Jump to content

Talk:Moorgate tube crash/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Apparent vandalism

Apparent vandalism removed - I hope this is the right place to note this. 17:50, 17 April 2006

Moorgate Control & Dead Mans Switch

I note that my correction to the term 'Moorgate Control' has been removed - I have worked for London Underground since 1976 and when I joined the drawing office were hard at work designing 'Train Entering Terminal Sidings' for most of the underground dead end stations & sidings. The normal abreviation used is TETS - I have never heard this used and since the motivation for adding TETS was not only Moorgate but some of the other dead end siding collisions such as Tooting I can't see this being used.

The second correction was to the Term Deadmans Switch - a term I have never heard used in my 29 years - it has always been the 'Deadmans Handle'. Deadmans Switch sounds like an American term.

John Murrell

I worked on the Underground as well and we always called it the "Deadman's Handle".Britmax 11:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

7 minute round trip ?

I know the Northern City Line had short runs but it was not that short. I understand the term "round trip" as the time to do a complete circuit e.g. Drayton Park - Moorgate - Drayton Park. If that is correct then I don't believe you can call at eight stations and change ends at either Moorgate or Drayton Park) in seven minutes.Pedantic of Purley 15:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

7/7 correction to "Most killed on LU in peacetime"?

Does this need altering to take into account the 7/7 bombings, or should it be changed to "In a single incident?" --jacksonj04 10:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No. it is correct as it stands. In the July 7th bombings the number killed on the London Underground (excluding the bombers themselves) was:

Russell Sq:26 Aldgate:7 Edgware Rd:6

Total 39

Even if you include the bombers themselves that makes 42 which is still fewer than those who died at the scene of the accident at Moorgate.--Pedantic of Purley 16:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Suicide?

"However, in a 2006 Channel 4 documentary, a relative who interviewed the coroner that conducted the investigation was told (strictly off the record) that he believed that it was suicide by the driver."

If it's strictly off the record, I don't think it should be in the article and particularly not in the first paragraph. After all, another theory is that he suffered some kind of seizure. Wsbhopkin 08:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Driver Newson's drinking habits

The article gives the impression that Driver Newson did not drink alcohol. My recollection (unaffected, I hope, by the 31 years which have elapsed since the inquiry) is that newspapers, TV and radio all made the point that, according to his family, he _did_ drink, but only a bottle (half-pint) of brown ale, with his evening meal. (This involves a very small quantity of alcohol - brown ale at the time being typically about 3.0% - 3.4% ABV.) I have not consulted the printed record to prove this, but I am reasonably sure of my recollection. Hair Commodore 20:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

yes i have just listened to the bbc radio 4 program "In living memory" on 2 dec 2009, which suggested substantial quantity was found in the drivers body in the autopsy, but like the article says this may have been due to bacterial degredation due to the amount of time the body was left. however this theory was contested by the doctors who conducted the post mortem. i think the article should be changed

Ghosts?

I recently saw a documentary on underground London where underground workers mentioned strange happenings etc. I'm not a believer in UFOs, spiritualism, poltergeists and all the rest of it but it did make me wonder. My mum drove trains on the Central and District Lines for over 20 years: she says many drivers and guards had such experiences which they were unable to rationally account for. Perhaps Driver Newsom may have 'seen something' at the end of the tunnel...? Certainly none of the explanations put forward seem convincing. And this is not meant to distract or trivialise in any way whatsoever the seriousness of the tragedy: as a 9 yr old I well remember being very upset by the news reports. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that speculating along these lines is particularly helpful. While the other explanations all have flaws, this is unconnected conjecture and wouldn't be relevant to the article. Brilliantine (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

More on suicide

On the possiblity of suicide the article currently states "This theory is, however, not widely held, having been discounted by the two official investigations into the crash".

This isn't true. The official report (available at http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoE_Moorgate1975.pdf) has the following to say:

"In the circumstances, the possibility that the collision was the outcome of a deliberate, suicidal act cannot be ignored, although there is no positive evidence to support it."

And in conclusion:

"Whether his behaviour was deliberate or whether it was the result of a suddenly arising physical condition not revealed as a result of the post-mortem examination, there is not sufficient evidence to establish."

I think it's perhaps a little misleading to say that the suicide theory is "not widely held" and has been "discounted" by official investigations.

What do other people think?

Christidy 02:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree; I've made what I hope is an appropriate change to the article. Tevildo (talk) 11:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Greatest loss of life

There is a problem with the following statement.

in what was the second greatest loss of life on the London Transport system in peacetime (the first being the 7 July 2005 London bombings).

It says "WAS the second greatest loss" which would imply that in 1975 there had been a worse incident. ie not the 2007 bombing. Secondly, a previous comment states that the Moorgate incident had a greater loss of life than the 7/7 bombing. I do not know the true facts though, I am just pointing out the anomaly. MortimerCat (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The fatalities for 7/7 were 39 tube passengers, 13 bus passengers, and the four bombers, for a total of 56. Moorgate was (and is to this day) the greatest loss of life on the London _Underground_, but not the London _Transport_ system (i.e., under the auspices of TfL and its predecessors). Perhaps this needs clarification? Tevildo (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
(Peacetime, of course. The biggest wartime incident was Bethnal Green, with 173 fatalities.) Tevildo (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The contribution of the tunnel diameter to the casulty rate at Moorgate

I believe the comment "The incident would have not been so bad...." etc is incorrect and should be removed. I was a scientist working on rail safety systems at the time and, along with my associates, followed the course of both the inquest and the inquiry on a daily basis. I distinctly remember, although I am unable to find reference to the fact in the official record, that the larger size of tunnel bore actually helped reduce the death toll by allowing the cars to ride over each other rather than "telescoping". I recall evidence by a senior fire service incident control officer that the vast majority of the fatalities were in the driving motor car and the injured were in the car squeezed above the first car against the roof of the tunnel. Had the tunnel been of normal tube stock side, the deceleration forces in the second and subsequent cars would have been much more severe, leading to a higher death toll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmartinsmith2004 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

increased the speed

This text removed from article and moved here:

I haven't found any evidence for the statement that the drive "had actually increased the speed of the train"! It is false. The only evidence for that is what some passangers said that "it looked like" he was quickening or that they had the impression... which contradicted a guard who was at the station with his opinion that the train wasn't quickening. If you have ever been in subway and witnessed a train that is not stopping in the station, you probably know that it always looks like it goes unbelievably quickly and dangerously - it gives this impression... The fact that the driver didn't put his hands in front of his face doesn't prove anything too... The only fact that is really relevant is that he was holding the emergency brake till the end - which is the only reasonable behavior, the only responsible reaction... - User:81.0.251.130

