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
TransPennine Express is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Use this talk page to discuss the withdrawal of the Nova 3 trains and how the information of the withdrawal should be added to the article and whether this information can be added based on the sources we have. This is related to the teahouse talk
here. I am under the impression based on what I've read about verifiable sources that the sources from August and September where TransPennine confirmed the withdrawal of the trains are valid sources that the trains have been withdrawn (I'm happy to be proven wrong). Some editors such as @
Danners430 disagree with this stance and believe that a recent source is needed confirming that the withdrawal did go ahead. This is why I have opened this discussion (based on recommendations on the teahouse talk) as the issue seems to just keep going back and forth between edits
Alexbrassington (
talk)
21:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)reply
This is interesting. It does at least confirm that they are no longer in passenger service for the foreseeable future. It does call into question how to convey that on Wikipedia though
Alexbrassington (
talk)
21:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I'd argue they're not "out of service" since theoretically they could be brought back at a moment's notice, especially while crews still sign them
Danners430 (
talk)
21:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree that since crews still sign the Nova 3s and they could be brought back into service at any point they are not "out of service". Given the Nova 3s could be used AD-HOC I feel they should be in the current fleet table and the past fleet table should be removed.
Maurice Oly (
talk)
21:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Agreed. However, it would be amiss to completely ignore what's been happening - a simple note saying that TPE had intended to remove them from service would likely suffice, since that's what we have sources for.
Danners430 (
talk)
21:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)reply
TransPennine Express expressed their intention to withdraw the Nova 3 sets from the December 2023 timetable change;[1] however the sets are still leased by TPE until May 2024, and remain in storage.[2]
They are considered withdrawn by TPE, as demonstrated by the TPE webpage I linked to the article, now reverted, they are currently in storage and not operating passenger services
Lner12345 (
talk)
21:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Withdrawn isn't quite the same as not in regular service though - TPE can call on the sets any time they like should they be needed, especially while driver competency exists...
Danners430 (
talk)
21:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
"Defeat"? Not entirely sure what you mean by that... This isn't exactly a battle... This is Wikipedia, and we're trying to get a consensus. Language like that isn't helping anyone's cause.
The discussion above was myself discussing with @
Maurice Oly and @
Alexbrassington about the best way to approach this topic. I'm not about to get into accusations - I'm here for constructive discussions. If you can't bring these, then I see no point in responding.
Danners430 (
talk)
21:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The source from TPE's website merely confirms what we already know, that they're not in regular passenger service anymore. It does nothing about the discussion we've had above, that they can theoretically be called into service at a moment's notice since they're in warm storage, still leased by TPE, and traction knowledge still exists.
Danners430 (
talk)
21:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
There's no source anywhere, sadly (I hope one crops up soon!) that explicitly states they've been withdrawn… the TPE website just says what TPE consider them as… it's a bit of a weird one, but I wouldn't be happy using it as the sole evidence to say they were fully withdrawn.
Danners430 (
talk)
21:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
In fact, I say that… then open the most recent RAIL and find it published there - that they have been withdrawn. So time to make some edits - please hold while I finish my sandwich and open my browser!
Danners430 (
talk)
21:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have fully protected the article for a week due to
edit warring. Warning: A discussion in a new section on this talk page must occur to establish a consensus for any further edits regarding the disputed content. An editor making another change without such clear consensus is likely to be blocked.
Johnuniq (
talk)
07:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
At first, I was thinking about
deleting the disambiguation page for TPE given that there is only one primary topic and two other topics. After that failed (and which I withdrew), I changed the hatnote to lead directly to the two former TOCs so that readers do not have to go thru a disambig page because its only two former TOCs. They can do so in one click and not two and the hatnote is just a single line. That is my proposal.
The user is new, but has also reverted my edits to
Class 755 and
Class 360 which I (tried) to make a primary topic redirect to the UK rollingstocks but are both under discussion with 755 about to close. This user also didn't provide an edit summary when reverting my latest changes which should be done as its not vandalism.
Just for the record - I was also involved in the
Class 360 discussion... which honestly I disagree with, but haven't really gone anywhere on it. Not relevant here however.
Danners430 (
talk)
11:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
(To add from my previous comment), I think reverting should only necessary if its to remove vandalism or to remove good faith edits that lower the quality of the article
Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. My edit on changing the hatnote so that it links directly to the two rather than via a dab may be an improvement (it definitely is to me) but definitely doesn't lower the quality so its at least neutral.
JuniperChill (
talk)
12:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It is however worth taking note of
WP:BRD - if a bold change is made, there's nothing wrong with reverting it and starting a discussion so that a consensus can be reached. In my opinion, if there's a content dispute, then the status quo should remain until consensus is reached either way
Danners430 (
talk)
12:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Please read BRD again. That page, and other discussions, point out the obvious, namely that every edit needs justification. Only revert an edit if you have a reason to disagree with it. Do not revert because you think a discussion should occur.
Johnuniq (
talk)
04:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that edits need justification. I am disagreeing with JuniperChill's assertion that reversions should only be for vandalism - there are many other reasons why reversions would be used with good reason. But we're getting away from what this discussion is meant to be about.
Danners430 (
talk)
07:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I did say 'or to remove good faith edits that lower the quality of the article'. But as others above states, we should move back to stating about which hatnote to use: either the current one (to dab page) or the proposed one (which links to the two former TOCs directly).
JuniperChill (
talk)
19:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
JuniperChill, you are entitled to make bold edits, but if reverted then the onus is on you to make the case for change. In this case (and the Class 360 and Class 755 redirects as you brought them up) you attempted to make changes to things that had been in place for some years and worked perfectly well. The
TransPennine Express (disambiguation) hatnote has been in place on this article for over a year, you
launched an AfD and then withdrew it, so please don't restore your version as if the AfD was successful.
But that links to four pages (not including the two erroneous ones(. The Virgin Trains hatnote is far too long but its doable if it only links to two other pages as in this case. Its literally only two other topics. Indeed, take a look at
Great Western Railway which has/d a hatnote to the modern TOC, the
Great Western Mainline, and the dab page.
JuniperChill (
talk)
09:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think me and Weshmakui are using VT and GWR as an example regarding dabs. Maybe the Wikiproject should be notified about this since we still havent had a discussion from uninvolved editors
JuniperChill (
talk)
09:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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
TransPennine Express is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Use this talk page to discuss the withdrawal of the Nova 3 trains and how the information of the withdrawal should be added to the article and whether this information can be added based on the sources we have. This is related to the teahouse talk
here. I am under the impression based on what I've read about verifiable sources that the sources from August and September where TransPennine confirmed the withdrawal of the trains are valid sources that the trains have been withdrawn (I'm happy to be proven wrong). Some editors such as @
Danners430 disagree with this stance and believe that a recent source is needed confirming that the withdrawal did go ahead. This is why I have opened this discussion (based on recommendations on the teahouse talk) as the issue seems to just keep going back and forth between edits
Alexbrassington (
talk)
21:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)reply
This is interesting. It does at least confirm that they are no longer in passenger service for the foreseeable future. It does call into question how to convey that on Wikipedia though
Alexbrassington (
talk)
21:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I'd argue they're not "out of service" since theoretically they could be brought back at a moment's notice, especially while crews still sign them
Danners430 (
talk)
21:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree that since crews still sign the Nova 3s and they could be brought back into service at any point they are not "out of service". Given the Nova 3s could be used AD-HOC I feel they should be in the current fleet table and the past fleet table should be removed.
Maurice Oly (
talk)
21:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Agreed. However, it would be amiss to completely ignore what's been happening - a simple note saying that TPE had intended to remove them from service would likely suffice, since that's what we have sources for.
Danners430 (
talk)
21:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)reply
TransPennine Express expressed their intention to withdraw the Nova 3 sets from the December 2023 timetable change;[1] however the sets are still leased by TPE until May 2024, and remain in storage.[2]
They are considered withdrawn by TPE, as demonstrated by the TPE webpage I linked to the article, now reverted, they are currently in storage and not operating passenger services
Lner12345 (
talk)
21:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Withdrawn isn't quite the same as not in regular service though - TPE can call on the sets any time they like should they be needed, especially while driver competency exists...
Danners430 (
talk)
21:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
"Defeat"? Not entirely sure what you mean by that... This isn't exactly a battle... This is Wikipedia, and we're trying to get a consensus. Language like that isn't helping anyone's cause.
