Talk:Potters Bar rail accidents

message: Potters Bar derailment → Potters Bar rail crash — According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), articles should use the common name of an event if there is one. A Google search for "Potters Bar rail crash" returns 12,100 results whilst "Potters Bar derailment" returns only 1,140. Admin assistance required as new page name is currently a redirect. Adambro 19:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
# Support.  The move to derailment was made after the Grayrigg derailment page was moved from Grayrigg train crash by the same editor without prior discussion on either page.  He cited a weak claim in the edit summary as follows: moved Grayrigg rail crash to Grayrigg derailment: "crash" implies one vehicle hitting another.  This page was Potters Bar train crash and then moved by the same editor minutes later.  However, the Hatfield rail crash (another derailment) hasn't been moved as of when I posted this, and nor should it be. Lugnuts 22:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As per my comment above, note that WP:NAME states: "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists. - HTUK 01:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "...derailment" would seem to meet all of those criteria, particularly ...ambiguity. Andy Mabbett 09:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
# Support.  The move to derailment was made after the Grayrigg derailment page was moved from Grayrigg train crash by the same editor without prior discussion on either page.  He cited a weak claim in the edit summary as follows: moved Grayrigg rail crash to Grayrigg derailment: "crash" implies one vehicle hitting another.  This page was Potters Bar train crash and then moved by the same editor minutes later.  However, the Hatfield rail crash (another derailment) hasn't been moved as of when I posted this, and nor should it be. Lugnuts 22:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Support.  The move to derailment was made after the Grayrigg derailment page was moved from Grayrigg train crash by the same editor without prior discussion on either page.  He cited a weak claim in the edit summary as follows: moved Grayrigg rail crash to Grayrigg derailment: "crash" implies one vehicle hitting another.  This page was Potters Bar train crash and then moved by the same editor minutes later.  However, the Hatfield rail crash (another derailment) hasn't been moved as of when I posted this, and nor should it be. Lugnuts 22:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: # It's clear from the first page of those search results that "...derailment" is the title used in all the formal reports and by official bodies. Andy Mabbett 19:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: The article you cite appears to be concerned with the uncontroversial naming of "events and activities such as military conflicts and terrorist incidents", such as "bombing " vs "massacre" or "terrorist outrage"; not the accurate naming of events whose name is politically uncontroversial. Andy Mabbett 19:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As per my comment above, note that WP:NAME states: "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists. - HTUK 01:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "...derailment" would seem to meet all of those criteria, particularly ...ambiguity. Andy Mabbett 09:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I've been rooting through some old files and photos and found the letter I received sent to all Jarvis employees when the 2002 rail crash happened.  Is this worth uploading at all?  The picture I have isn't great as I had to use my digital camera to photo the paper rather than scan it in as my scanner's dead in the water, I just thought it may be useful to the article. Stuey 182 00:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Document Images 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Potters Bar rail accidents. 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/20050501072255/http://www.pbhistory.co.uk/transport/rail_crashes.html to http://www.pbhistory.co.uk/transport/rail_crashes.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061003160959/http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/incident-pottersbar-interim.pdf to http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/incident-pottersbar-interim.pdf
*Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081108234009/http%3A//www.rail%2Dreg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/incident%2Dpottersbar%2Dmay03progrep.pdf to http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/incident-pottersbar-may03progrep.pdf
*Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081108234009/http%3A//www.rail%2Dreg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/incident%2Dpottersbar%2Dmay03progrep.pdf to http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/incident-pottersbar-may03progrep.pdf
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) 03:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi Redrose64 !  Like I said, thank you for joining in with trying to clarify  Potters Bar rail accidents # 1946.  I have to apologise, too, that my edit summary, responding to your query, was totally not clear enough.
I should probably have started this talk-page section then.  And, coming here now, I’m seeing that the article section was already flagged as needing work.
For anyone joining us: the point under discussion is that “Unlike road signals, a rail signal, once observed showing a proceed aspect, will not normally change against the driver observing it;” the issue is how to present that point in the article.
Its relevance and importance are fairly clear if you read the 1946 Report closely.
The edit-history up to now is as follows:
:: 
Edit Summary                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         	Diff	Editor    	Comment - in hindsight
clarification                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        	    	SquisherDa	(slightly sharper use of railway terminology)
amplified citation of authoritative Ref, + other Ref dropped                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         	    	SquisherDa	dropping citation of a low-reliability source “blaming” the local-train driver
accident summary amended to agree with authoritative Ref                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             	    	SquisherDa	
Rescuing orphaned refs ("PBHistory" from rev 879246835)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              	    	AnomieBOT 	oops - I mishandled a multi-cited source
why is this inside the ref?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          	    	Redrose64 	fair question: so far as anyone could see, I had simply made an editing error
Presenting the point about aspect changes in a footnote because (1) it’s a general point, not specific to the detail of this accident causation; and (2) if placed anywhere in the main text, I think it would rate a  . . I saw it in an RAIB report - and it’s plainly important - but I have no idea which report!	    	SquisherDa	my explanation totally failed to clarify that the point, though general, has very specific importance in relation to this accident
don't put text intended to be interpreted as footnotes inside an unrelated ref. If you want it to appear as a footnote, mark it up as such; but even so, it's not exempt from WP:V                                                                                                                                   	    	Redrose64 	good advice generally, of course.  But the point relates - very closely - to this source.  WP:V: not exempt, of course - but in a note I think it should be no problem: see discussion below
→Notes: new section                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  	    	Redrose64 	
The requirements of WP:V seem meetable without trouble.  There are two.  First is that everything in an article should be supportable, if challenged, by a WP:RS.  There’s no difficulty there (if only because of the RAIB report I read).  Second is that for anything where a challenge is likely, a suitable RS should actually be cited.
For the second requirement, a brief remark in a citation should be OK anyway - is unlikely to be challenged - given that the point is obvious when you think about it and only the more thoughtful readers are likely to look at a citation footnote.
But meeting WP:V doesn’t really hit the spot if the remark just looks like an editing error anyway.  So my plan now is to include the point in UK railway signalling - in context there, it is very unlikely to be challenged.  Then, if the note in Potters Bar rail accidents includes an explicit phrase directing the reader to that signalling article, the intent should be obvious and the note won’t look like a muddled edit.
I’ll develop the Potters Bar rail accidents # 1946 section - a need already flagged on this Talk page - using the 1946 Report as the basis.  And I’ll make the note there more explicit, both in the way I’ve described, and in clarifying that the reason it mentions the point is that the point matters when reading the Report.
Before I do any of that, I’ll change the mention in the lede of “the latest” accident!  To me, ‘latest’ carries favorable connotations (newest, most recent, most up-to-date) which are badly out-of-place here.
I’ll monitor here for replies, anybody!?
SquisherDa (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ Potters Bar rail accidents#1946 ]]  

message: Regarding the 2002 accident, there was an aftermath.   Safety changes were made; what were these?  FreeFlow99 (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: Someone involved in investigation the 2002 accident has given an account as part of the remembrance of the accident 20 years on. Published by the Office of Rail and Road. Although this could be considered a primary source, there is useful info that could be used to add to the article. Mjroots (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: 2002 accident