This redirect 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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
To be quite clear it has never been acceptable to include within this template near-misses in Western countries and injuries, and omit fatalities listed at for example list of Indian rail incidents. Keep them out or this box becomes unethical and eccentrically focussed on certain nations' own reporting systems. Particularly my own country of the UK itself.- Adam37Talk 09:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam37: - per WP:BRD, I've reverted your edit, which I accept was made in good faith. I note your concerns of bias. With reference to the Indian list quoted, I see lots of redlinks. An article cannot appear on the template if it doesn't exist. The solution there is to write the articles. If they are notable enough, sources will be available to do this.
Re the 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident, I agree that the vast majority of near-misses are not notable enough to sustain an article on Wikipedia, and only a very few are even notable enough to have a mention. However, this incident is vastly different, given that it has led to WCRC being temporarily banned from operating on the UK rail network; and both WCRC and their driver being convicted in a court of law. The template is on the article, and as such, the article should be on the template. Mjroots (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The template title is "accidents and incidents". While Wootton Bassett was not an accident, it was certainly an incident. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is arguable that it was also an accident insofar as there was no deliberate intent to run the signal. Mjroots (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this template covers incidents as well as accidents, the Wootton Bassett SPAD should be included. Two observations: a change to the title of the template to include "incidents" was only made in August 2015 and templates for other years do not include the term "incident" in their title (see e.g. {{2014 railway accidents}} and {{2016 railway accidents}}). Lamberhurst (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamberhurst: - the addition of "incidents" was deliberate to ensure that the inclusion of Wootton Bassett was covered. Mjroots (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I agree with Mjroots and mattbuck. Extremely few near misses are notable enough for coverage on Wikipedia, but this is one of those extremely few exceptions. The significance of the incident (and while it might have been accidental, it wasn't an "accident" in official terminology) is vastly greater than the consequences of any other non-collision SPAD in the United Kingdom for decades at least, and if you discount incidents involving wrong-side failures of the signalling system it is possibly the most significant non-collision SPAD in the United Kingdom ever. I don't recall a comparable non-collision incident anywhere in the world in recent years (but I may wrong about that). Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a clear consensus then on this one. So I withdraw my stance. I do hope it is not currently nor becomes political. It is your pointing out instead the unprecedented degree proportionately (that is, despite the modern safety-inbuilt systems) that makes me cave in. There are the near-miss's causes which will prompt revulsion among those in this community but also 'teething problems' for the modern steam comeback era which one could have foreseen if one had ministers and civil servants like one used to and they devoted more time to issues! Similar problems on most "new" or "unfamiliar" operators have plagued the network for years.- Adam37Talk 17:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam37: - thank you for that. This is very much the exception that proves the rule. I do not intend to flood Wikipedia with near misses. It was only after WCRC were suspended that I even created the article. The subsequent prosecution was a bonus, so to speak. I can only think of one other recent near miss that resulted in a prosecution, and that hasn't got an article, only a mention on the Hastings Line article. Similarly, a recent accident involving a passenger train collision on a level crossing hasn't got an article (yet), even though the driver of the road vehicle had asked for, and been given permission to cross. I'm waiting on the RAIB report to come out before it will be possible to fully evaluate the case for an article. Mjroots (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