In concur that there is no evidence in the record to suggest that the motorman increased speed as he entered the platform area. Passengers on the train gave collaborating evidence that the cars shook badly as they passed over the turnout at the platform approach which might have slowed them slightly. Any subsequent increase in speed would have been due to less rolling resistance as the last car cleared the turnout. All the platform passengers gave basically the same description: The motorman did did not move at all and appeared to be looking straight ahead. The postmortem confirmed that he hands were both on the controls in their normal operating positions at the moment of impact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmartinsmith2004 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Moorgate tube crash

I have a copy of the official accident report and in it some woman shrink (I think) puts it down to something called "Akinesis and Mutation" or something like that where the mind goes blank even though you're in total control of what you're doing. I think that's what maybe happened here. I remember reading that the driver drank a beer with his breakfast, kind of odd but only ONE - hardly a DUI!

Have you ever gone to work every day, on the same streets, passing the same gas stations, same stores, same points of interest, same old lady selling flowers, same old guy hawking newspapers and come up to a red light and don't recall seeing any of it? Yet you didn't crash, swerve off the road, run over a pedestrian?? I think that's what happened. When you drive a familiar road you get "tunnel vision' sometimes. The 'tunnel vision' here was literal/ rodster1999@charter.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.254.213 (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Victims

According to a medical witness featured in this radio programme, "all" were black. That should be mentioned if the source is acceptable, or a better, more specific one is available. If in any doubt on this topic, if the crash had happened in, e.g. Africa, and all or most victims were Caucasian that would almost certainly be mentioned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p2hy4/In_Living_Memory_Series_11_Moorgate/

EdX20 (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Belated response, the comments in the programme did not relate to skin tone, but to the fact that the victims of the incident were 'black' from the sheer amount of dust that had been thrown up by the impact and subsquent events...

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Moorgate tube crash

I question "Moorgate tube crash" since these lines are not part of the Tube network? Are they? Gordo (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The line was part of the London Underground system (Nothern Line) at the time of the crash and almost all contemporary news articles talk of the Moorgate tube crash or the crash at Moorgate tube station. Mighty Antar (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Moorgate tube crash

I read about this decision after Moorgate to put a 'trip cock' on signals. I drove the Underground in the 70's on the Northern Line (but never that branch)and ALL our signals had emergency brake trip cocks. You simply couldn't run a red signal without tripping the emergency break. It's a long time ago but, if I recall correctly, when training they purposely made you run a red signal at a slow speed to activate the Westinghouse so that you'd know how to reset the train. If my history serves me correctly I think this was something invented around the turn of the century. Was I dreaming??

I'd like to hear from anyone with an answer to this question - rodster1999@charter.net

Trip cocks at signals were standard on that line but to get into a station you had to pass a clear signal (or a caution signal) so no trip cock in entrance signal hence subsequent development use of trip cocks plus timer to get speed control. Very simple - if you get from timing initiation point to trip cock before it has time to lower to let you pass you are going to fast and it will stop you. Same principle used for Network Rail TPWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.21.201 (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.254.213 (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is made elsewhere in the article that at the time trains were signalled green into terminal stations. Therefore there would not have been a red signal nor a train stop. Even if there was a distant signal warning of the tunnel end (unlikely), this would not have had a train stop as they are only used at stop signals.--Zipperdeedoodah (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Law-sensitive section

"80 mg/100ml is the current UK legal limit for driving a car[11] (the limit at the time of the accident was higher)"

The above is sensitive to the current status of alcohol driving laws, and is a rather obtuse reference point due to the changing standards. Maybe the "current" law should be described in a way which is less ambiguous, such as the date the current law took effect. I don't know the customs for referring to British laws. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

--I'm not at all sure the limit at the time for driving a car was higher. The article I found said the limit of 80 was introduced in the 1960s - also it is no longer a UK wide limit, the limit in Scotland was reduced to 50. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomez2002 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Moorgate protection

I can't parse this sentence referring to Moorgate protection: "The normal stopping position for a train is considered to have a signal fixed at danger and improved arrestors are placed beyond this point." What does "considered to have a signal fixed at danger" mean? Perhaps there is some railroad jargon that needs to be clarified. Mnudelman (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup, with you on that one. Now done with a bit more detail. Dr Sludge (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Accident Details are not unwarranted

After doing some research and finding some very important details about the accident I inserted a series of quotes directly from a 1970s journal article written by one of the first respondents. This was removed because it was deemed "unwarranted".

The sort of detail in this edit is not uncommon to other disaster-based article on Wikipedia. From Hyatt Regency walkway collapse we have the following quote:

Those people who could walk were instructed to leave the hotel to simplify the rescue effort; those mortally injured were told they were going to die and given morphine. Often, rescuers had to dismember bodies in order to reach survivors among the wreckage. One victim's right leg was trapped under an I-beam and had to be amputated by a surgeon, a task which was completed with a chainsaw.

Other disaster articles have similar levels of detail.

The details of this accident should remain because a) they were written by a direct eyewitness and first responder, and b) because the level of detail is no worse than many other disaster articles on Wikipedia.

