Talk:Train wreck

Untitled

Should the link to rotten.com really be in the main article as it is? Seems rather like an advert to me. 134.219.166.106 02:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed. I think rotten.com's material does qualify as train wreck but the term is far more frequently used to describe cringingly embarassing yet compelling (e.g. the sort of documentary that The Office is a take on). Bombot 10:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that sounds right. Good call. --Doug (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Strain of Marijauna

I re-added the below statement. Someone is removing it without good reasoning. Its a completly non-controversial and relevant statement. I will keep it there until someone shows otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.49.63 (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I added "Trainwreck is also the name of a potent strain marijuana (cannabis sativa)." This much should be agreed on as factual. Trainwreck can be found in almost every medical marijuana club in California and shouldn't be considered controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.49.63 (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the following:

==Strain of Marijuana==

"Trainwreck" is the term dubbed for strain of high quality cannabis sativa. Reported effects after smoking or vaporizing this strain include increased alterness, a sense of well-being, greater energy, and the alleviation of symptoms associated with depression. One urban legend says the strain was given its name after a conductor wrecked his train after smoking it. This story has not been confirmed for its veracity.

It even says in the statement that is has not been confirmed. Therefore, until it is, it cannot be included in this article. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪

First line

"A train wreck occurs when a train crashes" O RLY?!?!?!?! 24.125.250.37 i believe the engineer is the operator of the train how can a conductor wreck the train from the middle of the train

Disambiguation

A disambiguation page needs to be created for:

The term is sometimes used metaphorically to describe a disaster that is foreseeable but unavoidable. For example, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has asserted that a government shutdown would be a "train wreck."

The term "train wreck" is also used metaphorically to describe something disastrous yet inevitable, or distasteful yet morbidly fascinating. "You don't want to stare, but you just can't look away" is a common summary of this phenomenon (this definition is used by "Weird Al" Yankovic in his song Jerry Springer).

Often celebrities are branded 'trainwreck' in gossip blogs, due to evident bad behaviour: such as falling out of nightclubs, getting involved in violence, and drug abuse. Such celebrities have recently included Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, and Sarah Palin.

and

Trainwreck is also the name applied to a potent strain of marijuana (cannabis sativa).

and the band.

Alternativley, a line could be added comparing an actual train wreck to the definitions.Cptnono (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that the fact that there's a disambiguation page, does not mean that this article should not contain other uses of the term. That's really a separate issue. Regards, decltype (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying too, but the editor is displaying symptoms of WP:OWN, so I've notified an admin of this little situation so that he can provide some guidance if he's of a mind to. (This is really a trivial matter, but sometimes trivial matters can mushroom.) →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I would have appreciated a heads up on my talk page about notifying an admin (as mentioned on such pages) but if you want to act that way that is the way it is. I also don't OWN anything. I removed the info, second guessed it and added it back, then asked opinions on the help desk, then made the change. If you want to do more than argue then go check ouy Wikipedia:Disambiguation and then work on fixing and creating the related articles. Sorry your feelings are hurt, Bugs, but you are throwing rocks in glass houses.

Also, Decltype added something to the disambiguation page that wasn't mentioned here originally. Thats is how it is supposed to work.Cptnono (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I posted an informal comment on User talk:Ched Davis if anyone wants to respond. "Hurt my feelings?" No one here hurts my feelings. Content is the issue. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

All discussion page stuff aside and only looking at content, the subject is train crashes. I was shocked my self. I assumed the "what links here" would indicate that the metaphor was the primary topic but it wasn't even close. Therefore, train wreck = train crash (primary) while a hat note shows the reader how to navigate to the band, the song, a note on pot, and a mention of the metaphor. Definitions don't typically recieve play here here but Wiktionary is linked. However, making a mention of the definition seems fine by me especially when considering that the wictionary line (#2 word) was worded differently than I would have done it. All that aside, the encyclopedia is that much more of an ecyclopedia now. The album wasn't even mentioned before but because of this change another editor added it to the disambiguation page which makes navigation better for the reader and more appropriate for the goals of this project. Cptnono (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

legal consequences section

most train wrecks are accidents, and therefore this section's relevance is questionable. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Train wreck #Legal consequences

The section is:

1. topical,
2. referenced.

Please, keep the personal taste and "obvious-to-me" reasons, such as

“ it's obvious that doing a bad thing that causes lots of damage, or kills people, will bring you into conflict with some statute or another in most jurisdictions ”

outside the work with articles in Wikipedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

All but trivial edits involve personal judgment and/or taste, and as discussed in the ANI discussion about you now ongoing, your editorial judgement and taste aren't so good. I have again removed the information in question because, while it may be "topical" (and you should look up that word before using it again -- your English is not nearly as good as you flatter yourself it to be), it isn't something most readers would want to know, unless (I suppose) they were considering wrecking a train. EEng (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Life without parole for a causing a non-fatal wreck is a rather extraordinary thing, and it clearly belongs in the article. The subject should be expanded and should use mainly secondary and tertiary sources, not primary sources, per WP:PSTS. It shouldn't be deleted. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Your point about "life without" for an act not resulting in death is a good one, though we'll need an RS that comments on this in a sufficiently general way, of course (if it turns out, for example, that California is the only jurisdiction with such stiff penalties then it's not worth mentioning). BTW this is an excellent example of the reason OR isn't allowed -- the penal code may say such-and-such on its face, but the actual enforcable penalty is the result of a complex combination of statute plus case law which editors are not competent to untangle.

I've rewritten, and for the moment removed the section header -- comment invited.

EEng (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Your edits are shockingly ignorant and rather poorly written. Bratland's point is correct. (For the record, I was the editor who added the reference to Penal Code section 219 to begin with.) I am countermanding immediately and adding additional citations. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In French 'collision ferroviaire'

N+5 : the links inter-language runs now. Magnon86 (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)magnon86