Talk:Clapham Junction rail crash

The Hidden Report

Although this Accident was a rather major incident on British Railways, the Wikipedia Article of which is rather lacking in the details given by Hidden's Report. Now, I don't know why this is, but would it be okay if I could add a lot of the Detail in MY OWN WORDS to the Article, although the only source I have IS the Report? --5.66.251.219 (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It would be okay, yes; Hidden is a single source, but authoritative. Equally you might get pushback if users don't think the level of detail you add is warranted. So, deep breath & go for it. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I posted, but I am unable to add References as of yet due to being busy. If someone else can that would be very good. --90.218.111.72 (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Well, I wrote a much more detailed version, but it got deleted. Maybe, if I try to word it differently, it'll be better received? --2A02:C7F:A817:1E00:91BF:6588:CF9F:52E4 (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm doubtful. We had a 13,000 character article - about 2.5 screens of text on my machine. You added 19,000 (unreferenced) characters producing on my machine a 7-screen article. First: if you add text that others are doubtful of, doing so without references will always weigh against you in their judgement. Second, you are, I think, trying to add just too much detail. I do not question the accuracy of your work, nor that an article containing the detail you included may be of more interest, to some readers, than our existing article. However I find it more probable that the laborious detail of your addition will be too much information for many readers, and so unwelcome. The balance between added detail and decreased utility is subjective, clearly. It's beyond me to point, right now, to any yardsticks by which the relative level of detail on your version can be judged except to suggest that you go and read and think about many other comparible articles - e.g. on train or plane crashes - and then consider whether your article fits the profile of the articles you've read. You might also ask: why exactly does the wikipedia reader need this level of detail? My practice in writing articles is to use as few words as possible, or, to convey as much information as I can in as few words as I can get away with. It's clear to me that fairly long passages introduced in your version could be collapsed into a very few words, or omitted altogether, with little damage to the article. That, for me, is a clear signal of too much information. All of this is not to say that profound improvements cannot be made in this article, and I don't wish to discourage you from trying again. So long as you know that the critical bar can be quite high (and probably unfair, capricious, etc) then go for it. I do, though, very firmly advise that your chances of success increase to the extent that your additions mirror 'good' practice seen elsewhere on wikipedia: so looking to featured and good articles as models will be helpful. Good luck. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

But other articles in more minor Railway accidents, like the Abbots Ripton rail accident has more detail then this. Sure I could cut out some of the Information that is a bit laborious (Like a description of the Relay Room,, the Trains that passed the Signal previously I'd say could have been removed almost entirely) but the rest of it I'd say was completely fair. The reason I was unable to source most of it, was because I didn't know how, but if so, it would be ALL from the Hidden Report as previously stated. Heck, just above both mine and your Posts, you can see that I asked if somebody would have been kind enough to source it, but by the time I checked again, it was all removed, and I do understand that quite a bit of it WAS useless. I'll try and make a better article soon-ish and get it to be relatively shorter then my previous attempt. Thanks for the advice. --2A02:C7F:A817:1E00:4C9C:11A0:D6F7:6B13 (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Alrighty, this is for anyone who wants to read about the Article, but more especially for Tagish, the plan I have for the re-write of the Article is to slightly follow the Formula of the Article about the Abbots Ripton rail accident in that it gives a Rough Overview, explanation on the Geography, Signalling and the like, then the Accident in greater depth. I'll try my best to source most of it, most of which will be from Hidden's Report, which I believe Tagish said is okay. --2A02:C7F:A817:1E00:10B5:D8AA:91B0:7A26 (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Title change

Following a change to the lede bold text by an IP user, which I reverted, @Mjroots: suggested discussing a possible title change. Here are some options:

• Clapham Junction rail crash - current title
• Clapham Junction railway accident - as used in the title of the official report
• Clapham Junction train crash - recently put forward by IP user

Pages returned by Google search for each option:

• ~ rail crash: 494,000
• ~ railway accident: 374,000
• ~ train crash: 474,000

Clapham Junction is not disputed (yet).

rail/railway/train may bear on the scope of the article. The memorable event was a crash involving three 'trains', whereas the causes and outcomes involved the broader 'railway' infrastructure of hardware and processes. Is there a useful distinction between 'rail' and 'railway', or are they synonyms?

crash/accident again, the more specific 'crash' specifies the memorable event, while 'accident' is a far broader term.

Alternative titles, other suggestions, and discussion welcome. I'm not trying to start a poll. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 10:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• I would support a proposal to move to "Clapham Junction train crash". Recent discussion at WT:MOS has taken place. My opinion is that we should generally avoid "accident" in individual article titles, but use that word in lists. Mjroots (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Mjroots I'm not clear which discussion is relevant to this issue? -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 12:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Verbarson The discussion can be found on this page.

  I think Clapham Junction train crash is the best title for this article.

  Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)