No edit summary Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
2a01:4b00:881d:3700:9cae:7a7a:6cd:8d38 (talk) |
||
Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
{{od}} |
{{od}} |
||
I see our West London correspondent has woken up again, to post derogatory comments about other editors. Here we go again. 🙄 [[User:Cnbrb|Cnbrb]] ([[User talk:Cnbrb|talk]]) 17:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC) |
I see our West London correspondent has woken up again, to post derogatory comments about other editors. Here we go again. 🙄 [[User:Cnbrb|Cnbrb]] ([[User talk:Cnbrb|talk]]) 17:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
::I suspect you of being an astroturfer as your action over moths are suspect. [[Special:Contributions/2A01:4B00:881D:3700:9CAE:7A7A:6CD:8D38|2A01:4B00:881D:3700:9CAE:7A7A:6CD:8D38]] ([[User talk:2A01:4B00:881D:3700:9CAE:7A7A:6CD:8D38|talk]]) 23:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:TBF, the first comment about "pro-HS2 fanatics" was into [[WP:NOTFORUM]] territory and should be deleted. But the second point about the Grand Plan and the tawdry reality is worthy of mention, but it is too detailed for the article as it stands. --[[User:John Maynard Friedman|John Maynard Friedman]] ([[User talk:John Maynard Friedman|talk]]) 17:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC) |
:TBF, the first comment about "pro-HS2 fanatics" was into [[WP:NOTFORUM]] territory and should be deleted. But the second point about the Grand Plan and the tawdry reality is worthy of mention, but it is too detailed for the article as it stands. --[[User:John Maynard Friedman|John Maynard Friedman]] ([[User talk:John Maynard Friedman|talk]]) 17:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::It does no mention individual, so is relevant. I don't like what you write, so should I insist yours are deleted? [[Special:Contributions/2A01:4B00:881D:3700:9CAE:7A7A:6CD:8D38|2A01:4B00:881D:3700:9CAE:7A7A:6CD:8D38]] ([[User talk:2A01:4B00:881D:3700:9CAE:7A7A:6CD:8D38|talk]]) |
|||
::Anonymous user, despite accusing other editors of having conflicts of interest, it's clear you yourself are not capable of looking at this project in a balanced fashion. Paragraph 5 already expains the aim of the project, at least, in the form that is being built. The lead section doesn't need early history and dropped proposals. I propose that paragraph four is completely removed. [[User:NemesisAT|NemesisAT]] ([[User talk:NemesisAT|talk]]) 19:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC) |
::Anonymous user, despite accusing other editors of having conflicts of interest, it's clear you yourself are not capable of looking at this project in a balanced fashion. Paragraph 5 already expains the aim of the project, at least, in the form that is being built. The lead section doesn't need early history and dropped proposals. I propose that paragraph four is completely removed. [[User:NemesisAT|NemesisAT]] ([[User talk:NemesisAT|talk]]) 19:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::I doubt you know the meaning of balanced. I had to remove a para of POV by you. [[Special:Contributions/2A01:4B00:881D:3700:9CAE:7A7A:6CD:8D38|2A01:4B00:881D:3700:9CAE:7A7A:6CD:8D38]] ([[User talk:2A01:4B00:881D:3700:9CAE:7A7A:6CD:8D38|talk]]) 23:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
===Time to split?=== |
===Time to split?=== |
||
The article is already into [[wp:TLDR]] territory and it is still early days. Discussions like the one above will recur again and again{{snd}} what should be included, what should be left out? where does [[WP:UNDUE]] cut in? So I wonder if it is time to split the article? For example "Politics of HS2", "Engineering of HS2", "Environmental impact of HS2", "Operation of HS2" (which would include the proposed service pattern), etc. Would this be helpful? --[[User:John Maynard Friedman|John Maynard Friedman]] ([[User talk:John Maynard Friedman|talk]]) 17:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC) |
The article is already into [[wp:TLDR]] territory and it is still early days. Discussions like the one above will recur again and again{{snd}} what should be included, what should be left out? where does [[WP:UNDUE]] cut in? So I wonder if it is time to split the article? For example "Politics of HS2", "Engineering of HS2", "Environmental impact of HS2", "Operation of HS2" (which would include the proposed service pattern), etc. Would this be helpful? --[[User:John Maynard Friedman|John Maynard Friedman]] ([[User talk:John Maynard Friedman|talk]]) 17:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:39, 16 July 2020
Trains: in UK C‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Progressing at an average of 196 km/h
Hi 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:A6C0:79D1:4553:8634,
Firstly please make an account and add some info about yourself before accusing others of being paid astroturfers. I have some info about me on my userpage.
