Talk:National Preservation

Prominent Members

The piece about Steam Railway and the Railway Magazine editors being on the forum may not be correct at all if a recent (undone) edit is to be believed. Can someone confirm? Added : 07:12, 18 January 2010 86.25.212.226

I can confirm that both people are still members of the forum. 80.89.94.28 (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Its doubtful they are still members of the forum. If they are they don't seem to contribute, publicise their presence or promote their activity in an identifiable manner.

More useless edits, I have just checked the link provided, 03-01-2010 11:53 AM was the last active date, not the date specified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.89.94.28 (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral standpoint

It is my intention to rewrite this page in a neutral, unbiased style. I do not believe it to be far away from this, as it seems largely neutral to me to start with. Bluebellnutter (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

At the moment it reads more like a hatchet job than an encyclopedia article! Far too many personal opinions and unsupported statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.12.191 (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Aims for the page

Right, the aims I have for the article are as follows.

First, aim to sort out the current page to fit with the concerns outlined at the top of the page with regards to the notability of the company and to seek more external references. If anyone can think of or find any, that'd be brilliant.

Second, to bring the page into the WikiProject Trains, as well as any other similar projects within Wikipedia.

Thirdly, a copy of the logo would be good.

Also, I think the article needs generally expanding on and improve the article. Bluebellnutter (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw your comments above - I don't know whether you have this page watchlisted, so I will reply here and on your talk page, then we can decide where to continue the discussion. Anyway, I would be happy to help in any way I can. I am not a train guy but I can help with some of the Wikipedia wonkery stuff such as formatting etc. I do have the logo that I downloaded from the website and I will upload that with the appropriate rationale and add a thumbnail to the article. We should probably then add an information box to the article where we can use the logo properly. Look forward to hearing from you. – ukexpat (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Logo changed

Logo changed to the current company logo. Rather that the image previously used.Nationalpreservation (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Gallery

• 
  The National Preservation badge produced so members can be recognised.

Membership

Active members on National Preservation, every year the forum has more than doubled it's active membership.

Year Ending	New Members
2005	400
2006	1158
2007	2182
2008	N/A
2009	Current Year

Advert

This article reads like an advert for a website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.225.250 (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Does it, anonymous person? That's interesting, given your history of vandalism. I think we can safely assume you're nothing more than a trouble maker, my friend. Bluebellnutter (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't cast aside such criticism lightly. From day one this article has veered very close to failing a number of WP guidelines, such as those of notability (just about since proved OK), and advertising. It still does tend to read like an advert, or at least as though it has been written by someone very close to the company/forum (in which case it probably breaches WP:COI too).

I suspect that some of the moderator staff are editing this website.

Don't get me wrong, I want the article to remain here as it looks like the forum is gaining ground as an important focus for discussion (albeit at times not very friendly) within the preservation movement. However, the associated company probably doesn't meet the notability guidelines for remaining here. If the article concentrated on just the forum, then you'd have a more encyclopaedic article (with a better chance of survival).

EdJogg (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nine months on, this article still reads much like an advert, or a vanity entry, or both. ny chance we could have a concerted effort to bring it more in line with Wikipedia guidelines?

Also, As a reference, I'm not convinced that a link to a profile page on the forum is entirely correct, especially as it doesn't substantiate the claim it is attached to (that this person is an editor of a national railway magazine) See [1] )

Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Click the link about me, Also the member has been in the past a very active member detailing he is the editor of Steam Railway Magazine. 15:20, 22 January 2010 80.89.94.28

Please remember to sign your contributions. RGCorris (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)