Talk:Plymouth & Lincoln Railroad

Roster
Please stop adding the locomotive roster to the page. There are several different issues with it: I am not inherently opposed to having a motive power roster on this article. But it needs comply with Wikipedia policies. That means it needs to be a much more streamlined table - just number, builder and model, year, and perhaps an image - and all information in it needs to be cited to reliable sources. Accusing me of vandalism for complying with these context policies is not productive. For an example of a well-cited roster with an appropriate level of detail, see EMD F59PH or EMD F40PH. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources provided are not reliable sources, which are required by Wikipedia policy. The Diesel Shop is a self-published source; while it is generally accurate, there is not editorial oversight and so it is not sufficient as a source. RR Picture Archives is an archive of user generated content, again with no editorial oversight to ensure reliability. Other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as a source - see WP:CIRCULAR.
 * Much of the information in the table - more or less everything in the "status", "usage", and "notes" columns - does not even appear in the cited sources. Verifiability is a core content policy of Wikipedia. WP:BURDEN states that The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material and that Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.
 * The information in the table is excessive for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - a general reference source that provides overviews of topics. It is not a railfan spotting guide nor a comprehensive motive power roster. In recent years, editors have been more active about enforcing this than previously, which means that many overly detailed rosters which were never appropriate for Wikipedia in the first place are being removed or heavily trimmed. Information such as current assignments and detailed histories of individual locomotives is not useful for Wikipedia.


 * Really? This roster page has been here for many years, many others including myself have built upon this page and adding details is important. "which were never appropriate for Wikipedia in the first place" Really? So adding detail to rosters isn't allowed anymore? I always used to read up on these rosters. Similar thing happened with the Conway forum, the wikipedia police came in and deleted all the roster. So since you guys want this "factual information", then none of the locomotives exist according to you guys. Really a shame. Adding on to me using this roster, "current assignments and detailed histories of individual locomotives" ARE useful to wikipedia. As I said I've used this over the years and I know many others have too. I know there's no point in restoring it anymore as it's just going to be taken down again and again. Such disappointing you guys have to come in here and ruin it. Oh well. GP38-252 (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @GP38-252 and 2607:FB91:1CE6:EEF4:2026:7A7:DB82:CF9 : Verifiability and the use of reliable sources are core Wikipedia policies, required on every article for every editor. They are what makes Wikipedia an accurate resource rather than an uninformed rumor mill. (I'm sure you're very well aware of how fast inaccurate rumors travel in railfan circles.) If you want to be able to rely on Wikipedia for accurate information, don't complain when unsourced information is removed. Your edit warring and insults will not convince anyone to add an unsourced roster to this article, but they make a good case for it to be protected. Please either contribute by communicating respectfully and only adding well-sourced information, or contribute to another website that does not require sourcing for claims. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)