Second, although I still think your edit is pointless (no transport travels as the crow flies) thanks for clarifying it. NemesisAT (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- For the record, the travel time from Curzon Street to Euston is iconsistent in the latest business case. The text states:
- "For example, in Phase One the journey time from London to Birmingham will be reduced from 82to 49 minutes. Under the current scope for Phase 2b, the journey time from London to Manchester would be reduced from 127 to 67 minutes, while travelling from Birmingham to Leeds would take just 49 minutes compared to 118 minutes today. Figure 1.10shows the reductions in journey times that HS2 would deliver between Birmingham and a range of key destinations."
- but the map on the following page says the journey will take 45. NemesisAT (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm wary of falling foul to the three revert rule, so I'll propose an edit. The line speed is a maximum of 360 km/h and maximum service speed of 330 km/h. That's stated in the latest business case, which is more recent than the BBC News article the anonymous editor cites and thus these are the speeds I think we should go with.NemesisAT (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- The BBC News article is also wrong in that it states 14 tph in each direction when in actual fact the line is designed to run 18 and it is planned to run 17 tph in service. NemesisAT (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The linespeed is maximum of 400kmh, of which it is designed for - I have put that back into the article with a ref. 49 minutes time London-Birmingham is fine - I will stick to that. BBC went to the DfT, the ultimate authority, for the figure of 52 mins. Try Google Maps, it is 99.56 miles between the two stations on my computer. It will be the same on your computer. So that 100 miles is 122mph average. Simple schoolboy maths for the 100 miles between Euston and Curzon St.
- The article is to inform the lay person, not a trainspotters bulletin, using train language. The reader needs to know that the 250mph railway, which is the fastest in the world in design, runs between the two largest cities in the UK at an average of less than half its maximum design speed. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- That is always going to be the way though - the faster you design a system to travel between two points, the slower the actual average speed is by comparison. The way you phrase it sounds like you are wanting to ding HS2 for that, when it's just because the human body can only withstand so much acceleration. I don't see the average speed as particularly useful - the time is more important. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- I am putting into the article FACTS. It takes 122mph on average on the 100 miles between London and Birmingham. That is FACT. The average is less than half the max design speed. FACT. I never made it up. Whichever way you cut it the high speed railway is slow between those two cities. The reader needs to know this to be a balanced article. It comes across as HS2 fanboy article. The human body and acceleration is irrelevant to the average speed between the two cities. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- > The human body and acceleration is irrelevant to the average speed between the two cities.