--One Salient Oversight (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Please do not change the refs at Moorgate tube crash from WP:SFN to any other style, without first discussing it. Doing so unilaterally does not just break the links, it also goes against WP:CITEVAR. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. The article had more than one variant of style, I am standardising to one of the formats. (This is the state of the article prior t my first edit, and it shows more than one format used.) As I am in the process of completely re-writing the article, I am doing it in the method I understand, rather than making a mess of a system I do not understand. If you wish to wikilawyer over something so petty, rather than using common sense to allow the article to develop, you should be asking yourself if you are being constructive or obstructive in your approach. (And don't worry about saying well done or thank you for completing the reference that had completely missed out one of the authors: just focus on the least important part of the article – the part that readers can't see and don't care about – and do the most heavy-handed thing you can!)
Thread moved from my talk page, which is an inappropriate venue to discuss an article's development. – Sigersson (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
@Sigersson: You have not been editing Wikipedia for very long: your very first edit was to this article, just twelve days ago. Prior to your edit, the refs were a mixture of two styles: there were 24 instances of {{sfn}} in conjunction with three instances of {{cite book}} or {{cite web}} at the bottom (this is WP:SFN); there were also 10 instances of <ref>...</ref> tags enclosing a Citation Style 1 template (2 {{cite book}}, 1 {{cite journal}}, 2 {{cite news}}, and 5 {{cite web}}). The only reference which did not conform to one or the other of these two styles was the MeasuringWorth one used for an inflation calculation, but apart from that, there were no other styles, and certainly no instances of a plain text ref enclosed in <ref>...</ref> tags, which is the style which you are enforcing. By a simple majority, WP:SFN was the previously-favoured style.
Not understanding a system is not an excuse to alter the referencing style: and is certainly not a good reason to alter it to a style that was not previously in use on the article. If you did not understand, all you needed to do was to ask: there are plenty of us around. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for telling me when I began editing; I had already pointed out the state of the article prior to my first edit, so I have a fairly good idea of when I began editing. I am glad you acknowledge that there is a mixture of citation formats present on the page. I will ensure that during the re-writing process the citations are made consistent throughout; it is a WP:COMMONSENSE pathway, rather than going round in circles over the minutiae that does not affect the readability or standard of the article. – Sigersson (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Consistency is one thing: but it should be consistency with one of the two styles which were already present. Imposing a third is not "a WP:COMMONSENSE pathway". Wikipedia is a collaborative project which works by consensus: disagreements are discussed, ideally before things go too far. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Are you going to insist that things are done in a confusing way that insists on some level of coding knowledge that scares off non-exexpert editors, or are you going to allow this article to just develop with the important bit: the content? The format of references is such a minute point that I cannot believe you are wikilawyering over something so inconsequential. I just want to re-write this, raising the standard of content to a higher level; I do not want to have to learn bloody coding when I am using a normal Wiki standard, nor do I want to argue the toss over something so pointless as the flaming reference formatting. – Sigersson (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
If it's a minute point, why did you not leave the ref style alone and ask for help in putting new refs into the same style? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Aside from the fact I've half answered that point above, I'll let you answer the ones I have already asked. I'll point out that my free time is short, and I'd rather spemd it adding pertinent content to the article rather than pointless conversations of little benefit to anyone, particularly with someone who has left unsubstantiated and snide insinuations on the Railways project page. – Sigersson (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sigersson: - Redrose64 is correct, {{sfn}} was the preferred style before you started editing. It's not a hard template to use, and is useful where a large number of book references are used in an article. Mjroots (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

1. Does it really matter if it is changed from one style to another, aside from a rather silly rule? 2. Are readers (remember them) going to give a toss about which version is used as long as a better version of the article is present? 3. Are editors really so hung up on the pointless minutiae of the format that they will stall the article's development just on a point of dubious "principle"?
There was an inconsistent use of templates present before. I am, during the process of the re-write, making it consistent with one of the standards used by Wikipedia. The article will be better than the rather tawdry version present, without the over-long, copyright-infringing quote that passes for a lazy subsistute for text in the middle of the article. It's a WP:COMMONSENSE step to allow the article to develop into something much better than it currently stands, without the inflexible adherence to a minor guideline.
As a reminder to those who have not bothered to look at WP:COMMONSENSE, it says "Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation." – Sigersson (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it does matter, because it could be seen as enforcing your own preference upon everybody else, and that is against WP:OWN. If you wanted consistency, the consistency should have been with one of the two existing styles, not some imagined "consistency" with something that had simply not been there previously. I will point out that WP:CITEVAR is not a "rather silly rule", it stems directly from an ArbCom decision more than eleven years ago.
Wikipedia:Ignore all rules does not give you carte blanche to do what you want; you have mentioned WP:COMMONSENSE several times, I will direct you to the section immediately above that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Right, fuck it, if you are going to be so crass as to ignore what I have written and be so petty as to insist it is your way and no other, then I shall leave this article alone on the sub-standard state it is. Well done for some idiotic admining, some crass decision making, an inflexible mindset and a complete lack of common sense and perspective. This is a poorly writtem article, it contains incorrect information that is not supported by the citations, whichever fucking format they are in, and a bloody great copyright-infringing quote in the middle. If you are not a good enough copy editor t see that, and are only interested in enforcing rather silly little rules, rather than allowing an article to develop, then you are an obstructive bad influence on this article, rather than a benefit. – Sigersson (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong spelling on the plaque?

On the plaque it says: "IN MEMORY OF THE FORTY THREE PEOPLE […]". Shouldn't this be spelled "forty-three" (with a hyphen)? --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sigersson: You wrote "no hyphen when the phrase is used predicatively". Where is that specified? All sources I found say that numbers from 21 to 99 in front of nouns are hyphenated. --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Re-write

As I'm sure all article watchers will have noticed, I've been re-writing this article over the last few weeks. In terms of the major work it's mostly done, with the exception of the lead, which I am working on now. After I've tweaked and copy edited it, I intend to take it to PR, and them hopefully to FAC. Those processes are great for examining the prose, etc, but less strong on technical subject matters. I know this article falls under the train project (and others), and before I go to PR, I'd be interested in hearing from people if there are any gaps or errors I may have introduced on the technical side of things, about which I know little. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat - I fear I won't have much to contribute on the technical side, but yes, I had very much noticed your rewrite and wanted to compliment you on the excellent job. It's a colossal improvement to this important and interesting article. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks DBaK. I'm glad you think it's looking good so far. I need to do a couple more read throughs to get it right, and I'll wait for a few more days to see is any of the page watchers or stewards can see anything untoward in what I've written (and thank you Redrose64 for the 'cabin to cab' changes) and I'll take it to PR for a further brush up then. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Northern City Line as a stand-in for the Tube?

