Talk:Docklands Light Railway rolling stock/Archive 1

Archive 1

New stock?

The page suggests that delivery of the new trains was to begin in May 2007. Has this happened? David Arthur (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

TfL said in a press release some time ago that the new DLR trains were due to arrive in May 2007, well it is now January 2008 and I can confirm that not a single one has been delivered to Beckton or Poplar depots! Hopefully some should be there by May this year. Bombardier are known for their failure to meet time scedules. I don't want this to delay the delivery of London Overground Electrostars though. Unisouth (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Reminds me of Shepherd's Bush. Simply south (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Great news! The first new train was delivered last December. They must be keeping it secret for some reason. If anyone can get a photograph of it then it would be most apprieciated (sp?). I have updated the article to reflect what I know so far. Unisouth (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

At least three have arrived - 104, 105 and 106. The rest will be numbered 101 - 103 and 107 - 122. Unisouth (talk) 11:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed the dates to reflect the first display of them in March. I don't think they are roaming the tracks yet though. 86.153.142.117 (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoever lives in Beckton can upload images of the new DLR trains that are stored at the DLR deport near Gallion’s Reach.--Tyw7, formerly Troop350 (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately there have been delays in the testing period. I do not know when the problems will be rectified and the trains can start taking passengers. UNI^|SOUTH 10:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Templates up top

This article looks a mess thanks to the five templates indicating that this article could do with some work. I'm removing four of them! Tompagenet (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Automatation

It'd be really great if someone could add some basic information on how the automation of the trains work. Andrew j w (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Train details

There is currently no information about train length or passenger capacity in this article. I think it would be worthwhile to add this information if anybody has access to it. It would enable comparison with other train types. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 00:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You sure there's ANY reference to most technical details provided??? I think speed specs are just rubbish, they (especially older stock) are slowish. If the control panel cover is open, you can actually check the speed and it is mostly absolute rubbish, like 50kmh and below. I also would love to see acceleration figures, like topgearish 0-60 etc :) They seem to be nonexistent, and official site doesn't provide even most basic info about DLR trains (like length, mass, width etc).

Egh0st (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah there is. HOwever, not by TFL themselves. Feel free to actually measure the train yourself if you don't believe me! --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 10:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Info dump

The following are dumps of information I got about the new DLR rolling stock when I was having a friendly chat with one of the driver

100 km max. 80 km fastest traveled woolwich tunnel to arsenal

New train rock more than old train. Two compressor compared to one. but new train is safer. Detect if there are people in the door and reopen if there is pressure against the closing door.

Info dump

New rail cars Of the 55 new vehicles ordered to allow for further railway expansion and passenger demand, the first 24 vehicles have been delivered and are now in operation on the DLR. This means that the first batch ordered under the March 2005 contract have all now successfully entered into passenger service.

The new rail cars are an improved version of the existing 94 vehicles. They are more aerodynamic and inside the ambience is much brighter, due to larger windows and fully glazed doors and draught screens. Many aspects of the vehicles have been upgraded to deliver improved performance and reliability.

The new vehicles have;

A sleek external design Larger windows and doors More leg room Improved braking for a smoother ride Better acceleration Improved door functions to enable faster boarding and alighting

The new vehicles are funded by Transport for London and the Olympic Delivery Authority.

The requirement for additional stock has been necessitated by:

Progression of schemes to upgrade the route between Bank and Lewisham to accommodate three-car trains The extension of the DLR between King George V and Woolwich Arsenal The future Stratford International extension High projected passenger demand during the 2012 Games and beyond http://developments.dlr.co.uk/enhancements/rollingstock/index.asp

http://www.thetrams.co.uk/dlr/trains/ http://www.xs4all.nl/~dodger/trains.htm

Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 13:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

American English

Why on earth is an article about a British subject using the American English banner? Who established that consensus? Jezhotwells (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

At least I'm editing using American English. If you want British English, you would probably do a rewrite. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 20:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I was just wondering, as WP:MOS#Strong national ties to a topic would seem to apply. Anyhow, I am rather busy with other projects atb the moment and know nothing about this subject so I will leave you to it. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I reacted exactly the same! It won't need a re-write, just some tweaking of the spelling here and there. However, the use of 'car' rather than 'carriage' is probably correct since the same terminology is used on the London Underground -- a hang-over from its early days and American financial backers! -- but you should use the terminology used by DLR themselves. I would expect conversion to British English will be a requirement to achieve GA status. -- EdJogg (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You utter swine, forcing me to edit this article (couldn't escape its clutches!!) I have now removed all obvious Americanisms (there weren't many), and the banner on this page. :o)

EdJogg (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you calling me a swine? And I am wondering what "Americanisms" did you remove? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 08:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, and no...sorry, forgot I wasn't talking to a British editor! (Here, swine = bounder = cad = me just being silly and 'complaining' that you 'compelled' me to edit the article. Please think no more of it!)

