This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion. See also:
WikiProject Trains to do list and the
Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
I note that this article weighs in at over a quarter of a megabyte, and that it contains a huge amount of text that is not related to the history of locomotives in South Africa. Obviously a lot of work has gone in to this, but I'm not convinced. --
John of Reading (
talk)
06:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Regardless, it's still absurd. Those who want context can follow the see also links. Take 2013, for example, there are fifteen points only one of which has to do with South African locomotive history. It's time to eliminate the off-topic stuff.
Jimp19:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Seven years on and much of the content still appears not be related to locomotives, most of the text is about the opening of railway lines. The article had 360 images that bore no relevancy to the text which I have today removed as they were causing massive
WP:STACKING issues. They were clearly in breach of
WP:NOTGALLERY. Large sections of the remaining text remain uncited. Perhaps we need consider whether the article is worth retaining?
Tarpeistar (
talk)
04:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)reply
No, not even close. For one thing, those tables are arranged by separate railway, not as a whole for all of South Africa and South West Africa. For another, even after you, um, trimmed it down, this page is still more than just a list. But, since you plus two have already made up your minds, why even bother asking?
André Kritzinger (
talk)
17:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Vandalism of a great article. The article is very well put together article of the major South African Locomotive historical events. Many items directly related to the development of the South African railways (mining, colonial struggle etc) have been unkindly stripped from the article with no insight into the railway's historical development. --
Firefishy (
talk)
00:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion. See also:
WikiProject Trains to do list and the
Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
I note that this article weighs in at over a quarter of a megabyte, and that it contains a huge amount of text that is not related to the history of locomotives in South Africa. Obviously a lot of work has gone in to this, but I'm not convinced. --
John of Reading (
talk)
06:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Regardless, it's still absurd. Those who want context can follow the see also links. Take 2013, for example, there are fifteen points only one of which has to do with South African locomotive history. It's time to eliminate the off-topic stuff.
Jimp19:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Seven years on and much of the content still appears not be related to locomotives, most of the text is about the opening of railway lines. The article had 360 images that bore no relevancy to the text which I have today removed as they were causing massive
WP:STACKING issues. They were clearly in breach of
WP:NOTGALLERY. Large sections of the remaining text remain uncited. Perhaps we need consider whether the article is worth retaining?
Tarpeistar (
talk)
04:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)reply
No, not even close. For one thing, those tables are arranged by separate railway, not as a whole for all of South Africa and South West Africa. For another, even after you, um, trimmed it down, this page is still more than just a list. But, since you plus two have already made up your minds, why even bother asking?
André Kritzinger (
talk)
17:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Vandalism of a great article. The article is very well put together article of the major South African Locomotive historical events. Many items directly related to the development of the South African railways (mining, colonial struggle etc) have been unkindly stripped from the article with no insight into the railway's historical development. --
Firefishy (
talk)
00:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)reply