Talk:2010 Keswick coach accident
 | This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page: • Keswick School Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Keswick School |
 | This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 29 March 2023. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This page was proposed for deletion by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) on 15 February 2023. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Comments
editPlease note: there is now quite a lot of information in this article and the event seems quite notable. There has been a lot of media coverage. With all due respect, please only modify this article if you have genuine and verifiable information and please do not include speculation in your Edits. Thank you for your consideration. Macintosher (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Observation on the legality of overtaking at the crash site
editHi. I am a little confused about the appropriateness of the "Observation on the legality of overtaking at the crash site" which it seems to me reads like this encyclopaedia's own commentary on the circumstances and environment of the accident. I thought we didn't do that? Isn't it WP:OR or something close to? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I inserted this section because I thought it might be useful to those understanding whether or not there was a criminal offence undertaken, which is a common enough enquiry when observing the course of events at an accident. I have only used information that can be seen in the articles I quoted as references and from the UK Government website, which, after all, controls all public highways in the UK. I don't think this is particularly covered under WP:OR but I shall modify it a little to make it seem a little less like commentary. Best wishes to you also. Macintosher (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. I think that's a real improvement. I do understand your point in putting the information in; as I often am, I was confused/concerned by policy here. I am sure that your amendment should render it less vulnerable! Thanks again, DBaK (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- A pleasure. Policy can always be a little obscure or difficult to understand so I'm glad you warned me that some saw it as needing amendment. Glad to be of service! Macintosher (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)