This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
I've moved the page to Szczekociny rail crash from Szczekociny train collision. The reason for this is that many other similar articles are named in this way – see List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom and the incidents listed that have their own article. Of course there are exceptions, but Ufton Nervet, Paddington and Hatfield (plus others) all use this naming convention. It seems that this is the case regardless of the number of trains or the technicalities of the incident. Any thoughts? matt (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed two of the three images as the article text is not long enough to support them given the large size of the infobox, and replaced them with a {{commonscat}} link in the see also section. The one image I chose to keep was the first, quite arbitrarily, so if you think a different one would be better then go ahead and replace it. Whatever image we use we need a caption though. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support your removal. My only issue is the text sandwiched between the image and the infobox (at least it looks bad on my work monitor at 1024x768), but I can't really see where else the image would fit until the article is expanded over time as more information is released. matt (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Second that, but a {{clear}} is still needed after the image as I get the word "At" in a single column between the picture and infobox, with the next word on a new line below the picture! Mjroots (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For me at home (1440x900, Chrome) the {{clear}} makes it worse – I now have the "Incident" header (level with the infobox), followed by the image, followed by a huge white gap until the bottom of the infobox after which the text starts. Pushing the image to the right still isn't an option IMO, as the prose of the article isn't enough to balance it (having previewed the page with the image to the right, it is level with the references section or thereabouts). matt (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've tested this on a couple of browsers and this has the same results – for that reason, I'll remove the {{clear}} until we can work something out. When I visit the page currently, it looks as if the only real content we have is the lead section, the infobox and one captionless image. This is a high traffic article at the moment, so this probably isn't the best impression to give off. matt (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