The discussion above was myself discussing with @
Maurice Oly and @
Alexbrassington about the best way to approach this topic. I'm not about to get into accusations - I'm here for constructive discussions. If you can't bring these, then I see no point in responding.
Danners430 (
talk)
21:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The source from TPE's website merely confirms what we already know, that they're not in regular passenger service anymore. It does nothing about the discussion we've had above, that they can theoretically be called into service at a moment's notice since they're in warm storage, still leased by TPE, and traction knowledge still exists.
Danners430 (
talk)
21:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
There's no source anywhere, sadly (I hope one crops up soon!) that explicitly states they've been withdrawn… the TPE website just says what TPE consider them as… it's a bit of a weird one, but I wouldn't be happy using it as the sole evidence to say they were fully withdrawn.
Danners430 (
talk)
21:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
In fact, I say that… then open the most recent RAIL and find it published there - that they have been withdrawn. So time to make some edits - please hold while I finish my sandwich and open my browser!
Danners430 (
talk)
21:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have fully protected the article for a week due to
edit warring. Warning: A discussion in a new section on this talk page must occur to establish a consensus for any further edits regarding the disputed content. An editor making another change without such clear consensus is likely to be blocked.
Johnuniq (
talk)
07:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
At first, I was thinking about
deleting the disambiguation page for TPE given that there is only one primary topic and two other topics. After that failed (and which I withdrew), I changed the hatnote to lead directly to the two former TOCs so that readers do not have to go thru a disambig page because its only two former TOCs. They can do so in one click and not two and the hatnote is just a single line. That is my proposal.
The user is new, but has also reverted my edits to
Class 755 and
Class 360 which I (tried) to make a primary topic redirect to the UK rollingstocks but are both under discussion with 755 about to close. This user also didn't provide an edit summary when reverting my latest changes which should be done as its not vandalism.
Just for the record - I was also involved in the
Class 360 discussion... which honestly I disagree with, but haven't really gone anywhere on it. Not relevant here however.
Danners430 (
talk)
11:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
(To add from my previous comment), I think reverting should only necessary if its to remove vandalism or to remove good faith edits that lower the quality of the article
Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. My edit on changing the hatnote so that it links directly to the two rather than via a dab may be an improvement (it definitely is to me) but definitely doesn't lower the quality so its at least neutral.
JuniperChill (
talk)
12:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It is however worth taking note of
WP:BRD - if a bold change is made, there's nothing wrong with reverting it and starting a discussion so that a consensus can be reached. In my opinion, if there's a content dispute, then the status quo should remain until consensus is reached either way
Danners430 (
talk)
12:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Please read BRD again. That page, and other discussions, point out the obvious, namely that every edit needs justification. Only revert an edit if you have a reason to disagree with it. Do not revert because you think a discussion should occur.
Johnuniq (
talk)
04:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that edits need justification. I am disagreeing with JuniperChill's assertion that reversions should only be for vandalism - there are many other reasons why reversions would be used with good reason. But we're getting away from what this discussion is meant to be about.
Danners430 (
talk)
07:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I did say 'or to remove good faith edits that lower the quality of the article'. But as others above states, we should move back to stating about which hatnote to use: either the current one (to dab page) or the proposed one (which links to the two former TOCs directly).
JuniperChill (
talk)
19:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
JuniperChill, you are entitled to make bold edits, but if reverted then the onus is on you to make the case for change. In this case (and the Class 360 and Class 755 redirects as you brought them up) you attempted to make changes to things that had been in place for some years and worked perfectly well. The
TransPennine Express (disambiguation) hatnote has been in place on this article for over a year, you
launched an AfD and then withdrew it, so please don't restore your version as if the AfD was successful.
But that links to four pages (not including the two erroneous ones(. The Virgin Trains hatnote is far too long but its doable if it only links to two other pages as in this case. Its literally only two other topics. Indeed, take a look at
Great Western Railway which has/d a hatnote to the modern TOC, the
Great Western Mainline, and the dab page.
JuniperChill (
talk)
09:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think me and Weshmakui are using VT and GWR as an example regarding dabs. Maybe the Wikiproject should be notified about this since we still havent had a discussion from uninvolved editors
JuniperChill (
talk)
09:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.