Talk:Te Huia

Timing comparisons section
I'm concerned that an new section on timing comparisons is almost entirely made up of original research; although there are citations, the text is making conslusions that the sources don't make, falling afoul of WP:OR. I haven't removed it just yet, but I'd suggest this section is pared down. (For clarity, I'm not suggesting we remove the timing itself, as that has received critisism in the media.) pcuser42 (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is just doing simple maths with the sources. The explanatory supplement on no original research gives an example where the maths is based on false assumptions, but doesn't ban maths per se. Johnragla (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is still in violation of WP:SYNTH, which explicitly states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source". Please provide a source explicitly stating the claims you are making. pcuser42 (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * That was your original point, but I thought the example given answered that. Johnragla (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a source for Te Huia's timing issue, but not re the time taken by past services. To my mind the proper place for that information is on articles on the previous services. You could then link to those articles, but the timing calculations are WP:SYNTH still. So in short you could keep the info on Wikipedia, just not presented in the way it currently is - unless there's a source that provides and verifies it. --LJ Holden 09:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with ref 50? More recently there's also https://timetableworld.com/ttw-viewer.php?token=42b4a859-0fd7-4e94-9407-216fbf291c86. Johnragla (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with that ref for citating the timetable of the previous service, but using that as a comparison to Te Huia without a reliable source backing up that exact comparison and drawing conclusions based on that is WP:SYNTH. pcuser42 (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand why the example I gave isn't an answer to that. Johnragla (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not explicitly banning it doesn't necessarily mean it's implicitly allowed. Doing this comparison and saying "Te Huia is slower than past services and is therefore inferior" is drawing conclusions that no other source is making, and likely also non-neutral. This is especially true with an apples-and-oranges comparison, as the text even says Te Huia stops and the expresses did not. Agree wth that the proper place for these timetables is the article on the older services. pcuser42 (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Where is the phrase "Te Huia is slower than past services and is therefore inferior"? Johnragla (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "In 1949 steam trains took about half an hour less than Te Huia, though they made no stops on the way" is probably the statement is referring to. --LJ Holden 21:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see how one quote could refer to the other. The only words they have in common are "Te Huia". Johnragla (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, to put it another way: The article currently states that "In 1949 steam trains took half an hour less than Te Huia" - that is not what the citations say, they are the timetables for the particular services. In order to get to that conclusion that Te Huia is half an hour slower, you need to syncronise the two citations. As I've said including the timetable info in the relevant articles is fine, but the text as it stands expresses something that the citations do not. --LJ Holden 00:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Further to this, since Te Huia is now operating to a different timetable, the information is now out of date. --LJ Holden 01:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A table is clearer and leaves the reader to make comparisons. Johnragla (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I still don't think this is the appropriate article for past services. pcuser42 (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not, but perhaps we need an outside arbitrator on this? --LJ Holden 00:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I'd be happy with that pcuser42 (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 100% agree with here. There is a considerable amount of original research here. I don't have an issue with a section on the criticism of the levels of services, and there are citations for those in media references. But the content that makes comparisons to past services, comparisons to private bus companies, and publishes timetables directly from the official website definitely doesn't belong here. WP:NOTTRAVEL WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH all apply here. Ajf773 (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, yes definitely a few policies being violated here. If no one objects I'll remove the content. pcuser42 (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTTRAVEL appears to be similar to the argument used in Talk:Hibiscus Coast busway station. If there are no further responses there, I can't see it has any more application here.
 * WP:NOR The bulleted responses above seem to me to show that there is no original research.
 * WP:SYNTH What material has been combined from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source? Johnragla (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There's literally a sentence that says "The only competing public transport service is by InterCity bus. The 17:45 bus is 32 minutes faster than the train". This alone violates WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.
 * Bus timetables in an article about a train service are just plainly irrelevant. pcuser42 (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Based on multiple editors agreeing that this section was problematic, I've removed original research and timetable sections, and split criticisms into its own reception section. This section could do with some expansion and some recent citations as well. pcuser42 (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I spent some a little bit of time cross checking references yesterday - it's a bit of a mess to be honest. There are places where the primary website has been used to reference something, but the source doesn't clearly verify some of these claims. It is quite possible that the source used to mention this, but no longer does. I've flagged content, hoping that it can be addressed within a suitable time frame. Ajf773 (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem with the references, but have consolidated the timing changes into a table, which is easier to follow. Most of the Rolling stock section lacks any references. Johnragla (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with timing comparisons isn't the readability, but that it's entirely based on original research. pcuser42 (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * All Wikipedia articles are based on original research; otherwise they are plagiarism. All of the table is referenced and it is relevant to the reason Te Huia exists, which is to improve the speed and reliability of the journey. Most of the Rolling stock section also appears to be original research, but it lacks any references, so is hard to know. I think both should be in the article, as they give useful information. Johnragla (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think the timetable of services that are not Te Huia are relevant to Te Huia specifically, which is what this article is about. These might be relevant in an article about the corridor in general, but not here. WP:USEFUL applies here.
 * I do sense this debate is just going to go in circles though, so my suggestion is to try and get consensus from other editors as well that this information does in fact belong here. pcuser42 (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The point of showing the timings is to give a sense of the feasibility of the future plans. The fact that Blue Streak used to do the journey in less time than is proposed for the improved Te Huia indicates that it is very feasible. Not only have the other service timings been deleted, but also those for each year of Te Huia. Johnragla (talk) 06:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the table of timings adds any value to the article. There are better ways to talk about the speed of the service and highlight criticism of it from other independent sources, such as news articles or journals. This is a modern service, and comparing timings from former services from decades ago (with so many different variables) or even the intercity bus, seems more for rail enthusiasts rather than a general audience for an encylopedia. Ajf773 (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)