Talk:Conway Scenic Railroad

message: What owns the railroad?  Is it for-profit?  JNW2 09:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ownership

message: I ask that the section about the dining car fire be removed.  It serves no purpose, as there are many sites that talk about on going events at the railroad.  This site should only provide general information about the railroad.  Events about, fires, derailments and the likes, is unnecessary for this page.
Bm4266 (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Partly done: I removed what fire departments responded but as I see it the incident should still be included on the page as I believe that it is a notable incident. Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the section in question.  I agree, this page is for general information only.  Railroad.net and other similar sites cover current events, such as last years derailment and the two fires that happened this year.   We should not be cluttering this page with non general information. b&m 1566  — Preceding unsigned comment added by B&m1566 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You have done so against the general agreement of the others editing this page.  It may become non-notable a few years from now, but it hardly is cluttering the page at this point.  You don't have any connection to the railroad, do you? --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

text:  1566 - I update this page often, rewording to make things sound better, adding tidbits of information, etc.  Although we seem to have similar views, let the fire section stand as is for a while.  In a few months or so, we can think about removing it but in the mean time, I plan to reword it and make the information a little more clear.Bm4266 (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Bm4266, 25 July 2011 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Conway Scenic Railroad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100917190430/http://conwayscenic.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.wheelreport0809 to http://conwayscenic.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.wheelreport0809
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090927184515/http://www.ozarkmountainrailcar.com/mec_44_ton_switcher_15.htm to http://www.ozarkmountainrailcar.com/mec_44_ton_switcher_15.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090410063356/http://www.rxrsignals.net/New_Hampshire/North_Conway/Conway/ to http://www.rxrsignals.net/New_Hampshire/North_Conway/Conway/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello. I notice that (in many locomotive sections) that there is information that isn't publicly known (Ex. #7470 has a crack in it's pipe, which makes it out of service indefinitely.). Information that has been known (Ex. 252 broke down . . . it has been acknowledged on their Wheel Report that it will be fixed.) should be included, but unimportant information (specific details, amount of time, etc) shouldn't be included to reduce space. This is especially important for the #72 page. You don't need to be specific and say "#72 is now at St.Laurence and Atlantic awaiting to go to NHC..." could be simplified to "#72 is currently on it's way to N.Conway." Let me know if otherwise, but thank you for reading this. GP38-252  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GP38-252 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't have to release any information if they chose not to and the Wheel Report hasn't been updated in a long time.  A lot of information is from inside sources or first hand knowledge. The last time I saw the 7470 (over the summer) parts to the tender trucks were spread out all over the floor inside the roundhouse, I was told cracks were found in both trucks.   - Bow Jackson — Preceding unsigned comment added by BowJackson (talk • contribs) 16:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information that hasn't been released to the public. 

message: I'd like to note for those slowly adding content back that appropriate sourcing is not currently being included. I'll wait a bit to see if sourcing is added, but as stands, most of the details in the locomotive table is unsourced and will be removed. At best we have a self-published source (See WP:SPS) that backs up which locomotives are at Conway, but the details about each (except past ownership) aren't sourced. First and foremost remember that this article is not a website for Conway itself, particular in regards to reporting their current tours and the like, and a great deal of this simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. These are details more suitable for a fan wiki such as Railroadfan.com, Locomotive.fandom.com, and trains-and-locomotives.fandom.com. You could, if you were so inclined, even make a Conway dedicated Fandom site. -- ferret (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be removing unsourced information sometime today. The continued addition of unsourced information may require the article's protection. -- ferret (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed anything unsourced or sourced to low reliability sources (fanblogs with no identifiable credibility). Some of this is promotional material and should not be reinstated at all even with sourcing. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Disclosure; I found this discussion due to a mention Ferret gave in the WM discord server. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the page has been protected, and unsourced material removed, I will see if I can redo the operations section with references to reliable sources. I may or may not succeed, depending on if I can find sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to contribute, because I have just noticed what I consider to be an issue. I realize that a lot of the information in the page was not sourced correctly, but now several units are entirely gone from the roster page entirely. Just because the information about the units wasn't sourced does not mean they cannot be on the page at all, with a blank information section. 216, 1751, 4266, 573, and 23 are missing. Henry Brighton (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Responding to my previous comment, the issue has since been fixed by someone else. Instead of removing the information entirely, I suggest we try to find proper sources for said information, so we don't have to rewrite the information entirely afterwards. Henry Brighton (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The unsourced information remains stored in the page history. It is simple to restore it if/when reliable sources to support it can be found. Otherwise, it may not remain in the article's present version. WP:V is not optional. There has already been significant disruption to this page, further disruption may result in the page being fully protected. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Ok, thank you. I wont make any more edits without sourcing. Henry Brighton (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Restorations

message: Hi, I would like to know what drama has been going on here. I am no admin of any sort, just a dedicated fan to Conway Scenic. The following locomotives are missing from the running roster; 573, 1751, 23 (RDC), 216, & 4266. From the inactive roster, there is no #365 (366? It was the 44 Tonner), and #255, which is yet to arrive. On the former section, no 6505/6516, no #2820, no #1943. What happened to here?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GP38-252 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The above sections should explain, but the short of it is that there's no reliable secondary sourcing for any of this content, so it fails WP:V. No one has been able to provide anything but unreliable sources/blogs or primary sourcing, and the page should not simply be sourced to primary. We're not a mirror for their website. There's also been disruptive editing and sockpuppetry (use of multiple accounts in violation of our policies) in regards to the content. -- ferret (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I found an article on the Conway Scenic Railroad in Trains (magazine) in my magazine collection recently, so I can see if I can expand the article using it as a reference. The article is written by Brian Solomon, who has a connection to the museum, but Trains has an editorial team that reviews things so it should still be considered a secondary source. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Brian Solomon is the Marketing Director for the Conway Scenic Railroad, using him as a reference wouldn't that be considered primary sourcing? Under the rules of this website that's not allowed. - Bow Jackson  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BowJackson (talk • contribs) 18:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's published by a secondary source, it's a little different. If you were making an argument for Notability (which is not at all in question here, to be clear!), then we would likely exclude this similar to how we exclude interviews, but for facts, it's a good source. -- ferret (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically what ferret said. Trains Magazine is a secondary source, and has an editorial team that reviews articles before they are published. This makes it perfectly acceptable for sourcing factual information. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  573? 216? 1751? 

message: #7470 has now been out of service since December of 2021 according to this article: https://railfan.com/conway-scenic-7470-will-return-to-steam-but-not-soon-enough-for-charters/ . GP38-252 (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  <- ping --Ferien (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022 

message: Remove the "undergoing repairs as of august 2020" section from 252's description. It has been fixed and is back in action. ShaneM316 (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022 

message: 1751 is out of service has bad wheels. 67.255.252.57 (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2022