Talk:Volk's Electric Railway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brighton, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource about Brighton and Hove. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page or the Portal.
Brighton To do:
Trains Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
Low Importance: low within UK Railways WikiProject.
This article needs a map. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article. Once the requested map is added, remove the Mapneeded parameter from the {{TrainsWikiProject}} template call on this page to remove this map request.


[edit] External links

In an attempt to avert the revert war that seems to be brewing, how about some open discussion of this link?

Relevant policy:

Accepting that this site is selling a product, and that it doesn't have a great amount of content, then it still has some photos that add to the article(s). I'd regard this as a good link to add to the Brighton and Rottingdean Seashore Electric Railway and a possibility I wouldn't oppose for Volk's Electric Railway. If I opposed it, this would be on the grounds of duplication more than anything.

Your opinions please? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The site is pretty poor from an EL perspective:
  1. Its main purpose is to sell DVDs
  2. Because of its construction there is no way to link to the content on the BRSER, so you have to link to a page promoting that content and other content
  3. The photos that are available aren't that compelling - they're more like a personal photo blog rather than richer content that enhances the article.
  4. The photos are low quality and very small, and don't really illustrate much
  5. Some of the images may be copyright violations
  6. There is nothing in the link that wouldn't be present in the article if it was improved to GA or FA status
I'm afraid given all that I wouldn't support adding this link to either article. It certainly isn't suitable for this article, and really shouldn't be linked to the Brighton and Rottingdean Seashore Electric Railway article either. Sorry, Gwernol 22:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty much of the opinion that the site fails to meet the spirit of the standards set out in the guidelines you guys have linked to. I'd add that even where an advertising site can be claimed to have useful content, such as the photos referred to, it's a slippery slope, and sets a dangerous precedent for other far more invasive commercial site spam. Additionally, the site in question doesn't seem particularly to be referenced or to attribute the copyright origins of those images. I don't have any reason to doubt that it is produced by somebody entirely above board, and perhaps thoroughly knowledgeable, but nevertheless, I wouldn't call it a reliable source, so it really doesn't belong here. – Kieran T (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess the best solution is that next time I'm in Brighton, to photograph the remains of the trackbed and put them on Commons 8-) That's the one useful thing this site offers that isn't already in the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
That would be a great solution. Gwernol 01:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)