Proposal: Railways and Railroads

The previous version of this site had 100 followers, but failed through a lack of +10 questions - what can we do to help this one succeed? Were the old questions lacking? Or did we simply not have enough people voting?

Any thoughts?

Is there a way for me to see the past proposals? I'm new to this one, and think it would be helpful. Thank you! – Sue Feb 12 at 20:17
@Sue I don't think so, it has vanished from my list so I presume it has been deleted or archived... – Nick C Feb 13 at 21:05
Thanks for checking and letting me know. Hopefully this one will make it! – Sue Feb 13 at 23:30
Hopefully! We still need more questions, and more people voting... – Nick C Feb 14 at 9:43

After reading the example questions, from the prior attempt [Edit: presuming those are the ones shown now], I have a number of ideas:

1) For each example question, preface the question with an explanation why would the question be asked?

If an explanation prefaced the question it would help demonstrate question context and relevance. Some questions seemed too obscure to be of community interest or be likely to have any/many members capable of answering it; a couple were too easy.

2) One should be mindful that "Railroad" and "Railway", as well as everything concerning the two terms (ie. guage, equipment, operation, and etc.), will vary by country and time period. This could cause some confusion/misunderstandings.

3) What's true about #2 above holds for modelling, to some extent, unless one is mindful that, for simple example, "HO" could mean "HOn3-1/2", "H0m", "HOn3", "HOe", and etc. depending on country.

With regards to your point 2, that's why I included both terms in the proposal title, to try and be inclusive. It's a valid point though, and a problem many SE sites suffer from when people forget that the terms they use may not be universal... – Nick C Jan 10 at 10:06
Inclusivity is good. Perhaps example questions should be clearly indicative of this inclusivity and Q&A guidelines include some specificity requirement to ensure clarity. – James Olson Jan 10 at 12:05

I’ve actually seen two iterations of this proposal be restarted. We came closer this January than last year.

I think, our chances are getting better every time simply because of the SE userbase increasing and maybe this one’s the one. Let’s go for it!

We actually came very close with the one that ended in Jan - just 9 questions short. I think we need to encourage people to vote on questions and/or post more questions... – Nick C Jan 23 at 10:08

A similar proposal, LEGO, has been in beta for over 5 years.

It's successful question set can be found:

Interesting - they only had 11 questions with 10+ score - we had 31 last time... – Nick C Jan 13 at 14:04
@NickC This is why I asked the question… . It seems that some sites are just unfairly targeted... – Alex Jan 13 at 20:55
@Alex, the requirements have changed in the past five years. – Mark Jan 14 at 2:20
Mathematics had just 6: – JonMark Perry Jan 14 at 3:58

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .