This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As 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)
I 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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As 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)
I 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)