Talk:Severn Valley Railway Timeline 2000-2009
- Suggestion, we do so under the "current events" page. I'm intending to add a short note under the links there to say this page will include brief details of things going on and pointers to where you can find more info. 50th Aniv being one and Spring Gala visitors so far being another. I don't thing we could or should try to update the wiki current events with too much beyond that. I'm also thinking the timeline pages should be kept historical and updated with what has happened as they become history, with the last entry being a link to current events. Anyone else got any thoughts? I'll have a play when time permits.--Robin (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- The biggest risk of trying to keep up-to-the-minute information on every page is that either you create a huge and growing workload, or more likely, that non-updated pages make the site look stale and maintained. There's nothing worse than seeing a Latest News page with the last entry being a few years ago, and I find heritage railway sites often do suffer from that, understandably because maintaining a railway or a loco is a bit more important than maintaining a website! Similarly I've come across heritage railway entries on Wikipedia that say things like "at the time of writing (January 2012)" - things like that date very fast.
- Because of that I would say it makes the most sense to have a small set of "Current Events" pages - maybe separate ones for Upcoming Special Events, Current Visiting Locos and Current Restoration Projects - and wherever possible delegate most of the details to other websites which will be updated anyway. --WillSalt (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't 2015 be in Severn Valley Railway Timeline 2010-Present?
One of the ideas of this wiki was that it would help overcome the out of date web site problem. Instead of each restoration group relying on one person to update their web site, anyone in the group can do so here.
Maybe a brief "Restoration updates" or similar page would do it with "xxxx boiler pressure tested" or "xxxx painting completed" with a link to the relevant full article?
--Graham Phillips 110 (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)