- The train needs to accelerate and decelerate safely, which means that the change in speed is small relative to the maximum speed, which in turn means that if two stations are relatively close together, it's not going to spend much time at its maximum speed. This doesn't even take into account that not all its track will necessarily be suitable for running at maximum speed in all circumstances, the effects of delays, temporary speed reductions, etc. I'm not an expert but I am unaware of any railway that runs at an average speed close to the maximum it's theoretically capable of. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I am putting into the article FACTS. It takes 122mph on average on the 100 miles between London and Birmingham. That is FACT. The average is less than half the max design speed. FACT. I never made it up. Whichever way you cut it the high speed railway is slow between those two cities. The reader needs to know this to be a balanced article. It comes across as HS2 fanboy article. The human body and acceleration is irrelevant to the average speed between the two cities. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- That is always going to be the way though - the faster you design a system to travel between two points, the slower the actual average speed is by comparison. The way you phrase it sounds like you are wanting to ding HS2 for that, when it's just because the human body can only withstand so much acceleration. I don't see the average speed as particularly useful - the time is more important. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- The article is to inform the lay person, not a trainspotters bulletin, using train language. The reader needs to know that the 250mph railway, which is the fastest in the world in design, runs between the two largest cities in the UK at an average of less than half its maximum design speed. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
The line speed on Phase 1 is a maximum of 360km/h (not 400km/h). It is only the civil engineering alignment that has been designed for potential future operation at 400km/h. The HS2 route data book (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/408578/response/991111/attach/6/Annex%20B%20Route%20Data%20Spreadsheet.xlsx) shows the applicable line speeds for the entire 175km route from EUS to BCS. The rolling stock for Phase 1 and 2a will be capable of 360km/h, but only timed at 330km/h in order to achieve the 49-minute journey time (inclusive of the OOC stop and 2-minute dwell). Spookster67 (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- The maximum designed linespeed is 400kmh, which is very different to one they provisionally set for running purposes. In the future they could up it to a full 400kmh. 400kmh must be mentioned, as that is the designed speed. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Planning and Construction News also says 52 minutes London to Birmingham, along with the BBC, which averages at 116mph for the 100 miles travelled. That is 15.5% slower in speed to the original 45 mins stated. 52 minutes is the figure as it is coming from a number of sources, who cite the DfT.
- https://www.pbctoday.co.uk/news/planning-construction-news/hs2-survey-2/75559/
- "However, many saw little, if any upside to the project, seeing the expected reduction in travel times (1h 21m to 52m from London to Birmingham, according to the Department for Transport) as too small to justify the investment required." 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Other journey times must be checked with DfT, as others must also have changed. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, the maximum designed linespeed is 360km/h. The route has been planned to allow the maximum linespeed to be increased to 400km/h in future, but that is not the linespeed that everything is being designed to today for Phase 1 and 2a. Spookster67 (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- HS2 is designed for 400kph - FACT. What HS2 set the figure to initially is irrelevant as they could go to maximum in the future. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:585B:E861:9475:ED9B (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Not all sources have correct information. In this case, if BBC is saying that DfT is saying that the Euston to Curzon Street journey time will be 52 minutes, that is incorrect. It is 49 minutes as quoted in the HS2 Full Business Case, which I consider a more reliable source. It is correct that the headline journey time has changed from 45 to 49 minutes. Spookster67 (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Three reliable sources, inc a rail magazine, say 52 minutes. It is 52 minutes. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:585B:E861:9475:ED9B (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- The HS2 rolling stock specification provides more detail about the reasons why both 45 minutes and 49 minutes have been quoted as the journey time Euston to Curzon Street. See section 7.1 on page 31. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/794108/HS2-HS2-RR-SPE-000-000007_P11_TTS_Main_Body__External_.pdf The trains will be capable of completing the journey in under 45:30 but they will be timetabled for 49:00 in order to provide contingency. Spookster67 (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Astroturfing
Astroturfing (paid people with alias') on HS2 is rife on Twitter and other internet sites. HS2 Ltd published figures for internet use of many £100,000s Wiki will not be immune. This consists of putting HS2 in a good light and suppressing any negatives. This has been clearly happening on this article. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Editor 'Sceptre' is deleting section of the talk page and the main article giving no reason why. He must be banned. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- This 'Sceptre' editor is threatening to have me banned. I have done nothing wrong except edit adding refs. He must be dealt with. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sceptre, stop deleting the talk page additions.
