Talk:Brighton Park crossing

More could be added

There is a great deal more technical information about the Brighton Park crossing, interlocking, monitoring, and control which could be added however this is a fairly good start. Fredric Rice (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Reads Like a Vendor Brochure

This article sort of reads like it was written by a signal vendor's PR department. I cleaned up what I could, but the author keeps trying to revert it. Even right now it seems to be violating WP:DISCRIMINATE, but I don't want to get too nitpicky about that.Sturmovik (talk)

You did needed improvements to the article but also removed text which covers the interlocking functionality; we need both your updated on this article and the original functionality text -- and on the Pershing Main article, come to think of it.

If you wish, your improved updates that fixed broken syntax I can merge back in to the original text, yet it's not really a good idea to remove text because it rings like advertising -- which it certainly does in places -- or because you're not familiar with the hardware and software on the crossing which you may have thought was "signaling" when it is actually part of the interlock.

I was one of the senior software engineers which developed the interlocking, I am the sole engineer that developed 100% of the software which allows the WAG hardware to convey Home/Distant interlocking relay information up and down the wayside for the interlogs. I'm intimatly familiar with all aspects of the installation, so I would hope that you will accept that I'm highly knowledgeable about the Brighting Park / Pershing Main interlocks.

The functionality in this article is referenced out in the real world, we can not allow information avbout core functionality to be removed, but the article certainly needs syntax improvement. Damotclese (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

What is there now is too much detail that the average reader cannot understand and needs to be drastically simplified. Moreover PTC is not a core functionality of the interlocking and hasn't even been installed yet. It's nothing but speculation and has nothing to do with Brighton Park Crossing. I could cut and past the paragraph you write into any similar article on any rail junction. Just because the information is accurate does not mean it should be included if it prevents A) hinders the average reader from learning the relevant detail and B) if the information does not pertain to Brighton Park crossing in and of itself. Countless interlockings use the same technology. If you want to talk about it create a new page or add it to the Interlocking page.Sturmovik (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Railfans have no such difficulty understanding the interlocking or grade crossing functionality as described here for several years. Alterations and removal of detailed functionality reduces the article's appeal and legitimacy. Also the Brighton Park / Pershing Main interlocks are unique, you are mistaken that the functionality described here is used everywhere. I'm in the industry, I was highly involved in the engineering, research and development for this interlock, I'm obviously much more knowledgeable of this site than you are, ergo the information you removed was restored and will remain restored. Damotclese (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for Railfans, it is for the general public. A layperson cannot be expected to understand the information as it is being presented. I am going to revert your changes and I challenge you to being in an admin because you will lose.Sturmovik (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No need for any admin, however arbitration is needed. We can not have legitimate content that has been present for almost a decade get removed by someone who does not understand the content. Removed your inappropriate classification once again and sending to arbitration. Damotclese (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Randomly selected third party review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Illusive_Man#RFC_request_for_third_party_review Damotclese (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Removal of long-term crossing content?

RFC has been removed. Thank you, BoogaLouie! for your Third Party assistance.

An editor has removed considerable accurate, legitimate, and informative details about the crossing under the conviction that the information is not part of the crossing, later modified to suggest that the information is too detailed. Should arbitration be the next step toward ensuring that the content remains restored, requesting the inappropriate removal not be attempted a third time? I am one of the primary engineers which developed and fielded the Brighton Park / Pershing Main interlocks, and I can confirm that the contents being removed are 100% accurate. Damotclese (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been watching legitimate entries being added, just to see them go away, just to see them return. I do not know if there is a vandal out there removing the legitimate entries, or if someone is just confused about what are valid entries and what are not. None of the entries that keep being removed are in violation of guidelines; they all add valuable content to the article; they all have been present on the article for a long time. There is no legitimate reason that I can see why the content is being removed: I assume the person removing the content is just ignorant on some issue.

Whoever is removing the content, please stop: you are being abusive. Whoever is restoring the content, please do so again and I apologize on behalf of the Wikipedia community. --Desertphile (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The individual is attacking the ACSES entry now, so it appears that it may be malicious. I was under the assumption he was just not informed about rail industry equipment and wayside crossings however now he's altering other pages I have on my reported watchlist so it is looking like it could be malicious vandalism. Damotclese (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am attacking it with well sourced information to make the article helpful to people who aren't signaling engineers and to remove some incorrect assertions and product promotions.Sturmovik (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The article as it stands is filled with intricate detail that is not going to be understandable by a non-expert reader. It is also poorly written and poorly laid out. My initial edit dealt with all three issues and did not delete any information at the level Wikipedia is aiming for. The section on the modernization currently violates the Wikipedia:NOTJOURNAL for its excessive use of jargon and detail and Wikipedia:NOTCATALOG for its shameless promotion of the vendors and products involved with the modernization effort. Desertphile has admitted to being a lead engineer on the project which clearly begs one to question the motivation behind the level of detail and the naming of specific companies and products. Furthermore the Modernization section is rife with bad grammar, is poorly laid out, has poor flow, uses non-standard English and often duplicates information both within the same article and information that is covered in other articles. I attempted to use the talk page to resolve the problem, but was only met with the insistence that there was nothing wrong with the article and that since i didn't work on the project I was somehow not qualified to summarize the article.Sturmovik (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sturmovik is absolutely right. Basically everything beyond the lead is inappropriate and should go. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far, but it needs to be heavily summarized. Check out what I did before the edit was reversed.Sturmovik (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If you mean [1] that still looks far too detailed to me, but no doubt opinions vary. But I'm astonished that a measured trim like that has led to so much angst. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right, but some level of detail on the modernization, ideally one that can support all the pictures, should be retained. If Damotclese would calm down I could actually go and do a more complete job. I need to examine the other pages he claims to watch over for similar issues. I suspect he's the person who filled the Positive Train Control page with all the detail on radio frequencies.Sturmovik (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