Hello. With the greatest respect, I'm not sure that this edit was correct. It changed The last London Underground services ran into Moorgate on 4 October 1975 ... into The last Northern City Line services ran into Moorgate on 4 October 1975 .... My problem with this is that I think the earlier version was more accurate - the older, ceasing, services were indeed operated by London Underground. Changing it to Northern City Line seems less accurate, because, as our own Northern City Line article makes clear, it's a label – not official, but widely used – for the line itself; that is, its physical reality in tunnels, track, signals, stations etc – the infrastructure. So I don't really think we can say that Northern City Line stopped when in one sense they never ran, and in another sense they are still doing so! I think the move from LU to BR is most elegantly shown with the older wording, which I have restored for now. Your mileage may, however, vary, so I will watch with interest for what others think, and don my flameproof trousers just in case. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi DBaK. The problem with the old wording, "The last London Underground services ran into Moorgate on 4 October 1975 ..." is that it's incorrect. London Underground services continued to run, and still do. It's just that the Old Street to Moorgate service which was (informally?) called the Northern City Line stopped running into Moorgate. Any thoughts on how to re-work what we carrently have so that it is less inaccurate? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh yes of course you're right! Doh. I was so focused on the accident and on that station that I had somewhat forgotten the rather significant rest of the place. Sorry. The only really obvious thing to do is perhaps to combine the two so that it's absolutely clear what we mean: The last London Underground services on the Northern City Line ran into Moorgate on 4 October 1975 ... or something along those lines. I do see the problem, that you can't stop the tube services without disambiguation - maybe this fixes it?? Cheers DBaK (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Would The last Northern City service ran into... work for you? – SchroCat (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about the slow reply. I hate to be pedantic but I still feel there should be a reference to it being the last Underground service on the line, otherwise it may sound as if we are confused about the relationship between the line and the services run on it. Sorry ... best wishes and in haste DBaK (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks DBaK, and no worries about the pause! I've adjusted per your suggestion. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
That works very well for me. Thank you for your endless patience! Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing problem

Fellow IP, Please don’t edit war over a sourcing matter on an FA. Linking to the BFI site just confuses the issue, but I see what you are trying to do. For a documentary, you need to use the proper information - not linking it to a page that refers to the documentary. You need to put when it was broadcast, what tv channel and when in the documentary the information was given. Alternatively you could see if the same information is referred to in other reliable sources. 109.249.185.61 (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

In fairness @109.249.185.61:, you were edit waring as much as me. I didn't put the source in - its been there for years and has been used for other information in the article. So obviously if I'd put the source in I wouldn't have linked it to BFI and would have just referenced the documentary, but that's the source that's already on the list. I'll put it in properly now. I tried sending you a message on your talk page about half an hour ago but you don't seem to want to admit to your error. 217.137.43.61 (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The BFI reference that has been there for years shows that a documentary took place (ie it did the job it was intended to do - just confirming that such a thing existed.
You need to add a new reference showing all the information I’ve outlined above (see Template:Cite AV media for the template needed and the information you need to show). I am happy to help if you cannot get it to work properly.
I saw, but I was opening the thread here, which was more important. The error in source formatting is yours, as you can see. 109.249.185.61 (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Despite my attempts to explain this for you you don't seem to understand anything. I'll say again: I didn't add the Me, My Dad and Moorgate source, it's been there for ages and was added (not properly, as you say) by another editor long ago. I also didn't add the content we're alluding to here, so I don't see how the source formatting error was mine. It was the error of the editor who added that source in. 217.137.43.61 (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
We seem to be talking at cross purposes here, and you’ve misunderstood what I was trying to say - obviously I didn’t phrase it well enough, so let me try and break it down a bit.
The Me, My Dad and Moorgate source has been there for years supporting information in the “In the media“ section. That is correctly formattend and a good reference.
That same source (ie the BFI source) is not good enough to support the additional information that was removed.
If you want to re-add something deleted, the WP:BURDEN is on you to ensure it is correct (ie, you need to have seen the documentary) and that the source is clearly done. In this case, you need to say where in the documentary the words were used. The Template:Cite AV media template is the correct one to use.
I hope this clarifies, but please let me know if there is anything still unclear in what I’ve written. 109.249.185.61 (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I didn't need that to be clarified, you already told me the first time and I understood it, which is more than what can be said for you. Furthermore, what you've said there is incorrect. The inadequate BFI reference to the programme was there for years in the Bibliography section, and was not added by me. Whoever added it did not format the reference correctly. That is clear. Considering I was not the one who added it incorrectly, nor was I the one who added the information that is cited to the already incorrectly formatted bibliographic reference, it was not my error. I'm not talking about the "In the media" section, that's referenced to a different source (and as you say, correctly). I'm talking about the content referring to the overshoots earlier in the week of the accident.
I've re-added the stuff now with a correctly formatted source. I personally have seen the documentary and still have a copy of it, so I know the information that you removed from the article was correct, thats why I'm re-adding it.
I hope this clarifies, but please let me know if there is anything still unclear in what I’ve written. 217.137.43.61 (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
You’re being rather aggressive in this, so I’m dropping out. I’ve reworked that formatting so it’s done properly and tweaked the text so it’s in line with how it should be done. 109.249.185.61 (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
109.249.185.61, I would like to know your full reasoning behind this edit. Your edit summary is "Ce", which is normally understood to mean "Copyedit" - but you did a lot more than that. Your edit included, for example, the reversion of several perfectly valid edits, such as this bot edit and two by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), which amounts to a regression. To be exact, you reverted 25 edits all at once, since the version of 01:07, 27 August 2020 and your version are exactly the same. It seems as if you were hoping that people would habitually skip over edits marked "Ce", enabling you to sneak through a controversial change without being noticed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Because most of the changes were not beneficial to the article. Yes, I should have noticed the bot changes, but the rest were not advances to the article (OVERLINKING, breaches of the MOS, use of US commas before quotes, etc, etc). As to what I was or was not “hoping” for: you don’t know what I was thinking or hoping for, so please comment on the content, not the contributor. 109.249.185.61 (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I believe my only non-revert edits impacted by the change concerned the content matter discussed above, so as that seems to be sorted I'm not fussed about it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Soot and dirt was or were disturbed??

Header says it all really. It's been "was" for ages then back and forth and I'm tending to think "were", but maybe better to discuss here first. I'll revert my most recent flip pending a chat here. I hope 213.205.194.214 among others might turn up to discuss. Best to all DBaK (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi DBaK, I think it’s better as ‘was’, but there could be an argument for ‘were’, I suppose. It’s one act of disturbance and – to some extent – one thing (‘rubbish’) being disturbed. Cheers 213.205.194.214 (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough! I am less than fully convinced of my own rightness here so happy to leave it. Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I’ve been mulling this over for a couple of days, and I think both sound right and wrong, depending on which way the wind is blowing, but I’m still unsure. Tim riley, do you have a thought on which is best? - 213.205.194.46 (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Footnote query

There's a footnote added in this edit by Vpab15 which explains the Underground > British Rail shift of the line. I am not sure it's needed as it is explained once at the end of the lead then again in detail in the body. What do others think? I am not strongly hostile enough to it to just waste a good-faith edit without other views ... cheers DBaK (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be good to mention Northern City Line is no longer part of the Underground when first mentioned, to avoid confusion with the Northern Line. Happy to have some other formula instead of a note, something like: on the Northern City Line, then part of London Underground. Vpab15 (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I've taken it out - it's not lede-worthy to have it, I think, as it's only a minor point in the whole story. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:A0A8:E440:6146:BEEE (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Made impact?

