This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.
Alright, it is in the sectional appendix. which is of course unpublished. And it is displayed for anyone who knows where to look as 30 mph. I have personally seen the speed boards
nb Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - the original statement of 20mph is unsourced, so you have even less basis on which to state 20mph than I have to state 30mph
therefore 20mph will be removed, pending a source being identified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Having considered WP:NOR and WP:V, I am quite content that when 'Original Research' is referred to, this is only intended to exclude conclusions reached as a result of the process which academics call synthesis. In this instance, there is no Original Research. While I may be wrong to have cited personal knowledge, the 30mph can be verified directly and unequivocally without interpretation from the Sectional Appendix, which, while not published, is definitive. It can also be confirmed by direct observation of the subject (ie Mitcham Junction) itself. WP:NOR and WP:V are less relevant than WP:BLUE (You don't need to cite that the sky is blue) 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
20mph is undone and reverted to 30mph. There is no source quoted for 20mph. The one source I can find for 20mph is wrong and outdated (I can say the source is wrong from personal knowledge even though this is not 'allowed' for stating the correct figure of 30mph). Anyone contemplating reverting to 20mph should first quote a source and second should take a trip between Mitcham Eastfields and Hackbridge and in reverse and look for the speed boards and only put the speed seen on the speed boards. I have done this. Or should get a mate to let him have a peek at the Sectional Appendix. While unpublished, the Sectional Appendix is definitive, in the sense that it actually defines the speeds.220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
You need to source your alteration, see WP:BURDEN - this is part of WP:V, which is policy. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Be careful about the precedent you set here. WP:Common_knowledge(Plain sight observations that can be made from public property ("A tall spire sits atop the Empire State Building")) is probably the best way forward in this instance, because you could make the journey and make the observation. But if you make too big a fuss, then very likely every speed reference in any rail related article would be fair game for taking to 'citation needed', which would then make it fair game for ultimate removal. This problem is bigger than Mitcham Junction and as far as I can see, the Sectional Appendix which is the defining document is actually off limits for Wikipedia.18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. But there aren't many articles which give a speed restriction for a railway line, and this is the only GB station where an unsourced speed restriction is given in the article text and which has been amended in recent months.
I mentioned WP:BURDEN: it says attribute ... any material challenged ... to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. ... The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article. ... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. This is material that has been challenged; ergo, it requires a citation, otherwise it cannot stay. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)