Jump to content

Talk:Te Huia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Timing comparisons section

[edit]

I'm concerned that an new section on timing comparisons is almost entirely made up of original research; although there are citations, the text is making conslusions that the sources don't make, falling afoul of WP:OR. I haven't removed it just yet, but I'd suggest this section is pared down. (For clarity, I'm not suggesting we remove the timing itself, as that has received critisism in the media.) pcuser42 (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is still in violation of WP:SYNTH, which explicitly states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source". Please provide a source explicitly stating the claims you are making. pcuser42 (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a source for Te Huia's timing issue, but not re the time taken by past services. To my mind the proper place for that information is on articles on the previous services. You could then link to those articles, but the timing calculations are WP:SYNTH still. So in short you could keep the info on Wikipedia, just not presented in the way it currently is - unless there's a source that provides and verifies it. --LJ Holden 09:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with ref 50? More recently there's also https://timetableworld.com/ttw-viewer.php?token=42b4a859-0fd7-4e94-9407-216fbf291c86. Johnragla (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with that ref for citating the timetable of the previous service, but using that as a comparison to Te Huia without a reliable source backing up that exact comparison and drawing conclusions based on that is WP:SYNTH. pcuser42 (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand why the example I gave isn't an answer to that. Johnragla (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not explicitly banning it doesn't necessarily mean it's implicitly allowed. Doing this comparison and saying "Te Huia is slower than past services and is therefore inferior" is drawing conclusions that no other source is making, and likely also non-neutral. This is especially true with an apples-and-oranges comparison, as the text even says Te Huia stops and the expresses did not. Agree wth LJ Holden (talk · contribs) that the proper place for these timetables is the article on the older services. pcuser42 (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1949 steam trains took about half an hour less than Te Huia, though they made no stops on the way" is probably the statement @Pcuser42: is referring to. --LJ Holden 21:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, to put it another way: The article currently states that "In 1949 steam trains took half an hour less than Te Huia" - that is not what the citations say, they are the timetables for the particular services. In order to get to that conclusion that Te Huia is half an hour slower, you need to syncronise the two citations. As I've said including the timetable info in the relevant articles is fine, but the text as it stands expresses something that the citations do not. --LJ Holden 00:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this, since Te Huia is now operating to a different timetable, the information is now out of date. --LJ Holden 01:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A table is clearer and leaves the reader to make comparisons. Johnragla (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think this is the appropriate article for past services. pcuser42 (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, but perhaps we need an outside arbitrator on this? --LJ Holden 00:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I'd be happy with that pcuser42 (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree with @Pcuser42: here. There is a considerable amount of original research here. I don't have an issue with a section on the criticism of the levels of services, and there are citations for those in media references. But the content that makes comparisons to past services, comparisons to private bus companies, and publishes timetables directly from the official website definitely doesn't belong here. WP:NOTTRAVEL WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH all apply here. Ajf773 (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, yes definitely a few policies being violated here. If no one objects I'll remove the content. pcuser42 (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTRAVEL appears to be similar to the argument used in Talk:Hibiscus Coast busway station. If there are no further responses there, I can't see it has any more application here.
WP:NOR The bulleted responses above seem to me to show that there is no original research.
WP:SYNTH What material has been combined from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source? Johnragla (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's literally a sentence that says "The only competing public transport service is by InterCity bus. The 17:45 bus is 32 minutes faster than the train". This alone violates WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.
Bus timetables in an article about a train service are just plainly irrelevant. pcuser42 (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on multiple editors agreeing that this section was problematic, I've removed original research and timetable sections, and split criticisms into its own reception section. This section could do with some expansion and some recent citations as well. pcuser42 (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some a little bit of time cross checking references yesterday - it's a bit of a mess to be honest. There are places where the primary website has been used to reference something, but the source doesn't clearly verify some of these claims. It is quite possible that the source used to mention this, but no longer does. I've flagged content, hoping that it can be addressed within a suitable time frame. Ajf773 (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problem with the references, but have consolidated the timing changes into a table, which is easier to follow. Most of the Rolling stock section lacks any references. Johnragla (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with timing comparisons isn't the readability, but that it's entirely based on original research. pcuser42 (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All Wikipedia articles are based on original research; otherwise they are plagiarism. All of the table is referenced and it is relevant to the reason Te Huia exists, which is to improve the speed and reliability of the journey. Most of the Rolling stock section also appears to be original research, but it lacks any references, so is hard to know. I think both should be in the article, as they give useful information. Johnragla (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the timetable of services that are not Te Huia are relevant to Te Huia specifically, which is what this article is about. These might be relevant in an article about the corridor in general, but not here. WP:USEFUL applies here.
I do sense this debate is just going to go in circles though, so my suggestion is to try and get consensus from other editors as well that this information does in fact belong here. pcuser42 (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point of showing the timings is to give a sense of the feasibility of the future plans. The fact that Blue Streak used to do the journey in less time than is proposed for the improved Te Huia indicates that it is very feasible. Not only have the other service timings been deleted, but also those for each year of Te Huia. Johnragla (talk) 06:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the table of timings adds any value to the article. There are better ways to talk about the speed of the service and highlight criticism of it from other independent sources, such as news articles or journals. This is a modern service, and comparing timings from former services from decades ago (with so many different variables) or even the intercity bus, seems more for rail enthusiasts rather than a general audience for an encylopedia. Ajf773 (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements to service

