Talk:Steamtown Peterborough Railway Preservation Society

message: :Image:Steamtown.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Steamtown.png

message: The organisation that owned the rights to the logo, "steamtown, peterborough railway preservation society inc" no longer exists. The current owners of the assets, the District Council of Peterborough, have a new logo for the museum.(Sulzer55 (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use of Logo 

message: added more recent information on move of Garratt 402, but also amended the referencing within the page to align with more contemporary wiki practices. there is a need to add in more links to known material on the organisation, but this can wait Sulzer55 (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision Notes 

message: made a number of changes to update the page, including ref to the problems with 402's return.
Added specific comment re Ian Milne - who was not acknowledged during the launch of the centre. this bloke has busted his nuts to get the show to where it is, but in all the grovelling and sucking up, those in charge did not mention him. I am of the understanding he has since stepped down, and DCP are looking for a new manager. Rumblings from Peterborough are questioning the ongoing viability of the project. Interestingly, the land is now DCP's. One wonders if they looked at the clean up costs for all the years of dumping the railways did! this land is nothing but poison  Sulzer55 (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tweaks and clarification 

message: Cleaned up a heap of changes made by an unregistered user - as the some of the comments appear to conflict with material referenced, I believe that it may have been vandalism. Sulzer55 (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible vandalism 

message: Please sign and and use appropriate referencing
have reverted a number of changes (again) 
Thanks Sulzer55 (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted vandalism 

message: reverted more vandalism - seems someone does not like refs to people who have done a lot of work. THerefore have removed names from the page. Sulzer55 (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes struck me as being driven by someone with an agenda. I wasn't quite sure of the specifics so I left it up to your discretion to fix things. Ozdaren (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More vandalism 

message: Found reference to the Linqage Report and Hart Report - have added this in. Would be interesting to find the originals, and read them in detail. The referenced article notes a number of other interesting comments. 
THere are other refs on the web that imply findings of the Linqage report, but are not reliable enough to use in this article. Sulzer55 (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New ref 

message: reset page yet again. Sulzer55 (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverted vandalism 

message: Restructured pages that were the Steamtown museum into two separate pages - one on the Heritage precinct, and one on the operating society.
THese are two separate entities, with two different purposes.  Sulzer55 (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the move, however it seems a little cumbersome to have a comma between Steamtown and Peterborough. Through out its life it was known as Steamtown Peterborough (and of course Steamtown for short). Was Steamtown, Peterborough Railway Preservation Society Inc the official name? Ozdaren (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey Ozdaren - yes, the legal name was with the comma - cumbersome yes, but correct. The article will go through a little more of a tidy up, I found some additional information - did you see the guff in the latest Rail Digest??Sulzer55 (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not yet. I've been a bit remiss about visiting my source of magazines of late. Ozdaren (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ha- the info re depots was to be the next edit!!!!!!!!!!Sulzer55 (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You might have better info, mine has no references. Though I do have a scar on my right knuckle from picking up scrap steel in the 'new' yard around 1979/80. Ozdaren (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Can you send me a pic of the Injury, I am sure I can do a newspaper jobbie and beat it up into some form of scandal! :-p Sulzer55 (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split Steamtown 

message: Added information regards the Depot. If anyone can shed light (no pun intended) on the shift from the Hostel site to Peterborough West, I'd Love to know more. If anyone can shed light on the Ozdarren "skunned knuckels due to Foamer parents" scandal - would be most grateful :-p Sulzer55 (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added some further info about the Depot, and a pic of it in 2006Sulzer55 (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Depot 

message: I think it's too cumbersome to keep repeating the full name of the society in most paragraphs. Steamtown or the Society should suffice. The recent edits to add in the society's full name makes the article cumbersome. I propose the changes to be rolled back. Ozdaren (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: In response to requests for refs; I have made a couple of tweaks to this page;
* Local support
Various editions of the Partyline, and the minutes available, are pretty clear in identifying people from outside of Peterborough as being key to the organisation. Ray Hall (Salisbury) was president for a number of years, and did a stirling job at trying to reverse the fortune of the society. A number of others (eg BW) made big inroads in improving safeworking. whilst a family from Truro underpinned the track. A bloke from Adelaide kept 901 running, with some support from a couple of dedicated locals.
Many of the track gang travelled from Melbourne, Mildura and Adelaide
This is not to criticise some of the locals, such as SH, DS and CW, whose input even today has kept the SHRC open.
* Corporation support
Whilst the Corporation did provide some assistance, it was rare and limited, including the use of some plant, the work gang for small jobs, or the odd bit of cash (small amounts). As there are few examples, it is hard to cite specifics. Subsequent to the collapse of the Society, the input has been considerable, and is noted as being a key factor in the success of the heritage centre. 
I will attempt to source specific refs as I can. Sulzer55 (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  have modified the wording to relate better to an editorial in the Partyline Sulzer55 (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for refs 

message: Could you please add "current" to the SHRC reference (for the current static museum . . ). Ditto for the SHRC page. Pedantic? Yes - but just another bit of "clarification" for the reader. Mangoeater2 (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes very pendatic - have lodged a request for a "disambiugation"page for the term "Steamtown Peterborough"Sulzer55 (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hat 

