Talk:Roxburgh Branch

The box to the side which lists the Stations shows a bridge over the Clutha after Beaumont. Yet the next station is Craigellachie which is inland away from Clutha River along SH8 Okerefalls (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Original research

Sources 17 and 18 are primary sources, and thus violate | Wikipedia:No original research At the time of writing, these sources are listed as

New Zealand Government Railways Files on Roxburgh Branch - General Manager files sourced from National Archives New Zealand, Wellington 2007, New Zealand,

New Zealand Governments Railways - District Engineers Dunedin, File on Pacific Scrap Contract - Demolition Roxburgh Branch - April 1969 - June 1970,

PatrickDunfordNZ (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Your assertion that use of primary sources violates Wikipedia policy is not entirely correct.

Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.

— WP:NOR

Therefore, so long as the government files (primary sources) are used only as a source of facts and as they are available from a reliable source to anyone interested (i.e. Archives New Zealand), I don't see how the use of them as a source for an article violates policy when these policy requirements are met. – Matthew25187 (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". NZR department files do not meet the reliably published criteria, they are internal corporate documents rather than public information. Archives New Zealand is not a publisher and has not published these documents. PatrickDunfordNZ (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Those files were internal corporate documents that have become public information by virtue of the fact that anyone is able to view them at an Archives New Zealand office or through their remote service. They therefore, if used appropriately, meet the requirement that: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." – Matthew25187 (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the main issue here, over all of this discussion, is encapsulated by the phrase "the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". The first part of this clause reads "Without a secondary source". The intention is clearly that the verifiability that is obtainable from access to a secondary source can be devolved to the reader to perform. This highlights the major issue of using corporate documents, that much of the information has not been published in secondary sources (such as newspapers). The essential test of whether information meets this requirement, therefore, is the knowledge that secondary sources do in fact exist in a form that is "verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". The onus must necessarily fall on the author to meet this clause when inserting the content. PatrickDunfordNZ (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment via WP:NORN. As things stand at the moment, I think 17 is OK (though it would be better if the files were more precisely identified by access number). I agree with Matthew25187; they come under primary sources that are only being used for uncontentious descriptive information - no editor interpretation - and if anyone can access them, WP:V is satisfied. 18, I don't think so: no sign of where they can be found to verify them, no indication if anyone could do so, no indication of their status (e.g. if the level of access is odd bona fide researcher only, I wouldn't consider that sufficiently verifiable). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE 2012

However..!!!

Actual factual (original) physical evidence .. is by far & away the BEST form of evidence surely.

Like?

I ONLY (personally) worked in the Dunedin District Engineers Office during the early 1970's (and thus personally had access during the 1970's to MOST, if not all, of the physical evidence .. of curve charts, milage recordings of Stations, and other such building work such as culverts bridges etc).

I also KNOW for a fact.. that the NZR's Roxburgh Branch Line .. ?

NEVER EVER fully reached "Roxburgh Township" (on the true "Right Hand Bank" of the Molyneux River - better known simply as: The Clutha River).

It "terminated" some distance south of Roxburgh Township, on the OTHER SIDE of the Clutha River at a small township known locally as:

Hercules Flat.

Hercules Flat is on the true Left Hand Bank of the Molyneux River (better known as: The Clutha River).

Somewhere in my own "archives" - (being as I'm a railway nut as well) - I have a "copy" of the Curve Chart for the branchline, giving the Absolute Accurate "milages" for not only the starting point of all curve distances and their Lefthand or Rightand "positionings" (in relation to the Branchline's direction of travel) ..

But these also include the Curve radii (in Chains) & the track inclination (cant) tolerances, of every curve - on the Roxburgh Branch Line.

I'm just way too busy to bother to go looking for it at the moment.

However.. Recently there was a Publication "printed" (from a Publisher based in Roxburgh) which I believe is STILL "on_sale" hereabouts..

Recording that exact (or as near as can be recalled as exact) details of Life & times .. alongside the Roxburgh (Teviot Valley) "branchline" & of it's general (publically known) details.

Oh & as far as the Other Branch Line just north of here): The OCB (The Otago Central Branch Line) I also (somewhere) have a seating plan for the Vulcan Railcars that were used on the Otago Central Branchline (side issue -- also lost somewhere in my own archives) - as I spent almost 8 years on the OC4 Trackgang, working out of Alexandra, in the later part of the 1970's - as well as "buying" several Ex-NZR items such as a (complete) Station Building, which after buying the entire ORIGINAL 25 ft long station building & shortening that for tansportation to our farm (note: I bought & used this as my OWN TRAIN STATION -- not a farm impliment shed as the later restoration committee assumed in 2003), I also OWNED that building & maintained it myself for nigh on 25 yrs before being "asked" to sell it back to them) Re;

PROVABLE SOURCE:

http://www.odt.co.nz/the-regions/central-otago/96552/restored-waiting-room-rail-trail-attraction

The (full) OLD ORIGINAL BUILDING can be seen here, along with the shortened Ladies Waiting Room (ONLY) piece that was able to be re-located in 1978.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krptzF1uWMs

Along with the photo of the 3 wheel pull_pull trolley that I bought, as well as numerous "other" EX_NZR pictures (mostly of the Otago Central Branch -- but includes some from all around NZ as well)

I also purchased a genuine Ex-NZR Hand_Operated "PullPull" 3.wh Trolley, as well as "renting NZ Railway land" from the NZR for many years thereafter -- until 2003).

But - I'm absolutely certain .. that Wikipedia WILL NOT ALLOW (any of) THAT INFORMATION TO BE USED ..

After all -- whom retained all the relevant information - that I DID .. AND who else "worked" in the area (let alone anyone else whom saved anything "like" the documentation that I did.?).

AND I STILL RETAIN CERTAIN DETAILS OF IT (in writting).

Totally un substatiated according to Wikipedia RULES (but who is going to be able to argue - against - any of those written facts now)

Cheers.

This user is from Central Otago, NZ.

QUIX4U (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)