What we're seeing are people who are knowledgeable about the interlocking noting that the content that was removed is appropriate and useful and should not have been removed, countered by other opinions that suggest the information is "too informative," in summary. Details about how the interlocking work is what railfans and others who examine the modernization effort look for, so I believe we will await the RFC opinion. If the RFC suggests the removal is subject to arbitration, that's what we will do. Good faith will still be assumed. Thanks for JAJ's and DP's inputs! Damotclese (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:NOT and note in particular the sentence "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia.". This article should not be aimed at railfans; it should be aimed at general readers. No doubt your material has a place somewhere, but not here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Excessive detail, yes. See Ledbury Signal Box where each individual lever's function is described. It also has quite a bit of detail about railway signalling in general. Don't worry, I posted to Talk:Ledbury Signal Box. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That could be better expressed in a different format or summary. I always err on the side of including information unless it is confusing or irrelevant. In this case things like Brighton Park being changed to modern microprocessor based control with wireless communications is all worth mentioning. Even the complexity of the upgrade process is useful and relevant to the crossing's history and complexity. All the weeds level detail only serves the muddy the important points.Sturmovik (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

One issue is that we do not wish to lose the informative content of any rail page including Brighting Park / Pershing Main, and your removal of legitimate information weakens the content for people who are researching the Congressionally-mandated general move toward modernizing some of these older interlocks to eventually (however far off in the future that may be) the implemntation of intermodel and shared-asset PTC. Detail is important on any Wikipedia page, and before content gets removed by anyone, such removal needs to be discussed in the Talk page to determine whether said removal is legitimate. We see mixed opinion here, and the default should be to leave content alone unless there is an accuracy issue which is not the case here.

In the general Wikipedia case, more information is better, more so when there are ref links to further details which accords a user to step in to greater focus. You may be a bit new to Wikipedia however the Talk pages are specifically set aside to discuss changes to content prior to editing when said editing consists of significant changes being considered. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

For example the page on railroad interlocking lacks a lot of information on things like Geographic Interlocking and how that works or how modern interlocking systems are designed and all the parts and pieces that go into them. I don't understand why everything needs to be jammed into the Brighton Park page.Sturmovik (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget that there is an RFC and abritration pending, and edits which get performed later must all be merged after any inappropriate edits are reversed. Policy is to refrain from further complicating restoration efforts which get increasingly difficult as more and more edits are added after RFC-issue edits are performed. Nuisance edits may require imposing a Temporary injunction' [[2]] Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm a "randomly selected" editor from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service. A couple of thoughts:

1. I'm sure many of you have a long history of edits and comments on the article, but for the rest of us please provide links to edits "remov[ing] considerable accurate, legitimate, and informative details" or other contentious issues, so we know what you are talking about.
2. quickly checking the article, I have to agree with Sturmovik. The information in the article does not at look like it is aimed at the layperson for which wikipedia is intended. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, BoogaLouie! Thanks for dropping by. Unfortunatly the content that was removed, restored, removed, restored, then removed again is no longer effortless to recover, a number of edits were performed by the individual after the fact, so the merge of legitimate changes has become a time-consuming issue.

If you think that the entry contains detail that is not relevant to "most Wiki users" then that's fine by me, I RFC'd the inquiry and accept your third party suggestion that the removal should stand, no matter the usefullness of the content. Generally information that is accuarte with a decade of presence shoudl be retained; the fact that an individual removed content that has stood for some 10 years without discussing it first is a violation of Wikipedia:Etiquette where the phrase "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page" makes sense.

Thanks for your assistance, it is much appreciated! I'll go see if I can remove the RFC. Thanks! Damotclese 15:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brighton Park crossing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.safetran.com/product/new/geo.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.safetran.com/product/Communications/Section%20A/Comm%20A-3-5.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090930154442/http://www.wrsa.com.au/DEPT/Marketing/common/datasheets.nsf/96dcdd1c8dd4d06d4a2567c4000fd98e/abaa9d1504e459d0ca256bc300777e95/%24FILE/Datasheet%2010B-24.pdf to http://www.wrsa.com.au/DEPT/Marketing/common/datasheets.nsf/96dcdd1c8dd4d06d4a2567c4000fd98e/abaa9d1504e459d0ca256bc300777e95/%24FILE/Datasheet%2010B-24.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.safetran.com/product/Signal/pdf%20Bsection/SIG%20B-13-9.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.safetran.com/product/Communications/Section%20A/Comm%20A-3-22.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091220060432/http://www.echelon.com/communities/developers/lonworks/protocol/ to http://www.echelon.com/communities/developers/lonworks/protocol/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)