Talk:Talyllyn Railway

Problem with the text on the front page

Reading the front page of Wikipedia today, I read the text about the Talyllyn Railway. In no place was it obvious for a lay-person where is this railway situated in the world? I guessed UK or Australia, and discovered the answer when I clicked on to the article itself. I believe this should be remedied.

On to Featured Article?

What do we think about pushing on and nominating this for Featured Article? I think we're in generally good shape, and seem to meet the primary criteria quite well. A few things I think we could still do:

1. I'd like to take another pass at the prose to see what could be tightened up and made to flow better. Any suggestions or help are welcome Done
2. I've rearranged the two images for the Abergynolwyn Village Branch section so they don't sit either side of the text. What do others think? Is there a better way to include them? I think both the map and the picture are important to give a sense of the branch, but putting them both on the right would leave a large gap of whitespace under the text Done
3. Another pass on the references is needed to remove duplication - I managed to introduce some more last night, sorry Done
4. Resolve the Route table issue to everyone's satisfaction  Done
5. Consider adding details about the operation and permanent way of the railway. These could be one or two sub-articles with short cross-links from here to avoid this article getting too large Done
6. Expand the lead slightly - this could grow to three paragraphs to summarize the main points of the article. Done

Any other ideas? Gwernol 16:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re #2 - I've moved both images to the left, and it hasn't caused a big area of whitespace on my screen. The heading "Galltymoelfre Tramway" is at the bottom of the second image. Personally I'd prefer a piture each side if the alternative is a large area of white space - pictures can always be moved when the text has been expanded. The only other thing I've noticed is that the interactive map could be expanded in width so that it takes the whole width of the page rather than most of it. Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The exact positioning of the images depends on the width of your browser window. I browse with my window about 1200 pixels wide, so what I see now is the village incline picture to the right of the text on the village incline. Directly below that is the Galltymoelfre Tramway text with the village incline map to its righht. Below that is a large block of whitespace with the Cantrybedd incline picture on the right. Looks ugly. If I reduce my window to around 600 pixels in width, there is much less whitespace, but the village incline map is still aligned mostly with the Galltymoelfre Tramway text, not the Village Branch text. The effect varies depending on your thumbnail size preference too. That's why I prefer having the two Vllage Branch images below the text - that way they stay associated with the text they are related to. It is a non-standard layout though.

For the main map - is there a way in Wiki markup to specify it should be full screen width? I don't know of one. Gwernol 07:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a way, and even if there was it would be hampered by the <imagemap> tags used to make the map clickable. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 13:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

On the current revision I just get a lot of white space under the text adjacent to the Cantrybedd incline image - I tend to agree with Gwernol here - it may well be non standard however looks better than a large mass of white as I see on my browser. - The other option would be to take the Cantrybedd picture out and move it to somewhere else - perhaps into the Bryn Eglwys article although would be a loss to the main article  Willsmith3  _(Talk) 13:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Another thing to do:

7. Go through all links, to ensure first reference of something is linked where appropriate, avoiding overlinking and ensuring the article conforms to MOS:LINK. I'll look at this tonight. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Done

Route table - We didn't really come to a consensus on the route table from the discussions above. Would it be appropriate to just add a grid reference column to the table and leave it without co-ordinates then we could tick off No 4 too if everyone is happy!  Willsmith3  _(Talk) 14:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That would work for me. Any objections or refinements? Gwernol 14:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, I'd prefer to see it removed completely, but I'm happy to go along with the consensus. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 18:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a section about the operation of the line as per #5. I've not put too much in about the type of token working used as I feel it's a bit too detailed for this article, but feel free to make any improvements you see necessary. I could do with a ref for the final sentence, as I haven't found one yet. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 18:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Added a reference from Rolt 1965. Gwernol 13:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of Towyn // Tywyn

This is something that we might be picked up on if going for FA status. As far as I know we haven't touched on this yet: The historical spelling of Tywyn is Towyn - the Welsh spelling Tywyn only being formerly adopted in 1975 (see Bate page 186). Is it appropriate to use the old spelling in the article for events pre 1975 and Tywyn post 1975. Is there a convention on wikipedia for situations like this? Any comments?  Willsmith3  _(Talk) 14:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I knew someone would open up that can of worms sooner or later :-)

The simplest way to tackle this is to used modern spellings consistently, which is how the article is written now. This simplicity comes at the price of some historical accuracy though. Tywyn/Towyn is one example, others include Aberdyfi/Aberdovey, Hendy/Hen-du, Pendre/Pentref. Then there is the vexatious issue of hyphens. Do we use Tal-y-llyn or Talyllyn or Tal y llyn. How about Ty-mawr vs. Tymawr or Fach-coch vs Fachgoch. Is the halt at Tynllwynhen, Tynllwyn hen or Tynllwyn-hen - and there are several other variations on that particular name. All of these variants come from reliable sources, some from the same reliable source. Given the complexity, I say we keep this article using contemporary spelling - which generally means Welsh rather than Anglecised (or is that Anglecized?) spelling. Articles like Tywyn can explain the deeper history of their naming, where appropriate. This avoids adding complexity to the article. Maybe we should add a footnote to explain that we have adopted this policy? What do others think? Gwernol 14:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked a similiar question about Tonbridge (was originally spelled Tunbridge until changed by GPO in 1870s) without getting an answer. I'd say stick to the modern spellings for reasons given above. Mjroots (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a footnote explaining that modern spelling is used in the article. Hopefully that will help readers. Gwernol 13:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Bryn Eglwys lease

