Talk:Victorian Railways T class
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
CK Class
editAs the information on the CK class article is already covered in this article, should that article be deleted and redirected to this one? Mo7838 (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Have we gone overboard on detail in the model rail section?
editI don't wish to be appear harsh when it's obvious significant time has been put into writing the model railway section, but I think the content added in the last fortnight is excessively detailed and non-encyclopedic. Detail down to the level of the marketing offers made to customers and the slogans used by different companies offering models to promote their products does not seem to be appropriate for an article that is, after all, about a class of railway locomotives that ran on Victorian Railways and its successors, not a hobbyist's model railway. Most of the information is lifted from newsletters or other promotional material from the manufacturers of these models, and I am of the view that most of it probably wouldn't pass muster with regard to guidelines for WP:Notability, WP:ORGIND and WP:ROC. I am not sure that any detail beyond a brief summary of the various manufacturers who have offered models of the T class is justified, and if it is felt that the detail on the models is notable then it should probably be split into another article.
The detailed information currently in this article about the specifics of models by manufacturers such as Powerline would be more logically placed in an article on the manufacturer of the model. In that context it would be more relevant, although it would probably need to be edited with respect to notability and independence of sources. - Zzrbiker (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Definately an overkill. A high level view is fine, but this level of detail fails WP:FANCRUFT and WP:PROMOTION and if not removed entirely, then cut right back to a few lines. Currently reads like a catalogue. Cenovoice (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Don't think it counts as Fancruft because model railway enthusiasts would represent a fairly large subgroup of all the people interested in this and other victorian railways-related pages. Agree it could be split into a separate article if necessary, but I don't think it's worth the effort. The history behind Austrains v. Powerline is notable, and it's not much more to add the details of the engines released. The coding to build the table is complicated, but most users wouldn't see that. I also plan to add a section on Hollywoodfoundry at some point, and I suspect there have been other manufacturers as well.