Talk:Toodyay railway station

Failed verification and "political play"

Regarding the {{failed verification}} in this edit of mine [1] ...

The reference does not mention the existence of a stopping point, nor a platform. At most, it implies that there was no station in or near the town.

The editor's commentary about a "political play" in the reference text is WP:SYN or WP:POV, and does not belong there. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Newcastle was now promised a rail way station, and a new bridge at tho east end of the township huh? there was no railway station...

• the point is the lack of a station can be easily implied from something like "THE CLACKLINE TO NEWCASTLE RAILWAY". The West Australian (Perth, WA : 1879 - 1954). Perth, WA: National Library of Australia. 7 May 1887. p. 3. Retrieved 11 June 2015. you will find extensive community wars in Toodyay and Guildford over the railway lines going through their communities, if you bothered to look JarrahTree 14:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The sentence in question says "The original railway stopping point ... was located ...". However the reference does not state or imply that a "stopping point" (or any synonymous term) existed at any particular place ("within the locality"). Neither does THE CLACKLINE TO NEWCASTLE RAILWAY. (If I've somehow missed it, please quote the relevant words from the reference.) Even if we presume the existence of a railway line (neither Trove article says there was one), the train might have continued through without stopping. Could you please provide a reference that actually says there was a stopping point, and where that stopping point was, and that there was no station at the stopping point.

"you will find extensive community wars in Toodyay and Guildford ... if you bothered to look" – WP:PROVEIT. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

JarrahTree, is there an online reference somewhere that actually says there was a stopping point with no station? Mitch Ames (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry mitch, in all WP:AGF, I am not buying into this - long drawn out discussions about something like this are a classic time waster. Try using trove yourself, and see if you can ascertain from the various sources as to the fact that there wasnt a station building between 1892 and 1897. If you cannot do the searching, sorry I cannot help you. JarrahTree 07:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that you'd added the statement in the first place, I naturally took it for granted that you would have such a reference, and could simply add it. No further time wasting or searching required. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

asking for online sources is not as easy as looking in trove yourself...JarrahTree 11:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• another one not confirmed by source the article says the line was removed, but the source says it was decommissioned. Gnangarra 13:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, for mitch or any watchers - Much dissatisfaction is expressed at the place marked out for the station at New- castle, is what comes from - from that, the station has not been built, but there is a location marked out for a station as early as 1887 - http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/3760258... the added image to the article shows the newcastle stopping point - called in the plan 'newcastle railway station' for 1892, but it was not a station with buildings specifically made for the location as was the 1897 structures found a little further west... to answer is there an online reference somewhere that actually says there was a stopping point with no station? - no, but adequate evidence from the plans as added... inference from the plans of 1892 show there is a location where a platform exists just east of the goods shed for dimounting, and they call it a station on the plan, but it has no station specific structures indicated on the plan. JarrahTree 12:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Jack Stanbridge's confusion

I think that this paragraph:

In Jack Stanbridge's 70 years of rails & wire in Western Australia, book two, in the two pages devoted to Old Toodyay Station the text to a photo of the station confuses some issues - "Copy of opening day of Rail to Newcastle in 1888" against a photo of the 1897 building.

does not belong in the article body text. If 70 years... were being used as a reference elsewhere in the article I would suggest that the paragraph be included as an explanatory Note (separate section from References), but given that it's not, I suggest that it ought simply be deleted. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Standbridges two volumes have many small errors, but also, a large number of people use them to get a handle on west australian railway history - as a consequence I dont have any concern for the item to be relegated to a note or whatever, but I do not think it should be deleted as it is one of the many small errors in the book that needs to be hilighted, as the photo of the 1897 building against a 1888 date in text is clearly wrong. If as you say it is not used elsewhere, I will have a closer look, I am sure there is another page in the 2 volumes that refers to toodyay in some way. JarrahTree 23:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Standbridges two volumes have many small errors, ... – This article is not about those books, so that statement about errors in the books is not appropriate for this article - except (as previously mentioned) as an explanatory note if the book is cited as a ref for something (other than its own errors!) (Examples of notes clarifying discrepancies in refs: Milligan Street, Perth#Notes, St Denis Church, Joondanna#Notes "a", Triple DES#References and notes "a". I considered adding a visible note instead of a hidden comment inside the "sic" in Yemmerrawanne#Name variations.)

Of course if the book has many small errors, then perhaps one ought not use the erroneous parts as references (not a very reliable source, if we know it has many errors).

(Perhaps you should write an article about Stanbridge's books, if they are sufficiently notable as to warrant pointing out their mistakes. No doubt you have other books that note the errors in Stanbridge's, so you could use of those as references for your statement that Stanbridge is wrong.)

Mitch Ames (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Mitch it is not OR, and not necessary to have a lengthy conversation about this. Either in, or not. Many people use the books as standard references, and it simply creates more errors to omit, as it is something that is contrary to what has been elucidated in the article. The article is about Toodyay station, there is an often used book which has an error, it is something that can easily be put in a note. There are two pages about toodyay, and the station picture and the related text are prominent...

Have turned it into a ref/note - the books and author are not an easy argument for a notable article at this point, there is not enough easily gathered collected wp:rs for his life story despite his connections with castledare, bassendean, and other railway issues JarrahTree 15:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)