User talk:XtraJovial/Archives/2022/December

December 2022

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Quario

They appear to still not get it: Special:Diff/1127260285. I'm not entirely convinced that the precision in the article before the changes was 100% correct, but their edit doesn't suggest they had any concerns about that – it just looks like a drive-by because they didn't even get all of them! Do you have any preferred course of action now? XAM2175 ^(T) 21:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

If you feel that you've exhausted all available options, feel free to report them to ANI; at this point I think I'd do that too. Their apparent unwillingness to honor or to at least try and comprehend that Manual of Style guideline even after several warnings and explanations is definitely a cause for concern. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Kelana Jaya Line

Hi, I understand that a lot may not understand on the purpose of the detail inclusion. However, I would like to insist the sources I have cited is reliable. I don’t think editors should expect a reliable source to be expecting train status to be confirmed strictly. No rail operator would do that. Transparency yes but not to that level. Observations here are already the most reliable way to find such information. I hope you can empathise.

In regards to notability, I think it is time to turn things around regarding such information. While I do agree that only a particular audience would be interested in the details of each trainset which I did not include, the bare minimum now should be that the public deserves to know more about these trains and their statuses. It should be a form of comparison. People need to learn how to read train numbers and should not only interest a particular audience. It is good knowledge to have in our daily lives as living skills. It is also a good gauge for how trainsets are read with a table as an example.

It is debatable that it will be difficult to read cross-coupled trainsets as an example, and that will be too difficult to sort out so that is an exception. However, if it is direct enough it should not be an issue.

Another prominent issue now in Malaysia is that we have a lack of trainsets. We should especially include this information for the public to review.

Do let me know if there is any suggested compromise such as moving it into a List article, but I am afraid since there is already so many issues with how this is processed, I think I should ask for another opinion. Many thanks and just another editor wanting to make Wikipedia better and more informative,

Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 00:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Vincent60030 The biggest issue with Kelana Jaya line is that it contains an excessive amount of detail, especially in the fleet section, and a lot of that detail is poorly sourced (cited to self-published or otherwise unreliable sources), if sourced at all. If no reliable sources exist for the status listings of all of the sets, then those excessive listings could be considered original research and thus unsuitable for inclusion, not to mention that they require extensive maintenance. Also, fansites are not generally regarded as reliable sources. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 15:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)