Re 'Americanisms', the only ones I found and removed were the parameters forcing the convert templates to use US spelling -- EdJogg (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Towards GA?

I believe it is the intention of this article's regular contributors to attempt to push this article towards GA status. Considering it is currently rated 'C'-class, there is a fair way to go.

I have been through the article and done some tidying up:

• Images rationalised -- poor-quality images removed - there are lots to chose from at Commons
• Images re-arranged -- gallery sections are generally discouraged, but there is insufficient space for all the images at present. As this page covers numerous types, a larger than usual number of images is appropriate
  • As yet there is no image in the article of a driver's console, although there is a suitable example at Commons
  • Commons also has a picture of a collector shoe, which could be added to a 'technical' section
• Modified the lede -- this now provides a better overview of the page, although it needs to be improved, most easily done once the rest of the article is in shape
• Provided an overview section -- this should perhaps list common features, with the type-specific history being moved to the sub-sections
• Not modified the Info box -- Each type should really have its own info box, with the article-top box being for common features -- this may highlight the need to split the article into sub-articles for each type in due course
• General copy-editing -- eg removal of 'pretty' quotes and double-quotes, and adjustment of English

Incidentally, there are now sub-categories at Commons for all(?) the stock types listed here. However, many of the pictures are still in the parent category and need sorting. This should be an easy task for someone (I did 4-5 while editing).

EdJogg (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a picture of the new DLR rolling stock? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 08:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

'fraid not. Only been on DLR a few times, and certainly not recently. -- EdJogg (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Doors on P89 stock

This section says 'the P89s were rebuilt with sliding doors', but doesn't mention what sort of doors they had originally? Talltim (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Formation

The "Formation" section of the infobox currently reads "2 cars per trainset, planned upgrade to 3 cars per trainset".

This is confusing at best and wrong at worst. Trains are formed of 1, 2 or 3 cars coupled together (although service trains are all 2 or 3 car for capacity reasons). Each car has two articulated halves which are permanently connected, with ends numbered e.g. 104A and 104B. There are no semi-permanent connections, and there are no plans to convert the cars to three articulated segments. The halves cannot run separately as noe of the three bogies is under the centre articulation. Thryduulf (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I dont see the problem then, all are 2 or 3 car trainsets in normal operation. The cars are articulated in the centres. Its not really that complicated (Though a certain union leader says they are now 30% harder to drive and driver pay should therefore be raised accordingly). WatcherZero (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

To me a "trainset" is a (semi-)permanently coupled set of cars that comprise a multiple unit or rake of power-car(s)+carriages (like a HST). This usage means that the phrase I quote above implies that each numbered DLR currently comprises 2 semi-permanently coupled vehicles and that they will soon be upgraded to 3 semi-permanently coupled cehicles with the addition of an extra articulated section. In the real world, service trains comprise 2 or 3 trainsets (per this definition), each comprising one vehicle. Thryduulf (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Compare it to another vehicle, say a 142, thats two cars permanently coupled together to form one set (though with no articulation), if it was mainly formed in service of two units joined together you would say the trainset was two units long, even though it would be 4 cars. I guess the confusion is over whether one articlated unit is a set of two cars or a single car, but most classes cant actually be split even if multiple cars long. WatcherZero (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

My main complaint is that the word "trainset" used as it is is confusing about which is meant. Instead of "2 cars per trainset, planned upgrade to 3 cars per trainset" perhaps "2 or 3 articulated cars per train" would be better (the upgrade is no longer planned, it's happened everywhere except the Beckton branch where the infrastructure works are nearly complete). Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree rewording may be needed, how about 'trainsets are formed from either two or three articulated two car units' or 'units are two cars long with an articulated centre which may be formed into sets of two or three units' they are essentially two car units, whats really confusing is you can have some light rail vehicles which have three or even five articulations with very short sections which cant really be described as cars in their own right, in this case however I believe cars are the best description. The Wiki Articulated Rail Car page describes it similarly though in this case trainsets are formed from more than one unit:

Articulated cars are rail vehicles which are consist of a number of smaller, lighter cars which are semi-permanently attached to each other and which share common trucks. They are much longer than single passenger cars, and on the TGV Réseau, for example, 8 cars are joined this way. Because of the difficulty and cost of separating each car from the next, they are nearly always operated as a single unit, often called a trainset.