- 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A, stop accusing people of astroturfing just because they disagree with you. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sceptre's actions proved he has an agenda of some sort. I put up relevant referenced material. He deletes it giving no reason whatsoever. HS2 astroturfing is rife on the internet right now as it may be cancelled/delayed because of covid-19. It points to astroturfing. If not astroturfing there is an agenda at work here. 15:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk)
- This 'Sceptre' editor is threatening to have me banned. I have done nothing wrong except edit adding refs. He must be dealt with. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Editor 'Sceptre' is deleting section of the talk page and the main article giving no reason why. He must be banned. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
The thread is a clear personal attack and may be removed by any user. There’s no immunity for personal attacks in article-talkspace. Sceptre (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- A personal attack would need, to my mind, to have a focus. Both of you need to calm down, neither of you is helping anyone, which is why you've both been blocked from editing the article. Be like Commons, be mellow. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- It is clear you have an agenda deleting referenced text in the article because you do not like it for whatever reason. You even deleted text on an open forum talk page. Everything points to that you have an agenda. You must be banned for your actions. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I've had a thorough look at the disputed sources, you're going to have to work together to agree on how to present the information from the different sources, just remember more information is no bad thing; I suggest you explore how to explaine that the route has been designed for speeds of upto 400kph, that when it opens some services will reach a maximum speed of 360kph and that they will routinely reach 330kph is perfectly acceptable. Nick (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- The fact is the railway was designed for 400kmh - refs were given - very relevant info. That info was there at one time but taken away. The London-Birmingham service is doing the 100 miles between at 49 minutes, an average of 122mph. BBC say 52 mins when asking the DfT, the ultimate authority, so I added with a ref. Someone objected so I went with them at 49 mins to avoid problems. The reason why it is so slow is that 28% of the run is tunnel reducing the speed - relevant info. I put that in, but some one objected, so I left it out to avoid problems. I have cooperated all along. I put the 122mph speed at the end of a para not in shining lights with its own section. The information is highly relevant to a lay person reading the article. The article is not balanced enough. It needs a section on its short comings, without delving into the political aspect. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree that the average speed is at all relevant. It is not accurate, as you are using an "as the crow flies" measurement which doesn't include Old Oak Common, where all services stop, nor Birmingham Interchange, or take into the account the fact the railway is not a straight line. I also disagree that the article is not balanced. In fact, I think it fails to adequately explore the reasons FOR HS2. There is ample coverage in the "Perspectives" and "Environmental and community impact" sections of the various impacts of the line. Including the Woodland Trust's bloated figure which includes woodland not even touched by the railway. Regarding the BBC article, there is a clear error where it claims 14 trains per hour. I believe all the recent official reports have stated a maximum of 18 tph in each direction - 17 in service and one space. Thus I think it's a poor article and the official business case is a better source. Please let me know your thoughts. NemesisAT (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Average speed is everything. I am at Euston. I want to go to Birmingham 100 miles away. I know it is 100 miles as my smart phone told me. A poster says "HS2 fastest railway in the world, 250mph". I think fantastic! I will take that and should be there in well under half and hour. I look at the timetable, it says 52 minutes. I think "what!" I get out my smart phone and calculate that I would cover the 100 miles in 2.23 miles each minute of the 100 miles between the two cities. That equates to 116mph to cover the 100 miles between the two. Quite simple.
- Passengers care not a hoot what route the train takes or what its max speed is. They are only concerned about the journey time (average speed comes from that), and cost. The average is the key figure. I will not take issue with you as you obviously a HS2 fanboy. I could bring up lots of info where the existing network can equal HS2 on capacity and speed and not cost the earth to do. I am now neutral having been a fan initially. It is coming whether I or others like it or not, so it has to be written impartially, ignoring fanboys, anti's and astroturfers. HS2 fanboys, like yourself, have to be closely watched. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Projected journey times are already included in the article and our audience is wider than potential passengers.©Geni (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Whatever that means 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:1511:2FA7:9208:8578 (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- A rail magazine also states that the London to Birmingham time is 52 mins, via the DfT. Too many sources state 52 mins. It is clear that the time is 52 mins not 45 or 49 mins. The article has to be change to reflect this.
