Talk:Williams Landing railway station

Cost & Criticism
I have concerns about this section of the article as I believe edits made by Netmapper & User:124.180.208.173 do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality. The section reads as follows: 'With such high cost, the train station lacks some basic features. It has no fully covered roofing and only one lift. When it's raining, the condition for passengers is quite bad. The Princes Highway crossing on the southern part of the station usually very windy and very noisy. The construction of the station lacks consultations with local residents.'. My main concern is that this is merely the personal opinion of the editors. There are no facts or references from credible sources to substantiate their claims. What is written is completely subjective and may not represent the views of all of the commuters who actually use the station. For these reasons I believe that this section does not meet Wikipedia's neutrality policy, especially as this section states opinions as facts. Furthermore I believe that the opinions stated do not meet the guideline stated here in regards to asserting opinions. I therefore recommend that this section be amended or removed. Thebusofdoom (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure if user Thebusofdoom wants to hide some basic facts to the general public for this rail way station. See details below:


 * "With such high cost, the train station lacks some basic features. It has no fully covered roofing and only two lifts." - This is true and also a fact, it has no fully covered roofing and only two lifts.


 * "When it's raining, the condition for passengers is quite bad. The Princes Highway crossing on the southern part of the station usually very windy and very noisy." - This is true and also a fact. As there is no fully covered roofing and no wind screen, the condition on the southern bridge cross the freeway is very bad, with rain and strong wind. There is no any sound isolation or sound reduction etc. the traffic on the freeway underneath the crossing bridge causing a lot of noise.


 * "The construction of the station lacks consultations with local residents." - This is true.


 * Netmapper — Preceding undated comment added 12:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ with Thebusofdoom. Article should report the facts, not the personal opinions of editors. Wiki is not a soapbox, there are other places for that. The 'public have a right to know' argument is not sufficient to justify inclusion. Mo7838 (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * with Mo7838, have you read my comments? All those are facts not personal opinions.


 * Yes, and they are not cited facts. The only cite provided was written 20 months before the station opened and makes no mention of the rain, wind or noise problems. If these are not personal observations, then a secondary cite will need to be provided. Otherwise its fails no original research. Just stating 'this is true' will not be sufficient.


 * It appears you have issues with the station, that's fine. But Wiki isn't the place to go on about it, there are other places for that. Mo7838 (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks like you never visited this station. Anyone been there know those are facts. How ironic for someone who never visited a place and judge someone else. If you never been there you are basically judging by using your own imagination. Wiki is the place to share valid and valued information (not your judgement based on your imagination) to the public and the general public have the rights to know about the public funded project. Those projects are not politicians toys, general public have the rights to know if their money been spent properly not been wasted, and thus they should be able to know those criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netmapper (talk • contribs) 14:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Whether an editor has visited a location is irrelevant. It is the addition of uncited information that fails neutral, original &  soapbox that is an issue. If the information added 'are facts', as claimed then they need to be validated by a cite. Issue has been listed on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Mo7838 (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Invalid, they are facts and do not fail neutral, original &  soapbox.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.194.235.198 (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So you keep saying, but have yet to produce a cite to back up these 'facts'. Mo7838 (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be a candidate for a fairly straightforward application of WP:V: the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. If the matters Netmapper seeks to include have been mentioned in reliable sources, then it may be appropriate to include them (most likely provided they're attributed statements rather than plain statements of fact, and only if they can be included without violating WP:UNDUE). That something is factual is fairly meaningless from a Wikipedia standpoint: we have articles on all sorts of fictional topics, as well as on hoaxes and pseudoscientific topics. As an aside, I haven't looked at and won't be looking at the material itself. What I've said here applies regardless of what the material is. It's a simple matter of Wikipedia policy. From the arguments you're making Netmapper, your position seems not to be in conformance with policy. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There were articles discussing about some of those issues sometime ago. Can't find now, doesn't mean they not exist. And I don't think the policy says all contents have to be cited. And those are just guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netmapper (talk • contribs) 03:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Then please do post those articles here when you find them, at which point the reliability of the articles may be assessed, along with whether they make the claim they're provided to source, and whether the information even merits inclusion. Generally speaking, unsourced information may be removed at any time. Until such time I cannot recommend that the unsourced information be left in. (by the way, WP:V is policy) —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Mendaliv is right. Without sources that content doesn't belong in the article. It's one of the core principles of Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Given this is pretty clear, I removed the unsourced content. I left the initial remark about the cost and one criticism since it appeared to be sourced to mainstream media, though I should remark that it remains to be seen whether it even belongs under WP:DUE. I also just rolled the cost/criticism section into the history section since, really, there wasn't enough content to merit two standalone sections, and criticisms that came up during the station's construction certainly are part of its history. I also removed the POV-section tag since, really, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with what's left. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In this case, it's probably more appropriate to use Citation needed tag rather than completely remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netmapper (talk • contribs) 05:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No, because there are POV issues with the content, and because there seems to be a clear consensus among the editors here that the content does not belong without sources (and likely even then not without textual attribution of the claims being made). Please do not restore it again. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No, the case is not resolved yet. It's you started to revert someone's edit. In order not to waste my time I will not revert back until the source has been found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netmapper (talk • contribs) 06:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I hope you do find the sources you're looking for. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 06:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Netmapper, I'm a fellow resident of Melbourne (although living a long way from Williams Landing) and I too hope you can find sources for that material. I've been to that station and can agree with some of your observations, but we should work hard on proper sourcing. I might suggest a Google search for "Williams Landing station", rather thna including the word "railway". It may be more fruitful. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Many thanks to those involved, I believe to be a fair compromise. Mo7838 (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)