At the moment we say when the driver's cab made impact with the hydraulic buffer. Is that a Thing in English? You can make contact but can you make impact? It sounds odd to me but I am getting that thing where if you look at something too long it's all wrong! Just tell me it is or is not OK and I will shut up about it ... cheers DBaK (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

As a UK English speaker it reads fine and FA-appropriately to me. A Google search throws up 112,000 hits for "made impact with". Many are for different meanings, but from the first page of these is the fairly typical "Anyone who has been in a car accident where the vehicle made impact with another object will understand ..." Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
As a UK English speaker it seems slightly odd to me. A Google search throws up 8,430,000 hits for "made contact with" (and "soot and dirt were disturbed" if these are considered to be two things).catslash (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
It is absolutely fine in BrEng, but as I suspect others will pick up on it next week, I've tweaked to "when the driver's cab crashed into the hydraulic buffer", which is less contentious, grammatically speaking. If anyone wants to tweak that, please feel free. Cheers - SC, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:A0A8:E440:6146:BEEE (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for this and sorry for the slow reply. Obviously I don't really have the BrE qualifications to discuss it, as I only speak a sort of grunting simulacrum of the Quen's Ynglisshe, but I am much happier with it in this form, which sounds much more acceptable to my no-doubt cloth ears. Cheers! DBaK (talk) 10:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Cheers DBaK! I hope you're keeping well. - SC as 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:1D4C:5458:CBD8:E267 (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
OK so far, thank you ... :) DBaK (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Reverts of edits