- https://www.railway-technology.com/features/questions-about-hs2/
- 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:1511:2FA7:9208:8578 (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Whatever that means 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:1511:2FA7:9208:8578 (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Projected journey times are already included in the article and our audience is wider than potential passengers.©Geni (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree that the average speed is at all relevant. It is not accurate, as you are using an "as the crow flies" measurement which doesn't include Old Oak Common, where all services stop, nor Birmingham Interchange, or take into the account the fact the railway is not a straight line. I also disagree that the article is not balanced. In fact, I think it fails to adequately explore the reasons FOR HS2. There is ample coverage in the "Perspectives" and "Environmental and community impact" sections of the various impacts of the line. Including the Woodland Trust's bloated figure which includes woodland not even touched by the railway. Regarding the BBC article, there is a clear error where it claims 14 trains per hour. I believe all the recent official reports have stated a maximum of 18 tph in each direction - 17 in service and one space. Thus I think it's a poor article and the official business case is a better source. Please let me know your thoughts. NemesisAT (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Rail Magazine is involved in astroturfing, that also means Wikipedia. https://twitter.com/NTI26637228/status/1157270269699985414 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:1511:2FA7:9208:8578 (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Your accusations are getting tedious. The NTI seems to be an anti-HS2 twitter account and that does not count as a reliable source (social media is not a reliable source). And even if true, a rail magazine editor is involved in a campaign for railways - what a surprise! Next you'll be telling me that Jeremy Clarkson likes cars. I really dgaf about 52mins or 49mins, but seriously just quit accusing everyone else of being some sort of lobbyist. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- To imply that this Wiki article has not been subject to AstroTurfing is naive at the least. I look at Twitter. The astrotufers come in at the same time, ignoring any reason repeating mantra which is capacity, capacity, capacity, even when they have been torn to pieces. They tend to go out at the same time, as the dictates of the controller. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:585B:E861:9475:ED9B (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Your accusations are getting tedious. The NTI seems to be an anti-HS2 twitter account and that does not count as a reliable source (social media is not a reliable source). And even if true, a rail magazine editor is involved in a campaign for railways - what a surprise! Next you'll be telling me that Jeremy Clarkson likes cars. I really dgaf about 52mins or 49mins, but seriously just quit accusing everyone else of being some sort of lobbyist. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- I had a look at our articles on the GWML, ECML, WCML and MML yesterday, and despite those being 125mph railways, I don't see anybody adding in the information that they don't actually manage 125mph average speeds. I did a quick calculation - the 129 mile run from Paddington to Cardiff takes (using 1L16) 1 hour 52 minutes, for an average speed of 67mph. The non-stop run from Paddington to Reading (again on 1L16) still takes 25 minutes for 34 miles, for an average speed of 82 mph. I would have expected, in the interests of balance and neutrality, the relationship between line speed and average speed is discussed here and on other railway line articles too.
- Finally, I would also caution that your accusations are likely to see you indefinitely restricted from High Speed 2 unless they cease. Nick (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- I do not need your threats from HS2 fanboys (or even astrotufers) thank you. Keep them to yourself. I am not the one deleting sections on astroturfing on an open forum talk page, or deleting referenced text.
