Talk:Railway Preservation Society of Ireland

message: Suggest splitting this into two seperate sections, there's no real relationship between the two (any more than they're related to the 4-4-0 or 0-6-0, No.4 is a NCC 2-6-4T, No.461 is a D&SER 2-6-0). GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: * @ My objective has been to keep a format fully acceptable to  who had to deal with issues raised by previous editing and to try to place locomotives into groups; and minimize the number of such subgroups whilest remaining to be able to encycloedically differentiate the similarities and differences amongst the members of such groups and here we have two 2-6-0's and a tank version version of one of them. And per the COIN I've just raised while I have to assume by AGF you intentions are pure your edit at Special:Diff/1022135389 would suggest you are opinionated in parts of this matter, although I would fully admit aspects of the new build are controversial.  I recall winge about stocklist iterineries in those dealing with the problematic editing have studiously wished to void that on article improvement although I am aware there would likely be much support for a table format from those interested in railway articles.  The addition of R.H. Smyth is welcome, as a minor point I've probably want to try a slight reformat for rendering purposes. 23:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *I see what you mean. However, I think then it would make more sense to list the two 2-6-0s together. I understand the DSER 2-6-0 developed from 0-6-0 lineage, in which you could argue that it's as much related to the 0-6-0 group. As regard to the diesels, we should probably mention the shunting locos and also the Hunslet mainline locos once owned by the Society GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: * Alternative groupings that might wotk better Whitehead. could be Passenger tender locomotives (Sometimes used on goods work), Mixed traffic tank locomotive, Goods tender locomotives (The RPSI one's are also suitable for medium speed passenger work) and shunters suitable for shunting short journey round e.g. Whitehead.  The idea is really to give a summary of the group while leading easy navigation to the main article on the type.  I was also under the brief from involved mediators to avoid a stocklist table-type article; though I would suspect many would prefer that.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *yes that sounds like a good idea GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  2-6-4T 2-6-0 section 

message: @, , : I have raised concerns about editing on this article on 25 December 2021 at WikiProject UK Railways and linked in WikiProject Trains, and WikiProject Ireland.  I have also emailed the RPSI over concerns and advised them to monitor but not edit the article.  This should bring in neutral editors which should be useful in article development / oversight. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been thinking about the issues raised at COIN. Issues of conflict of interest aside, the RPSI has been in existance since 1964. There should be plenty of coverage in journals covering both the modern and heritage railway scene over the years. I'm in full agreement with  about not wading into a war zone. It would probably be for the best if all COI editors were PBLOCKED from editing the article. This is something that should be raised with the community via ANI and consensus gained that those named as having a COI do, in fact, have such a COI, rather than having an editor PBLOCKed on the word of another editor. Mjroots (talk) 12:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm on the road but I've found the comment by the uninvolved admin, indeed oversighter, Drmies, identified users with a COI and which caused me to set those as ; the comment is at Special:Diff/1038917193.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it, . Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  -  has raised a valid concern at ANI. You cannot attribute 2015 information to a 1996 source. Please either source the information correctly or remove the material from the article. Mjroots (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed nowGalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI/Neutrality concerns of 25 December 2021 edits. 

message: I think I last travelled through :Mullingar railway station westbound on 8 August 2017 probably about 5pm. I'd taken a glance at Connolly loco shed about an hour earlier, and might have noticed a GM bo-Bo outside but my memory is hazy.  Regarding Inchicore railway works ... I'd already created the article for it on 17 October 2017 but I've never seen the place in my life.  I've never been to Whitehead,  Northern Ireland I have only been into to visit Marble Arch caves two, maybe three times; and once in in 2 night road tour in July 2008 essentially visiting Giants Causeway & Bangor for Ulster Folk and Transport museum at Cultra. I've only once experienced the a Galway line platform at Mullingar when I was may 4/5/6 yo; at about 11pm at night when I have vague recollections of mixed passenger goods from there in a Sligo direction possibly hauled by a Metrovick.  The key point of this that while I've passed through Mullingar station 50 to 100 times I have no real awareness until I just looked it up of today the RPSI shed (and the turntable) which lies adjacent to the Galway lines.  I've never travelled on an RPSI train; I once went down with the late grandmother to see a (presumably) RPSI steam train (Tank no. 4?) pass by on the Sligo line circa 1990 and I might be able to find a poor quality photo one day.  I've given that as background to the do-gooders vaguely pass by and who think I'm ultra-pro Whitehead or something.  But I'll now address the concern with the content added at Special:Diff/1061995636 under summary Whitehead site and museum: Added Dublin and Mullingar sections for balance which added top level sections "Dublin Operations" and "Mullingar base".  To be clear  is significant as a site in its own right to have it own section on the basis of a publiclly notable museum.  It therefore appropriately has its own section that mainline operations are kept out of; albeit that could either be a level one or level two section.  Pushing Mullingar base as an equally comparable base seems most inappropriate.  Links I've put on :Talk:Mullingar railway station#Additional earlier stations? seem to show work on a single coach with a dormitory coach also present.  Its very hard to find anything on the RPSI site, and there doesn't appear to be a safety casse here  so it seems unlikely the site is very active.  That is not to in any way downplay the significance of work done there in the past; but here that is more for the history section.  In the centre of Ireland it had (perhaps even just has) the potential for being a significant base, but that's CRYSTAL and its chance has probably elapsed.  If you look at the Dublin operations section then the operations bit should currently be under operations (and balanced between North and South in a constructive manner.  To solve the issue of bases it is probably best to have a top level section of "Bases" and then sections for "Whitehead site and museum", "Inchicore works", "Connolly diesel shed", "Mullingar": but in essence Whitehead, as a museum with public access, likely needs a larger treatment.  Content needs to be facts and not a SOAPBOX slanging opportunity.  I now know why Mullingar was on the Rocky Road to Dublin.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Mullingar

message: A nice Dude pointed out to me there is currently (and perhaps only for a short while) available access to various source via ProQuest : goto  & enter "Railway Preservation Society of Ireland" for 6550 hits ... then filter.  Hopefully this is useful to neutrals.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for RPSI via ProQuest 

message: * Specific text to be replaced:
==Whitehead site and museum==
* Specific text to be inserted as replacement:
==Bases==
===Whitehead site and museum===
* Reason for the change:
:* Allows for all bases to be added at the same level
:* The Anchor is now redundant
* References supporting change: 
This change is a refactor and does not require a URL; it does require additional changes below to make sense
Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: * 
Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

text: - I take it you wanted all the text associated with==Dublin Operations== removed. Ping me if not. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request edits 06 January 2022 with regards to bases  

message: In 2015 the RSPI gained an arrangement with Irish Rail to lease the locomotive shed just to the north of  for the maintenance and storage of mainline diesel locomotives.
* Reason for the change:
To specify Dublin bases.
* References supporting change:
: * 
Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: - I take it you wanted all the text associated with==Dublin Operations== removed. Ping me if not. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Connolly shed

message: Shunting locomotives are useful and economical for shunting and short passenger work within Whitehead yard.  These include the  No.3 'R.H. Smyth', affectionally known as Harvey, which has also been used ballast workings for NIR.
* Reason for the change:
:* Improved section heading and spliting
* References supporting change:
:* 
:* 
Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Shunting locomotives