2a00:23c7:2b86:9800:1d4c:5458:cbd8:e267,

The quote in question is a comma splice. "Go easy on it" is one sentence; "I shall want another cup when I come off duty" is another. They are related; but joining them together with a comma is incorrect. Also, please do not revert entire edits when you disagree with a single change in that edit. That is considered disruptive. DesertPipeline (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: As MOS:CONFORM explains, simple typographical errors can be corrected when unimportant. The meaning of the sentence is not changed by replacing the comma with a semicolon; it is just being corrected. DesertPipeline (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the template documentation: I'm not going to follow an instruction which doesn't make sense. If you want to try substituting the anchor in the heading yourself (which is what it's saying to do – not just to have the template call in the heading, which breaks it) then you will see why it's a poor choice. DesertPipeline (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  • DesertPipeline, Thanks you for finally coming to the talk page, but please, please, please stop edit warring. WP:BRD and WP:STATUS QUO are both quite clear on this and you need to at least try to stick to the rule that if your edit is challenged, you talk about it, not constantly edit war to your preferred version. The original version - the WP:STATUS QUO remains in place while the discussion continues. Full comments coming shortly. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:1D4C:5458:CBD8:E267 (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    This is a dispute between only you and I. As no other person has objected to my edit, there is no "status quo" at the moment. Also, as I said in an edit summary, if you object to part of an edit, you should change back only what you object to rather than reverting the entire thing. I've now added the substituted anchor to the page; hopefully you now understand why this is a bad choice. DesertPipeline (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Nope. That's really not how BRD works. This article went through both PR and FAC and is largely unchanged since. That's a rather strong consensus to back up a very solid status quo. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:1D4C:5458:CBD8:E267 (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    This is a dispute between only you and I. As no other person has objected to my edit ... well OK, then I object also, at least in principle to you making and remaking the edit and not wanting to discuss it till now. So I am happy to see it being discussed here, which per WP:BRD is what should have happened anyway. Whatever the outcome, discussion is better than bulldozing. Best to all DBaK (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
The quote is fine as it is, there is no real comma splice, and the comma is correct. Yes, if I were writing it, I may well have used a semi-colon (or maybe not), but as it's a quote, we may as well keep the original given it is acceptable English.
Please do not claim that I reverted an entire edit when I disagreed with just one change: that is untrue, and rather disingenuous of you to claim it, given one of my edit summaries reads "Some other changes were not improvements from the WP:STATUS QUO". I disagreed with everything I reverted, and left in the bits that I did not disagree with.
Regarding the template documentation. It is there, whether you choose to like it or not. There are swathes of the MoS I disagree with, but I am still bound by their advice despite that. I see you have queried the change to the template, which is fine, but the consensus is against you on the point at the moment. Fell free to change the position of the anchor once the consensus changes on the documentation. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:1D4C:5458:CBD8:E267 (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
there is no real comma splice
They are independent clauses. Therefore, joining them together with a comma is a comma splice.
Please do not claim that I reverted an entire edit when I disagreed with just one change: that is untrue, and rather disingenuous of you to claim it, given one of my edit summaries reads "Some other changes were not improvements from the WP:STATUS QUO". I disagreed with everything I reverted, and left in the bits that I did not disagree with.
You gave no rationale for that. You must give a rationale for every part of an edit you revert.
Regarding the template documentation. It is there, whether you choose to like it or not.
Template documentation is not binding; please review Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_222#Instructions_on_the_placement_of_"Anchor"_templates and you will see that there was not actually a consensus for the change made anyway. DesertPipeline (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation, and the two sources (one an official government report) also think the comma is suitable
As I pointed out, I gave a rational for it ("Some other changes were not improvements from the WP:STATUS QUO"), even if you dislike that rationale
It doesn't matter your opinion on the documentation. I've been involved in stacks of discussions that came to the "wrong" answer, but at the end of the day I've accepted the decision that was mae. Have it overturned by all means, but until then, the version that is in line with the documentation should stay. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:1D4C:5458:CBD8:E267 (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation, and the two sources (one an official government report) also think the comma is suitable
Correct grammar is not based on interpretations nor following the sources. Otherwise, MOS:CONFORM would not exist. There would be no point in saying "Correct grammatical mistakes in quotes" but also "the sources cannot be grammatically wrong".
As I pointed out, I gave a rational for it ("Some other changes were not improvements from the WP:STATUS QUO"), even if you dislike that rationale
Changes do not have to be "improvements"; they merely have to not be detrimental. However, please explain why you do not consider them improvements.
It doesn't matter your opinion on the documentation. I've been involved in stacks of discussions that came to the "wrong" answer, but at the end of the day I've accepted the decision that was mae. Have it overturned by all means, but until then, the version that is in line with the documentation should stay.
Then you have to substitute the anchor template; this is what the template documentation says to do. You are just putting the template call in the heading, which breaks it. DesertPipeline (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I've said I disagree with you and the sources obviously do (and yes, grammar can be a matter of interpretation)
In an FA, a change that is not an improvement isn't worth making. Some of the changes were slightly clumsy and disrupted the flow, and there is a difference between "continuous" and "round the clock" with more clarity in the phrase than the word.2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:1D4C:5458:CBD8:E267 (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I've said I disagree with you and the sources obviously do (and yes, grammar can be a matter of interpretation)
It is not a matter of interpretation. They are two independent clauses. Whether or not a writer would use a comma in informal writing to join them, we cannot do that on Wikipedia because we are an encylopedia. We must write correctly.
In an FA, a change that is not an improvement isn't worth making.
That is not how Wikipedia works. Nothing would get done otherwise. Everyone's opinions are going to differ on which changes are "improvements". I think my changes were improvements; you disagree. The fact is they were not detrimental – or at least you have provided no case for them being detrimental. I do not consider them detrimental or I would not have made them.
Some of the changes were slightly clumsy and disrupted the flow
Please write down each change I made that you object to, then state specifically why you oppose it.
there is a difference between "continuous" and "round the clock" with more clarity in the phrase than the word
"round-the-clock" is a colloquialism. What is unclear about continuous? It means constant. That is the same as "round-the-clock". DesertPipeline (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes it is. (See, I can also just write blunt statements that deny any questionable shades of grey to a position). I am aware of the needs for formal (but easily accessible) writing for Wikipedia. I wrote this article some time ago and it was one of a great number I took through FAC, so I think I know the standards required for writing FAs.
Umm... that's not entirely correct, particularly for an FA (see WP:FAOWN as to having to be more circumspect in making changes, rather than deciding something, edit warring, then sticking one's heels in to defend a position). It's why we have PR and FAC
Not necessarily. I work continuously through the day. I don't work in the evenings or at nights. "round the clock" (unhyphenated) is not described as a colloquial term in the OED. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:1D4C:5458:CBD8:E267 (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
It's supposed to be hyphenated. I don't know why it's not hyphenated there. It's hyphenated in Wiktionary. Also, if it's not a colloquialism, "around-the-clock" would be better. It still sounds idiomatic to me though. Now please explain your objections to every other change you reverted. DesertPipeline (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, Wiktionary says it's idiomatic. Furthermore, "I work continuously" is not the same as "I work continuously throughout the day". You have to add "throughout the day" because this is not implied by "continuously". DesertPipeline (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
So now both you and Wiktionary know better than the OED?? Goodness me. I can go through the others and point out why the existing text was better, but if you're going to argue at such length about them all, including ignoring what the OED has to say, then I'm not entirely sure that would be a terribly constructive step. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:1D4C:5458:CBD8:E267 (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
So now both you and Wiktionary know better than the OED??
You are using the argument from authority fallacy. The Oxford English Dictionary is not necessarily correct. Wiktionary lists both hyphenated and unhyphenated; considering it is a compound phrase I would assume that hyphenation is correct. It is not the main entry, though. wikt:around the clock lists it as idiomatic.
I can go through the others and point out why the existing text was better, but if you're going to argue at such length about them all, including ignoring what the OED has to say, then I'm not entirely sure that would be a terribly constructive step
If you do not provide a rationale for a reversion then your reversion is not valid. Please provide a rationale for all the changes I made which you object to. This is the final time I will ask you to do this. DesertPipeline (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Wiktionary is a heap of horse ordure that should in no way be considered a reliable authority for anything. While the OED may not be accurate 100 per cent of the time, it trumps Wiktionary and whatever you think you may know best on.
