:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's relevant to go into that level of detail. The warning system is a small part of the forum which is only part of the site. Thin Arthur 06:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Waiting for the protection to be removed so I can re-add the citations that were removed Doctorjbeam 03:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Site Development Staff

 * I don't mind this section being added as it provides elaboration to the "Railpage Development Team" line in the infobox. Most articles on websites include some form of section on who creates the site, so Railpage_Australia probably shouldn't be any different. 59.167.89.251 16:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The Whirlpool page states who the past and present developers are. I gather by the silence that there are no objections to this? Doctorjbeam 23:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)doctorjbeam
 * Merely mentioning/listing them should not be a problem. Thin Arthur 23:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Other changes

 * Is it worth adding and  ? The Null Device 03:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is Doctorjbeam 03:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)doctorjbeam
 * Done, since this is (or ought to be) non-controversial. The Null Device 03:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Have to make sure there are no other unsourced claims. Thin Arthur 23:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are footnotes actually required to "prove" that the site uses PHP-Nuke or similar details? The official policy (WP:V) is that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". I don't think that's likely to be challenged as unsourced and what software the site uses doesn't materially affect the scope of the article. There are now just over 30 references and now there is a critical mass of secondary sources, the number of primary sources (referencing railpage.com.au) should be pruned down to the most useful half dozen or so. "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." (WP:NOR) The Null Device 09:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are now six citations on Google Scholar. Thin Arthur 06:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent Changes - need for third party review
There needs to be some formal or informal way of resolving content disputes in this article. Before editing the article I propose that users file for Editorial Assistance WP:ER.I have already submitted the article for Peer Review. There really needs to be some independent review on the Railpage Article. Otherwise this will go on and on.Tezza1 20:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Before we do that, we need to achieve consensus among the editors of this page that the article is in 'best effort' state. The editors here don't believe that yet, so at this point Editorial Assistance is premature.  WP:ER will come soon. 59.167.77.190 01:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment
Comments on the article are welcome here. Editors, please summarize the disagreements at this article in one or two short paragraphs. Visitors, please leave comments below.  Durova Charge! 21:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Evaluations from visiting editors
There seems to be a lot of contention between both sides of the ongoing dispute about:
 * Whether or not this article should exist at all (does it meet WP's notability criteria?)
 * What content should be included in the article.

I do not have enough knowledge about the subject to comment on the article content itself. However, from the nature of the Talk discussions and dispute, as well as an open WP:RFC/U against Tezza1, it appears that the majority of editors on this page have reached consensus on most portions of the article, and mainly one user (Tezza1) is consistently rejecting this consensus and calling into question the other editors' integrity, as well as making charges that a Conflict of Interest exists among the principal editors. The discussion has also become uncivil at times, with some editors on both sides occasionally engaging in WP:POINT and personal attacks. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 22:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that the Tezza1 RFC has recently been removed from the RFC/U page by.

Afd: Railpage Australia (2) was extremely messy due to gaming by people opposing railpage; note that in contrast people who were affiliated with Railpage even mentioned that in thier Afd comment. At that time I went looking through the aus.rail newsgroup, and was appalled at the way the detractors carried on. Consequently it does not surprise me that the administration of railpage is not an easy task, and that the dispute is being carried onto Wikipedia. My initial evaluation is that the ongoing dispute here should be considered vandalism. John Vandenberg 01:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My first impression of this article is that it's a dog's breakfast, it seems to have attracted quite a large number of editor's over time, many disputes with no agreement. Some of article content seems to be little more than boasting and justifying those boasts through weak referencing (not to Academic standards). The creator's and supporters of the Railpage discussion forum may and are entitled to be passionate of their forum, but should they really be allowed to display their passion here into Wikipedia? Surfing bird 03:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)