Talk:Winsford railway accident

Fair use rationale for Image:Coppenhall Junction rail crash.jpg
Image:Coppenhall Junction rail crash.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Categorization is a mess
I am trying to move the categories to the more distinctive redirect pages, but I have to give them useful names first, that is, use the year. (EDIT) These are the new redirect pages that received all the useful categories: Winsford rail accident (1948), Coppenhall Junction rail crash (1962), Winsford rail crash (1999) For this, I have to check all referring pages whether they use the expected link. Quite some work for little result. Actually, the article should be split up, copying content+versions to the pages that are becoming the distinctive redirects. --Mopskatze (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC) P.S.: The change in Template:1962 railway accidents does not propagate even with purging of the cache of the pages. Maybe waiting will do. Dummy edit helped, solved.

This article needs to be split
This article is a random collection of largely unrelated events - in each case there is scope for an article. I know it isn't the only one that's like this, some others need fixing too.

I note that I moved these to new articles but they were summarily deleted with nonsensical accusations of "copyright violations".

Here are the article titles that I suggest.

I suggest we also have to leave this article as a disambiguation page as there may be historical links to it (e.g. from outside of Wikipedia).

If no-one has any rational objections I will go ahead and create the new articles from the existing text.

Tony May (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * OK - I have split it.Tony May (talk) 06:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)