"the final time"? Please do not threaten me. You have reverted four times on this article and another would see me file at the 3RR noticeboard with the automatic results that a fifth revert would undoubtedly generate, particularly given the warnings you've been given and particularly given the justifications I have already provided. I will provide a description of the rest at some point soon, but it certainly won't be at your beck and call. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:1D4C:5458:CBD8:E267 (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Desert Pipeline has a novel interpretation of Wikipedia's modus operandi: a single drive-by editor can insist on detailed rebuttal of his/her alterations even when there is no support for any of them when raised on the article talk page? Please! Tim riley talk 12:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Glad to see you've been doing "useful" things like logging evidence that you've edit warred (yes, I have too, but I don't give enough of a toss to care if I'm blocked for a spell or not). In terms of the changes made, my thinking is as below. No doubt you'll argue against them all, and think your versions were better, but there is a well-established status quo to retain the original unless you come up with something more concrete than you prefer your version:
  • "hypotheses" v "theories". Not much between them, but 'theories' slightly better, given the various definitions in the OED:
Theory: "An explanation of a phenomenon arrived at through examination and contemplation of the relevant facts"; "More generally: a hypothesis or set of ideas about something."
Hypothesis: "A supposition in general; something supposed or assumed to be true without proof or conclusive evidence; an assumption."; "Hence spec. A groundless or insufficiently grounded supposition; a mere assumption or guess."
* "ventilation is produced by". The current version is slightly better. 1. It is "produced by" – as a process is needed to being it into being, "produced by" indicates this whereas the lack doesn't
* "20-minute spells working" – to my ear, this is more easy for general reading than " 20-minute periods of working"
* "Robinson's:" – I think the semi-colon better than just the colon here. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:78AB:6DA7:5309:9F9A (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
"hypotheses" v "theories". Not much between them, but 'theories' slightly better, given the various definitions in the OED
A theory is a testable observation of reality that current testing suggests is true. A hypothesis is a testable observation of reality which has not yet been tested thoroughly enough to determine whether or not it is likely true. Considering there are multiple hypotheses, "theory" is incorrect purely on that basis – you cannot have more than one correct theory of something. Colloquial usage has turned "theory" into "guess" or "conjecture", and "hypothesis" is essentially ignored.
"ventilation is produced by". The current version is slightly better. 1. It is "produced by" – as a process is needed to being it into being, "produced by" indicates this whereas the lack doesn't
The problem is that you have changed it back so it uses the word "create". "Create" is very commonly used as a synonym for many different words, such as "construct", "produce", "make", "author", et cetera, but it is not a synonym of them. "Create" means "something from nothing" – ventilation is caused by some sort of action. I am happy to discuss better wording which still fixes this problem.
"20-minute spells working" – to my ear, this is more easy for general reading than " 20-minute periods of working"
"Spell" is a colloquialism. Again, if you have any suggestions for a simplified sentence structure while retaining the fix, please let me know. However, I don't personally feel that my change is harder to parse. — Addendum 13:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC): What about "20-minute working periods"?
"Robinson's:" – I think the semi-colon better than just the colon here.
The text after the semicolon is explaining his conclusion, though; it should be a colon to indicate "and this is how his conclusion differed". DesertPipeline (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Ah look ... you've managed to argue the toss over all of them quelle surprise!
Only when used in in terms of a scientific theory, rather than in general use – and that doesn't make if colloquial, just general use.
'"Create" means "something from nothing"'. Not quite Yes, you're right that it is one definition of the word, but only one, and it's used correctly here.
Nope. "Spells" is not a colloquialism as far as the OED is concerned.
Not quite. It's more than just the conclusion we have after the semi colon. This is a moot point, I agree, and I think both could probably be used here, but the semi is there, and may as well remain. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:78AB:6DA7:5309:9F9A (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Only when used in in terms of a scientific theory, rather than in general use – and that doesn't make if colloquial, just general use.
Scientific theory is where the word came from. General usage is actually misuse; we're an encylopedia and shouldn't make these mistakes. It only perpetuates them.
'"Create" means "something from nothing"'. Not quite Yes, you're right that it is one definition of the word, but only one, and it's used correctly here.
This is another example of general usage being misuse. "Create" is a word only intended to mean "something from nothing"; general usage is likely out of laziness, where rather than determining the correct word to use in a sentence, people just use one which describes nothing and is incorrect. Like how on media articles, it might say "[Name] created [media name]" – that tells us nothing about what they actually did. In this instance, it's directly contradictory, because we explicitly say there was some cause, and yet then claim that ventilation is "created".
Not quite. It's more than just the conclusion we have after the semi colon. This is a moot point, I agree, and I think both could probably be used here, but the semi is there, and may as well remain.
After "his conclusions differed from Robinson's", the article says "Goulding stated that as alcohol was naturally produced in the blood after death, it was not possible to confirm that Newson had been drinking prior to the crash." I don't see anything other than the conclusion stated in this sentence (that it was not possible to confirm whether Newson had been drinking). DesertPipeline (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Language changes. You cannot say that we are not allowed to use 'general usage' simply because you don't like the way a word has evolved over time. It's changed. Dictionaries reflect the change and as we're not talking about scientific use, "theory" is entirely correct. (It's not a "mistake" as you call it: it has changed).
Ditto
Semi colon is fine here. I think we're done: there is nothing here that trumps the consensus of PR and FAC, no real reason to change, no benefits in changing. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:78AB:6DA7:5309:9F9A (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Language changes. You cannot say that we are not allowed to use 'general usage' simply because you don't like the way a word has evolved over time. It's changed. Dictionaries reflect the change and as we're not talking about scientific use, "theory" is entirely correct. (It's not a "mistake" as you call it: it has changed).
A mistake becoming accepted does not make it correct. It simply means it has been accepted. The solution to that is to identify that a mistake has actually been made and to not follow along with it simply because everyone else is doing so. What is correct is not necessarily what is popular. We must all be willing to determine what is actually correct based on logical reasoning. DesertPipeline (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
The language has changed from a narrow definition. It is accepted by major dictionaries and academic sources. Just because you don't like the change does not mean it is wrong or a mistake. We're in line with current accepted usage, the sources and dictionary definitions. I think we're done now. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:78AB:6DA7:5309:9F9A (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Because words have specific meanings – that is their purpose. It is unhelpful to use a non-descriptive word – it isn't as if there are not words available to accurately describe what is being talked about. "Everyone is doing it" is merely an excuse. There is no reason to wilfully degrade language. DesertPipeline (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
That is a sterile argument as between prescriptive and descriptive grammarians. Some of the latter, such as Burchfield in the third edition of Fowler, are prescriptive sometimes but generally take the view that current general usage is ipso facto correct, logic or historical usage notwithstanding. Tim riley talk 14:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
If an instance be needed for Desert Pipeline's benefit, by his/her precepts one should write "these data are", but nobody I know of has written that since the 1980s and now we all write "this data is", despite what we were taught in Latin lessons at school. Tim riley talk 16:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • DesertPipeline STOP EDIT WARRING! What is it you don't understand about BRD and STATUS QUO. There is absolutely no excuse for your approach here. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:1D4C:5458:CBD8:E267 (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    • The attitude of a few editors never fails to astonish me. Desert Pipeline, whose English is so poor that he/she imagines "between you and I" is grammatically correct, thinks the main author and all the reviewers at peer review and FAC were wrong, and he/she right. A little humility and respect for consensus might be in order. Tim riley talk 11:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
      An article only gets promoted to Featured status if a strong consensus has been reached that it is in good shape as it stands. (And specifically that its prose as it stands is of a "professional standard".) Other than correcting the occasional obvious error it is unusual for significant changes to be made to the prose of FAs. WP:FAOWN says "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first." (emphasis added). A little more consideration by editors may help re any fine tuning which this fine article may require. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to chime in and say I support User:DesertPipeline and User:DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered's changes to commas and anchors. I think they fixed some of my attempts to fix it, so I would agree there as well. I am ambivalent on "round-the-clock" vs "continuous".
    But I would overall point out also that WP:FAOWN refers to significant changes. Fixing a comma splice is hardly a "significant" change. A "fine-tune" is not something that should require a talk page discussion. It should be achieved through consensus via compromise and good faith editing. It's a waste of everyone's time to get bogged down in these discussion every time someone thinks a comma is ungrammatical. At this point, multiple different editors coming here from various places have attempted to fix comma splices and weird clause constructions here, and have been reverted by the same IP /64 range without good policy-based rationale. Come on, folks. This is no one's personal article. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered, you were pinged in this comment, but it was malformed, so you may not have received it. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6562:A1FC:F7F2:51BF (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