WatcherZero (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that suggestion is that the DLR themselves always use "car" only to mean the same as a unit, i.e. the vehicle consisting of two articulated halves. They use "train" to mean 1, 2 or 3 coupled cars. Using these terms to mean anything else in a DLR context is inaccurate.

I don't recall seeing them ever use the term "trainset", but I am prepared to be corrected on this. I also don't recall how they refer to the articulated portions of each car (but then I don't think I've read any document that had a need to refer to them individually). Thryduulf (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Reading the TfL Franchise agreement with SERCO looking for terminology it does refer to the 'three car project' though always in quotations and seems to be the only usage of 'car' in the several thousand page document, most frequently it uses the words 'vehicle' and more rarely 'unit' of which several units may form a 'train'. The brochure from Bombardier for the vehicles calls them both 'vehicles' and 'trains' consisting of 'two modules'. Since there doesnt appear to be a consistent approach from Tfl/Docklands/Bombardier I propose that normal nationally/internationally used terminology is used as it is more likely to be understood and correctly interpreted by a wider audience. WatcherZero (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the upgrade works associated with the addition of a third vehicle to each train has been widely referred to, officially and unofficially, as the "three car project" and the "three carriage project", e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9] (pdf page 2). Using "car" to mean something other than how it is used in all these references is clearly wrong, regardless of whether this matches the international norm or not. On the DLR, "car", "unit" and "vehicle" are synonymous. The vehicles are not like the London Underground S stock where trains consist of 7 or 8 cars (almost) permanently coupled but where cars can be removed if really needed, the two halves of a DLR unit cannot be separated. Thryduulf (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

However in Manchester, Nottingham, Sheffield and Croydon these same articulated vehicles are refered to as two car which demonstrates that nationally it is the wider used term, wiki must reflect the understanding of its audience not local slang in article writing, though explanations of differing local terminology can be expressed. WatcherZero (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That is odd. It would never even occur to me to describe an articulated tram as having two cars. It is just "a tram", a single vehicle, just as a bendy bus is still just one bus. Anyway, here is my proposed rewording that should be clear and universally understood, as well a reflecting that the three car trains are now running:

2 or 3 articulated cars per train

Notice that the ambiguity melts away as soon as it is reworded clearly to say that it is 2 or 3 articulated cars, not cars with 2 or 3 articulated parts. We could say "trainset" instead of "train" if the 2 or 3 cars are semi-permanently used together, but I doubt that the average reader would gain anything from doing so. We certainly should not treat the articulated cars as consisting of two entities. As I understand it, they are fixed together when constructed and they stay fixed together for good. A half car is a component, albeit a large one, not a unit or a car in itself. Of course, there is a risk that some people might not realise what a car is but if we take care to say "articulated car" then it is made perfectly clear what we are talking about. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree "2 or 3 articulated cars per train" solves all the ambiguity problems. Taking the bendy-bus analogy further, the cars are effectively double-ended bendy-buses on rails. It doesn't matter what terminology other systems use (although in Nottingham and Croydon I believe the trams are referred to as having "segments" rather than cars, but I'd need to double check this), what matters is that we use the correct terminology for this system - I've got a feeling we have a policy or guideline to this effect, but I can't find it at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Major problem with sources

Although this article has lots of sources, most of them are either dead, inaccessible or have been updated so they no longer contain the information they apparently once did. I don't have time to fix it now, but it really needs sorting. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/docklands/specs.html

  Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

P86 last years of service

There are a few photos on Flickr dating from 1994 which show the P86 still in service: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Can these be used as sources to eliminate 1991 as the final year of withdrawal? I don't want to sound like I'm advocating WP:OR, but I travelled extensively on the DLR P86s myself in 1994–95, so 1991 was definitely not their last year of service. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Any idea when then? Feel free to edit the article with a relevant source. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 22:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Can't find anything on it, even after a variety of search terms. All I have is the first-hand knowledge (WP:OR) that I no longer saw them, or the P89s, after 1996. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Docklands Light Railway rolling stock. 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/20080803062955/http://developments.dlr.co.uk/enhancements/capacity/index.asp to http://developments.dlr.co.uk/enhancements/capacity/index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

P and B

DLR stocks have come in three main types to date - P87/P89, B90/B92/B2K and B07. The article states, without a source, that P refers to Poplar DLR depot and B to Beckton DLR depot - the principle location where these stocks were maintained. This matches what I've always heard over the years but I've not been able to find a definitive source to back this up. The closest I've found is this CityMetric article (search for "Beckton") but (a) it's quite a light-hearted piece, (b) I don't know how reliable CityMetric is generally and (c) I'm not certain our article isn't it's source for the B for Beckton snippet (at least one of the photos comes via Wikipedia).