[edit]

I think plans and dates of improvements should be in the article, even if there is no coverage of them in the media. Most news outlets have lost their local government reporters and reporting of public transport is minimal unless there are complaints to be made. Johnragla (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no coverage of it isn't WP:DUE, plain and simple. Articles on Wikipedia should be based primarily on secondary sources (WP:RSPRIMARY). Traumnovelle (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is based primarily on secondary sources. Where is the rule that primary sources can't be used? Johnragla (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSPRIMARY. Also RS requires independent sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that? All I can see is, "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful". Johnragla (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources' Traumnovelle (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is. What's the problem? Johnragla (talk) 04:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we not discussing the specific content I removed with this edit? [1] Traumnovelle (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's part of an article. Johnragla (talk) 04:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was 200 words on top of the primary sources already used, also it isn't WP:INDEPENDENT which is a requirement of RS. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." In what way are these dates and plans novel interpretations? Johnragla (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already said that it is a matter of WP:DUE. Due weight cannot be established by non-independent nor primary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Due weight of what? Are you saying there's alternative interpretations of dates and plans? What are they? Johnragla (talk) 06:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about opinions but also content. If we included everything reported in those documents the article would be incredibly lengthy. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not incredibly lengthy and I still think I think plans and dates of improvements should be in the article if there's no dispute that they're correct and you can't point to a ban on primary sources. Johnragla (talk) 06:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said WP:RS requires sources to be independent. The website of the service itself and of it's operator are not independent. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say local government isn't independent? The point of these rules is to make "sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". I still cannot see how there can be different views about plans and dates for Te Huia. Johnragla (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't need to be a policy that states what is and isn't independent because it is common sense. If the only sources that can be found are Council minutes and timetables then it isn't important to an encyclopaedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whose common sense? The rules on common sense say "Being too wrapped up in rules can cause a loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule." To me it's common sense to say when changes took place and what is planned. Johnragla (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If those changes were important would they not have coverage elsewhere? Traumnovelle (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I answered that question in my first statement. Johnragla (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of coverage of other aspects, clearly they disagree with you on what is important. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only 29 of 72 refs on this page come from media. Johnragla (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to what exists, not what is used on the article. A lot of other references in the article need replacing/removing too now that I've taken a closer look. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where do the rules say those sources aren't to be used? Johnragla (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The part that states content needs a reliable source, and then the part where it says a reliable source is independent. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think is unreliable about these sources? I can see a rule saying, "Articles should not be built using only vested-interest sources". With 30% from other sources, this article is well within the rule. Johnragla (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not what I think: it is what the policy states. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I can see is "widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation". Are you saying that's not true of these sources? Johnragla (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is tiresome; I have pointed directly to the policy and what it states, if you are unable to understand it the issue lies with yourself. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've pointed to lots of policies and so have I. "widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation" seems pretty conclusive. Johnragla (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Te_Huia&oldid=1254905258"