In the Declining fortunes section it states As McConnel's lease drew to its close, there was no prospect of a further lessor coming forward... Presumably McConnel paid for the lease, rather than owning the land, therefore shouldn't this be lessee rather than lessor? Incidentally, who did he lease the land from? — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo 07:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoop, yes it should read lessee, well spotted. I believe the lessor was the estate of John Pughe, I'll need to check in Boyd 1988 though - I'm sure he covers the details. Best, Gwernol 21:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Found a reference and updated it. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 22:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

One more thing...

There seem to be a number of, sorry, ten instances of the phrase "a number of" or "several". Some of these are justified, but can we use exact figures where available? Even approximate values would be acceptable. For example "a number of goods vehicles in use". Five? Fifty? Five hundred? I know I'm guilty of using the phrase, but I've cleared up a couple, and I'll see what I can do about the rest. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 20:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately most of these are vague because we have no more precise information (that I can find). The example of the number of goods wagons at opening is a good one - all the sources I have say there were "a number of" wagons. This is not surprising at this distance in time, and I don't hold out much hope of getting real figures. Gwernol 13:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nominated for Featured Article

I've nominated the article at WP:FAC. Gwernol 14:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Co-ordinates

Now that we have grid references for the stations, shall I add the co-ordinates too? Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

I've had some comments back from a friend, who's read through a printed copy of the article and made some constructive criticism. I've updated the article to reflect this.

Unfortunately this article hasn't made it through WP:FAC on the first attempt. It's been suggested we take it to peer review before trying again. As there seems to be no further updates at the moment, I'll put it forward. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 20:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There has been an automated review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/April 2008#Talyllyn Railway. This contains several comments that need to be addressed. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 08:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

List of stations

I've been bold and moved the list of stations to a separate article. I know the idea's been rejected before, but it was suggested in the peer review and I still feel this is the best solution. I've linked to it at the top of the route section. Hopefully you'll agree with me that this method works - if not feel free to improve/revert as you see fit. I've also merged some of the route sections together, as per PR - this could do with some improvement. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 20:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Metric gauge

Hi there

I just stumbled across this article after visiting the railway on holiday with my son, who's a big steam fan, and upon seeing the existing quality of the article I figured I would help get it to FA status by giving it a thorough copy edit and so on. I noticed that one point which was picked up before was the failure to use {{convert}} for the measurements, so I've started to add that in, but I've noticed that it auto-converts the 2 ft 3 in gauge to 690mm, whereas the article previously stated 686mm. Not knowing much about gauges I don't know if the 4mm is significant - if the article were to state 690mm throughout would that be a major problem.........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In some places at least the {{RailGauge}} template is used which gives 27. Checking with Google Calculator says that 2 feet 3 inches = 68.58 centimetres which agrees with th figures from the {{RailGauge}} rather than the 690mm you got from {{convert}}. I'd suggest {{RailGauge}} is used throughout. --Zabdiel (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the work you've done on this article - hopefully it'll be in a position for reassessment for FA soon. Coincidentally, I was in Tywyn today and took some more photos of carraiges for the rolling stock article - I'll add these soon. As far as the us of {{Railgauge}} goes, the only disadvantage of it is that it does not (currently) allow units to be expanded in full (i.e. feet and inches rather than ft and in). This is required, at least for the first instance, by WP:UNITS. I've therefore put this back to a manual entry for the first the gauge is stated in the main text. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 20:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Strange fact

Just a random fact. If you search for Railway in google, the Talyllyn Railway is the third choice for some reason.... Simply south (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's true if you search on www.google.co.uk but not on www.google.com. Its perhaps not so strange that the TR website would come up first on the UK-specific Google page. Best, Gwernol 21:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. I just tried a different neutral one one and for some reason NXEC was first. Simply south (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article

The article has just been passed as a Featured Article. This is something we all should be proud of, and I'd personally like to thank all the contributors who have helped. Especial thanks to Tivedshambo and Chris who have made major efforts to improve the article recently. Best, Gwernol 01:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And thanks of course to you too, Gwernol. Well done everyone! —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 06:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hurrah! And hopefully a few more little tweaks will enable the "List of stations and halts" article to go to FLC next...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Stating the obvious....

....encyclopediawise. This article doesn't tell us what country the Talyllyn Railway is in. It does say that it's on the Mid-Wales coast. I come from New South Wales. Is it anywhere near there? Amandajm (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The country is Wales, as stated, though I see the article's now been changed to state UK as well. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 11:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)