message: Have requested a disambiguation page so the uniformed can work out which "steamtown peterborough" they wantSulzer55 (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation page 

message: See discussion in "The End" above  Mangoeater2 (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of of contentious statement in "The End" 

message: Removed the word "very" from the phrase "a very small band of volunteers". Subjective statement - especially as you try to minimise the effort of volunteers, and especially local volunteers, at every turn. Trying to remove "spin" from the article. Mangoeater2 (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolling Stock 

message: Here you say "In later years, the majority of active volunteers came from outside the district" as if this is a negative thing (your wording suggests a negative spin on this passage) - other Heritage Railways attract most of their patronage from outside of the local area - research Pichi Richi's volunteer base - this is actually a good thing that an organisation can attract patronage from other areas; it makes for a much stronger organisation. I have changed the wording to "bit in later years" Mangoeater2 (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operations 

message: I have added some comments to these 2 sections (with references) regarding Council input and maintenance of the track to remove the bias that was appearing in the original text.  Mangoeater2 (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions to "The End" and "Last Fling" 

message: Membersof the WP:EAR team have addressed an editor enquiry at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Conflict of Interest - Steamtown Peterborough Railway Preservation Society Inc vs Steamtown Heritage Rail Centre editing, and made their recommendations. Do take the opportunity  to  follow any  links that  explain  relevant  policy..--Kudpung (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  EAR request 

message: I have just changed "the disposal of property" to "implementing the "Steamtown Peterborough (Vesting of Property) Act 1986" to remove the suggestion that the Council was about to sell off the assets of the Society. References remain the same. Mangoeater2 (talk) 11:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The End 

message: I want to add into the first section:
:"Though both the "Steamtown, Peterborough Railway Preservation Society Inc" and the "Steamtown Heritage Rail Centre" were and are known as simply "Steamtown" or "Steamtown Peterborough", only the term "the Society" will be used in referencing the Railway Preservation Society on this page; to clarify which organisation is being referred to."
I want to add this to let the reader know that they are viewing a page on "Steamtown" but also to let them know which entity they are reading about.
I suspect that any one researching these pages does not know that there are 2 "Steamtown"s and that the Hats do not say that both entities were known as "Steamtown" or "Steamtown Peterborough" only.
Comments? Losing the separation of the pages? or clarifying "Steamtown" and "Steamtown Peterborough" for the reader?
This is something I am NOT sure of editing in.
This same comment will be added to the SHRC's Discussion page. Mangoeater2 (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add reference to both entities known by just "Steamtown" and "Steamtown Peterborough" 

message: This Act was created as a result of the asset crisis of the 1980s. The Act vested the assets of Steamtown to the council, and allowed the council to make them available to SPRPS for operation. 
A number of items where purchased by Steamtown after this Act was enabled, and thus were not affected by this legislation  (eg the NSUs, some section cars, some passenger wagons).
Will endeavor to find a copy of this Act.  Sulzer55 (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Steamtown Peterborough (Vesting of Property) Act (No 81 of 1986)  Ozdaren (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vesting of property Act 

message: thanks to whoever has tidied this up, it is looking pretty good.
I have corrected a couple of things - 720's tubes failed whilst it was hauling a train up Minvilara Bank, and the event at Black Rock was run using hand powered Kalamazoos formerly used at Cummins. the reference to Goolwa is correct, I will find the reference and update at some stage - Steam Ranger was still operating out of Dry Creek at the time, and the proposal ruffled feathers there.
I am not sure that the population decline is what killed it, this was identified early on and lead to the interest in moving to Clare, Gladstone or Goolwa. Certainly a factor was that Peterborough itself was not a major tourist centre (but then prior to PRR commencing trains, neither was Quorn.  Sulzer55 (talk) 08:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor Cleanup 

message: Especially for Valeinmose:
Please see the comment I made for my last edit: "Deleted 'unreliable source?' tag: although Railpage is a fansite, with all the attendant reliability problems, the locomotive is widely known to have failed then and boiler tube failure is the most likely source."
Before I made that comment, I had checked with two people familiar with the events of the society 30 or so years ago. They confirmed the information as being correct, and also that it was extremely unlikely that a reliable published source was available since the society was in its terminal stages and wasn't in the business of publishing what it was doing. Nobody is going to come up with reliable sources now.
I didn't write the sentences that utilised the unreliable references, but I asked: (1) can a better source be found now? (2) can the three items simply be deleted? (3) can they be rewritten without references?  I suggest the answers are (1) no, (2) no, because they cover occurrences that were crucial in the fold-up of the society and (3) no, that's not on. 
I detest fan sites as sources of information and I'm accustomed to looking for reliable sources to fix such references. However, in this case one can't ignore the practical realities. If we delete, the crucial factors will be lost. If we just don't cite, it's worse than using these unreliable sources.
This one calls for acting in accordance with the adage, "Policies are for the guidance of the wise and the blind obedience of the drongo". SCHolar44 (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether you checked with 2 or 2000 people is irrelevant it is WP:OR, the fact remains that the text is still not backed up by a reliable source. Railpage is an internet forum and as explained at WP:USERG are not admissible. I have reflagged the cite as unreliable. Please do not revert again without coming up with a good reason as to why policy should be overridden. Longer term if the text remains uncited, it will need to go. Broad16 (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable source tag