- A prime point about HS2 for a supposed high-speed railway is it actually slow. Nowhere in the article does it state that. The reader needed to know its performance. We do not need HS2 fanboys bigging it up. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:585B:E861:9475:ED9B (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Mattbuck: I'm trying to remember if NTI is a specific guy's sockpuppet or not, but he's definitely not reliable in any case. Also, re Rail Magazine: although most of the columnists are unsurprisingly pro-HS2 (which is as surprising as the New Scientist being supportive of climate action or Runner's World thinking exercise is good for you), it's by no means solely so; after all, one of their biggest contributors is Christian Wolmar, who isn't at all quiet about his opposition to the project. Sceptre (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
The document added by User:Spookster67 backs up the 49 minute figure, scroll up to see it. I think we should go with 49 as that's the figure used in two official documents. As for NTI, an account that hides behind a fake "review body" deserves no attention.NemesisAT (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Three reliable sources, inc the BBC, say 52 mins quoting the DfT. 52 mins it is. This article has to be balanced not hijacked by HS2 fanboys. The high-speed railway is SLOW. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:585B:E861:9475:ED9B (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I would like to suggest to the logged-in editors here that there is simply no point in engaging with this anonymous IP editor. We have had a lot of disruptive activity in the recent past from this IP range - it was blocked back in March for repeated incivility, slandering other editors, edit-warring and POV-pushing against consensus. Attempts have been made to accommodate his views, but are only met with incivility. Unfortunately, this person has no understanding of collaborative editing; any editor who does not fully comply with his opinions will just receive childish abuse ("fanboy", "astroturfer", "trainspotter" and so on). Sadly, experience has shown that is simply no point in attempting to engage in any dialog. Ignore, revert if needed. Cnbrb (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- The article was/is hijacked. It is easy to get a mob up and then consensually castigate an editor, get them banned, etc. Wiki is famous for it. It has happened on this article. You attacking me when it was not me that deleted referenced text and sections in an open forum talk page raises alarm bells. I am not the person under the spotlight as I have done nothing wrong. You are spinning it. It is clear you agree with the conduct of Sceptre. I have my doubts about you. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:585B:E861:9475:ED9B (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Recent anonymous user edits
I'm agreed with User:Sceptre here, rail use over one quarter is totally irrelevant to this article. NemesisAT (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC) It was relevant data and sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:5903:D07:49EC:BEAE (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
ANI discussion
There's a discussion relevant to this article at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent_disruption_at_High_Speed_2 Mujinga (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Improving the page
Hi, I came to the page yesterday and made some edits to make the coverage broader, none of which seemed particularly controversial to me but I seem to be entering into a long-running editing dispute, which I know can be very annoying so my sympathies to everyone involved. I have no particular beef here, but I do think the article could do with some improvements and I'll put some suggestions below.
First of all, re the Packham judicial review I feel like this follows on from the Oaktree Review, so I've re-added it here after Sceptre moved it, happy to discuss further.
Overall I would say the article does need some work - as is perhaps to be expected with a page about a megaproject that is going on for years, information can easily become outdated or even wrong. I am concerned by the "Proposed service pattern" section, it seems a bit WP:CRYSTALBALL and it's unreferenced. "Journey times" has some references from 2012, which are probably quite outdated now. The lead is really long and doesn't summarise everything in the article, MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests maximum four paragraphs and it seems to have some rather minor details in it, what are currently paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 could be pruned pretty heavily I would say. I also find the section ordering strange, for example there obviously should be a section for the Oakervee Review but shoehorning it in at the top seems questionable. I hope no-one takes this personally, an article can become bloated over time and that's no-one's fault, but as someone reading it with fresh eyes, these are some things I noticed and wanted to comment on. Mujinga (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- The problem with the article is that pro HS2 fanatics, those with vested interests, and/or astroturfers, have hijacked it. They gang up to eliminate anything they deem as detrimental to the project. Do not expect anything impartial. Best of luck as they will gang up on you with threats, etc. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:D580:CDB1:7295:EFEC (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Mujinga, good to have fresh eyes, and thanks for your input. Yes, the article has become massively bloated, so thoughts in that direction are welcome. Sadly there has been a history of editing disputes, so it's unfortunate that you got caught up in that on your first foray into the topic. As I understand it, there were a couple of WP:EDITCONFLICTs that made it all more confusing. Of course, if there are any content disagreements, hopefully they can be worked out through discussion on this talk page. Cnbrb (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Mujinga: Good-faith editing is always encouraged! I put the Packham paragraph where I did because, in my opinion, it follows on from the HS2R protests, but it also follows on from the Notice to Proceed following Oakervee. I've tried my hardest other the past few months to remove the naval gazing over the political debate—it's more trouble than it's worth and induces battleground editing—and reduce coverage of the debate to where it's notable. With regards to the service pattern and journey time tables? I mostly agree. We don't need the massive tables and could do them as nested lists, and we really should look for more recent estimates. Sceptre (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, good to see some more discussion here, the article really is bloated! Regarding MOS:LEADLENGTH, I already removed some information from the lead section a while ago. Personally I would take out what is currently the fourth para, on Heathrow Airport and the Sheffield station plans that were dropped. I'm also not sure if the Oakervee review needs to be mentioned in the lead section either. The Full Business Case document from earlier this year has the service plan, this is referenced though it is not clear that this is what provides the information for the "proposed service pattern" tables. I feel that this is important information (I myself have asked people to read this section before making uninformed comments on HS2). The journey time info can be found on the HS2 website, I believe some of those have been updated since 2012, even if the source itself hasn't. I'm up for trimming these though, there certainly doesn't need to be separate "to HS2 stations" and "to other stations" tables. NemesisAT (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- The original plans/concepts/proposals are essential and must be mentioned up top. The project was to connect provincial cities to the continent and the prime airport Heathrow. It does not. It was meant to be 250mph and fast. It is neither, being quite slow. All these points the reader needs to know. This article is not a mouthpiece for HS2 Ltd. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:D580:CDB1:7295:EFEC (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, good to see some more discussion here, the article really is bloated! Regarding MOS:LEADLENGTH, I already removed some information from the lead section a while ago. Personally I would take out what is currently the fourth para, on Heathrow Airport and the Sheffield station plans that were dropped. I'm also not sure if the Oakervee review needs to be mentioned in the lead section either. The Full Business Case document from earlier this year has the service plan, this is referenced though it is not clear that this is what provides the information for the "proposed service pattern" tables. I feel that this is important information (I myself have asked people to read this section before making uninformed comments on HS2). The journey time info can be found on the HS2 website, I believe some of those have been updated since 2012, even if the source itself hasn't. I'm up for trimming these though, there certainly doesn't need to be separate "to HS2 stations" and "to other stations" tables. NemesisAT (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I see our West London correspondent has woken up again, to post derogatory comments about other editors. Here we go again. 🙄 Cnbrb (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I suspect you of being an astroturfer as your action over moths are suspect. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:9CAE:7A7A:6CD:8D38 (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- TBF, the first comment about "pro-HS2 fanatics" was into WP:NOTFORUM territory and should be deleted. But the second point about the Grand Plan and the tawdry reality is worthy of mention, but it is too detailed for the article as it stands. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- It does no mention individual, so is relevant. I don't like what you write, so should I insist yours are deleted? 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:9CAE:7A7A:6CD:8D38 (talk)
- Anonymous user, despite accusing other editors of having conflicts of interest, it's clear you yourself are not capable of looking at this project in a balanced fashion. Paragraph 5 already expains the aim of the project, at least, in the form that is being built. The lead section doesn't need early history and dropped proposals. I propose that paragraph four is completely removed. NemesisAT (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I doubt you know the meaning of balanced. I had to remove a para of POV by you. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:9CAE:7A7A:6CD:8D38 (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Time to split?
The article is already into wp:TLDR territory and it is still early days. Discussions like the one above will recur again and again – what should be included, what should be left out? where does WP:UNDUE cut in? So I wonder if it is time to split the article? For example "Politics of HS2", "Engineering of HS2", "Environmental impact of HS2", "Operation of HS2" (which would include the proposed service pattern), etc. Would this be helpful? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)