So can anyone find where it is P for Poplar and B for Beckton in a reliable source? Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobox color

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The color contrast using white text violates all four WCAG accessibility criteria, and places the article into Category:Articles using Template:Infobox train with invalid colour combination. There is no need for discussion. Period. WP:COLOR requires that all criteria be met for accessibility reasons. Your teal color #00B2A9 with black text passes all four criteria. As I noted in my edit summary, take a look at the color tool: https://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=FFFFFF,bg=00B2A9 which illustrates this. A darker shade may meet the contrast requirements with white text. But it doesn't matter if editors contributing to this page personally believe the color contrast is better, there is a policy.— TAnthony^Talk 15:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, the white text is just simply easier to read! C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 09:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter?? You personal preference/eyesight is what doesn't matter. WE MUST COMPLY WITH ACCESSIBILITY CRITERIA. As far as I can tell, all other articles using {{DLR color}} are doing so with black text. BECAUSE OF WP:COLOR. I'm going to bring this insanity up there. And we ARE discussing it, but it is completely inappropriate to leave the article in a state which violates WP:COLOR. There are literally visually impaired people who cannot read the infobox header because of the color contrast with white. PERIOD.— TAnthony^Talk 02:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not see any other DLR article which uses black text and teal background. And if you continue reverting back when told not to, it makes it edit-warring. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 05:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• +1 to the "easier to read" camp - The black on light blue/turquoise makes it harder to read, Meeting ACCESSIBILITY is great and should be encouraged however COMMON SENSE must also be used and our readers also must be able to read the bloody text!, I'd rather our readers be able to read the text than to meet ACCESSIBILITY. –Davey2010^Talk 10:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  I certainly find white on DLR easier to read than black on DLR. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Length of carriages

The infobox claims that the DLR carriages are 28m (91ft) long. This cannot be correct: it would make them 50% longer than typical British heavy rail carriages, but it's obvious from looking at them that they're significantly shorter. I suspect that 28m is the length of a 2-car set, not a single carriage. That would make a 2-car set about eight times as long as it is tall, which seems to match side-on photographs. Can anyone find a source? Dricherby (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

DLR and National Rail use different terminology

This is a 1-car DLR train

This is a 2-car Class 195

• This FOI request says they are "28.8m coupler face to coupler face". I think the issue is with terminology - DLR refers to each vehicle as a car even though it is articulated in the middle, whereas using mainline terminology articulation occurs between cars. Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the 2006 "DLR official handbook" by Capital Transport (ISBN 1854142984) also has 28.8m listed as the length. Turini2 (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Dimensions

The dimensions, where sourced, are currently cited to an unreliable looking site that doesn't actually contain the technical information (at least currently). This FOI request includes a technical drawing of the B07 stock (see the last message in the chain, dated 27 April 2017; note the PDF didn't display in my browser but worked fine in an external reader) and it contains slight differences to this article - e.g. the floor height in the drawing is 1023mm vs 1.03m in the infobox. I'd just go through and correct it/update the sourcing, but I don't know how to cite that drawing? Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Reason for failed verification?

@Horse Eye's Back can you give an explanation for how the book reference failed verification (Pearce, Alan; Hardy, Brian; Stannard, Colin (2000). Docklands Light Railway Official Handbook. Capital Transport Publishing. ISBN 1-85414-223-2.) Did it fail because you had a copy of the book and were not able to find the referenced information, or did it fail because you haven't looked at / can't find a copy? 10mmsocket (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: is actually the one who made the claim[10]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

So did @Thryduulf read the book? If not then it should bel left to stand for now. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It has been left to stand. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