IP reverts today

Some users (in particular @Shibbolethink: and @DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered:) this particular edit by a certain IP user. This page has certainly not been unfamiliar to a number of IPs over the last few months! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  • "a length of" – we've said a 16-metre-long coach, so it's clear what we're saying
Wasn't clear to me. or the other editors who reverted you.
  • "In total, 43 people died" ("in total" was added): of course we're going to have the total – it's not likely to be a partial figure. This is a workaround to avoid A) awkward semi-colon usage and B) awkwardly starting a clause with a number. Wikipedia isn't written in "formal English". It's written in encyclopedic style. Minor but important distinction. We write in a way our readers will most easily understand and read through. Not what English professors prefer. We can combine sentences, sure, but awkward semi-colon usage is probably not the way to do it. It's not very common and it disrupts the reading process to figure out where the different clauses begin and end.
  • it's not "universally" called "The London Underground". You have pointed out that we do not capitalize "The" when used mid-sentence. And correctly pointed out my mistake re: indefinite vs definite. Two fair points that I agree with. But we typically include the definite article when referring to it in this manner, as evidenced in the London Underground article. It's awkward to avoid this. We don't have to include it in the wiki-link (and probably shouldn't) but we should include the definite article.
  • The link is an improvement, the phrasing wasn't - so improve the phrasing. Consensus is about achieving a compromise which makes the most possible editors agreeable while complying with policy. It isn't about restoring your preferred version until you decide what should be in the article and which parts you agree with. This is no one's personal wikipedia article.
— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
"Wasn't clear to me": it's blinding clear. "or the other editors who reverted you": editor singular, who I doubt considered every aspect of what they were reverting.
"This is a workaround": you have introduced extraneous text to avoid errors that weren't there in the first place? That's mind-boggling
"Wikipedia isn't written in "formal English". It's written in encyclopedic style": FAs are written in good formal language - which includes encyclopaedic style. There is nothing awkward about the semi colons (if the language had been considered "awkward, it would certainty never have got through FAC)
"You have pointed out that we do not capitalize "The"": No, that's not my point at all. "we typically include the definite article when referring to it in this manner": No, "we" don't.
"so improve the phrasing": I did, genius. You really ought to read what people say, as I was clear that I "semi put this back"
No-one is claiming it is anyone's personal article, but as this has been through a couple of community reviews, it takes a little more thought to undo it (not that it can never be changed, but that changes should be done carefully, not in such a slapdash manner as to detract from it). 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6562:A1FC:F7F2:51BF (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
if the language had been considered "awkward, it would certainty never have got through FAC
This presupposes that FAC (and FA review) are infallible. If that were true, then the following text should not be on every FA talk (emphasis mine): Moorgate tube crash is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
FAOWN and other such guidance are about significant changes. Grammar and spelling fixes are typically considered minor or, at the very least, not significant. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Bad writing should not be in an FA, particularly so prominent in the lead. The “In total” is bad writing. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:799C:B97D:4044:790A (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure why Mattdaviesfsic doesn’t think STATUSQUO or the discussion is applicable to him, but his edit warring to degrade the text is the way featured articles become mediocre. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6486:7533:98F3:7C9F (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. None of the recent nitpicking editing-frenzy has done anything to improve this article, which was indeed Better Before. Unwatching: please do not ping me. Best to all DBaK (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I have just edited the article, after following a link from AN to one of the reverts by the IP (who I understand from there is SchroCat). I agreed with the IP editor's revert of two changes replacing a compound sentence formed with a semicolon by two sentences, and one change replacing a compound sentence formed with a semicolon by a complex sentence through the replacement of "his cab" by "whose cab". These replaced entirely grammatical sentence structures with other entirely grammatical sentence structures; Shibbolethink stated in one edit summary that the semicolons were so numerous that varying the sentence structure was a desirable improvement, while in at least one edit summary, Mattdaviesfsic incorrectly asserts grammatical improvement. The variation argument is a purely stylistic preference, in no way justifying repeated reverts, and in any case is pretty weak: the sentence about the first carriage is followed by two complex sentences using "and", a complex sentence using "many of whom", and a simple sentence with introductory phrase, then finally by the sentence about the driver and cab, which ends the paragraph. This is varied prose. I suppose the first semi-colon sentence is intended to state the nature of the accident within the first sentence; to me this is adequate explanation of the choice to make a compound sentence. My one quibble would be that "the cab" might be more dryly NPOV than "his cab".

There is more of a case to be made for naming the type of rolling stock in the image caption, the other change the IP editor reverted. (I know from experience that rail people love these numbers.) So I left that change. But I lower-cased "stock", which appears as "rolling stock" in the prose. I'm also a little surprised that the article has a lowercase "tube" in its title and in a couple of other places in the prose. Except for references to the tunnels, I'm used to seeing "Tube" capitalised. However, I note that the IP above (SchroCat?) lowercases it consistently. So perhaps usage has changed? I think it should be consistent throughout the article, whichever way.

I found the introduction of a parenthetical point—that the blood alcohol percentage would have constituted drink driving—with a dash and its ending with a comma, grating. So I made them parallel. Perhaps that isn't a rule in British English. I am now more familiar with the rules and guidelines for American English, under which parallelism is a big deal and theories include suicide, that he may have been distracted, or that he was affected by conditions such as ... should be smoothed, by starting off with something like "theories include that he may have intended to commit suicide ..." or even better, reworking the whole more briefly, as for example: "theories include that he may have been suicidal, distracted, or affected by a condition such as ...". But this strong preference for parallelism does not obtain in British English, so I didn't mess with it. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Hi Yngvadottir, thanks for your comment and your ping. Just to clarify one point (about the T/tube), usage of the capital varies (look at the London Underground article and you'll see no consistency there, for example) and even TfL vary their usage (although they favour the capital). As it's not a formal name, I went with lower case (which was also the version that was there when I started work on it). Many thanks for your thoughts and edits on this. Cheeers - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Bruce Dento - credentials

Can find no independent mention of him - link does not take user to source. He is quoted as authorative source that two failures to stop at platform is definite evidence of suicidal intent yet given number of SPADS on underground as quoted by TfL one could extrapolate a stream of Driver Suicides. Questionable Source for knowledge on subject. Birmingham1965 (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

He's a forensic psychologist and an author with multiple publications on homicide, suicide, etc. If you search for Bruce Danto, not Dento, you should find information about him. - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moorgate_tube_crash/Archive_1&oldid=1234673430"