Talk:British Rail Class 360

message: There is a discussion about the naming convention to use for articles about British locomotive and multiple unit classes at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes). Your comments are more than welcome. Thryduulf 22:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming convention

message: Recently there have been some uncited edits on the units moving to East Midlands Railway. For inclusion they need to be reliable sourced. Personal observations, forums, social media etc, are original sources and not considered reliable. It needs to be in a published work, e.g. one of these publications.
Wikipedia isn't a train spotter's blog, so it doesn't need to be an up to the minute accurate reflection of every movement or repaint. It should reflect what can be reliably sourced. Metro140 (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, not a valid excuse here. SK2242 (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Recently people have been adding and removing the information regarding the transfer of Units to East Midlands Railway. This is becoming an issue since the content for fleet details is now changing every day. Please add your opinion below as to if you think that the units that have transferred to East Midlands Railway should be included or not. This discussion will be closed on 14:41 29 November 2020 (UTC). E.Wright1852 (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , wikipedia requires not sources but reliable sources. A fansite is not reliable. Wait until it's in a publication such as RAIL, Modern Railways, etc. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: After seeing a link that  told me to see I think it is best if we only include 360120 as being transferred to EMR as it is the only one that East Midlands Railway themselves have confirmed. Unless a tweet from EMR themeselves is considered unreliable. E.Wright1852 (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a primary source, which isn't ideal, but I think in this circumstance it's acceptable. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The key point is WP:VNT, with no valid cites produced, all the movements reported have been WP:OR. As Mattbusk stated, It will be reported in the next magazine publishing cycle, so best to wait for this to happen. Metro140 (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

text: All Class 360s are now with EMR but are currently stored and expected to enter service in May 2021. I think that the source should be used to backup the claim. I have also found these which might also help support the claim if they are acceptable. https://twitter.com/13milepost/status/1354167424380264448 http://bed-pan.homestead.com/Class-360-.html. E.Wright1852 (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's no deadline, or harm in waiting a few weeks until there's a decent secondary source on the matter. Turini2 (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Twitter is not a reliable cite per WP:RS/SPS. This is self published and likewise not a WP:RS. Metro140 (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

text: It was removed because it was not accompanied with a WP:RS that wasn’t self published. SK2242 (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: So ROG’s announcement, on their website, that they have purchased all five Class 360/2s, is not evidence enough? DAB (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not, because it is a primary source, and inherently biased. What have the independent railway press written on this matter? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In the latest issue of Rail the 360/1s have been confirmed to have moved to EMR. However it mentions nothing on the 360/2s. Best to wait for the next issue as it will probably be in that. E.Wright1852 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content Dispute 

message: Hey just a heads up reference 6 needs to use an archived version of the page it links to, as the link no longer directs to a page on the Class 360 like it says it does. Maurice Oly (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: --PhiH (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 6 

message: I'm sure this article used to mention that the 360s were originally going to have gangwayed cab ends (like the 350s/450s/444s) but that someone didn't like it or something, so they were built with non-gangwayed cab ends. Why was this removed from the article, and can it be added back? Anamyd (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: probably because it wasn't sourced! Turini2 (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-gangwayed cab ends