By left to stand I mean the reference, i.e. it should not be marked as "failed verification". Sorry for the confusion. I'm saying the tag should be removed. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Marking it as failed verification isn't removing it... It is being left to stand. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back I did not make the claim in the article and do not have that book (although iirc parts are available on Google Books preview). However, the claim I was mentioning (the P in P86 standing for Poplar) is not the claim that you have marked as failing verification. If you do not have access to a source you should not be marking it as failing verification. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Having just checked, there is not preview on Google Books but I have ordered a copy of the later edition. Delivery is estimated to take about a week. Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the "failed verification" claim for now. Look forward to your findings, especially if it's a source that lets you add more references to the various DLR-related articles. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Unless its been verified you can't remove that tag. I too look forward to seeing whether it can be verified. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

"the 'P' referring to Poplar depot, where they were maintained." You said "but nowhere have I ever been able to find a reliable source stating this." It is my understanding that a failed verification tag is placed following the source and not within the sourced text. Also note that it was actually you who added[11] that text to the current article back in 2006, but when you added it there was no source given Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I have both the 2000 and 198X editions of the book, will check when I get back home on Tuesday. Turini2 (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Looking through the history I doubt its in there, the person who added the citation actually removed that line[12]! It was subsequently restored by @EdJogg: [13] with no indication that it actually was verified. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I looked for sources for this in 2019 - see /Archive 1#P and B - and didn't find any then. Obviously the current source has been added to the citation since then and didn't check before making my comment on the other discussion. It seems I did originally add the claim to the article, but I hope you will forgive me for not remembering edits I made 17 years ago or for not applying 2023 standards to 2006 edits.

None of this changes however that you marked as failed verification a claim that was sourced to a book you do not have, based on a statement someone else made (and which you did not attempt to verify) about a different claim in the same article. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The edit history doesn't lie. It was never properly sourced. The current source was added in 2009, not since 2019. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. I have never claimed it was properly sourced, only that I didn't find a source in 2019. You still have not explained though why you marked as failed verification a claim entirely unrelated to any statements made by anybody in other discussions, which is sourced to a book you do not have access to. Thryduulf (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The key here is it turns out never to have been sourced to that book in the first place, in fact the only person we know for certain had access to the book removed the claim! So CN turns out to in hindsight be the appropriate tag, but we didn't know that at the beginning of the discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Now you've determined that, how about explaining why you marked a completely different claim as failing verification? Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I marked that claim. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

No you didn't. You marked the claims about unit P11 as failing verification (ambiguously all of them or just specifically the the ones related to operating the first revenue-earning service on the DLR and being the first to move in Essen. Thryduulf (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes that is how the tag works, its ambiguity has been raised before but consensus is that the ambiguity is appropriate. Would you have preferred that I remove the text entirely? That is the other policy approved solution, should I do it now? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I would have preferred you to place the tag adjacent only to citations that actually have failed verification. Even if you had placed the correct "citation needed" template, you should place it adjacent to the claim that does need a citation. Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

And what does that have to do with the content of the article or improving the article in general? If you want to yell at me for perceived misconduct do so on my talk page or a relevant noticeboard, this is not the appropriate forum. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Which statements have and have not failed verification is directly relevant to the content of the article, because a misplaced one actively misleads readers into believing that something correct is incorrect and, in some circumstances, that something (potentially) incorrect has been verified as correct. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

We are not currently discussing whether or not a statement does or does not fail verification. We settled that issue long ago, there was in fact no source even though a lack of a tag (which you already apologized for) mislead readers into thinking there was. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

When I made that comment in 2019 the article looked did not include a source for the statement:.

The fleet for the 1987 opening consisted of 11 light rail vehicles (LRVs) built in 1986 by Linke-Hofmann-Busch in Germany and numbered 01 to 11. These were referred to as P86 stock, the 'P' referring to Poplar depot, where they were maintained.

The source at that time was clearly being used to verify the number of vehicles, their builder, the unit numbers and their designation. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

So why was a CN tag not added to text which was known to be uncited? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of whether a CN tag was placed at the time - the failed verification tag is also not the appropriate one in this case if you don't have the book in question / have proof that the book doesn't mention that information! Turini2 (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but you can't know that unless you go all the way back to 2009 in the edit history. As it stood it appeared to fail verification, it only doesn't on the technicality that it was never sourced in the first place. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

My guess is that I didn't tag it as citation needed immediately because I was actively attempting to source it (which is always the best course of action) and simply didn't return to it at the time. Thryduulf (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable. Looks like the current state of affairs satisfies everyone so unless anyone wishes to raise a new content issue I will bid y'all good day. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

References