Talk:Mid-Norfolk Railway

Stations

With Hoe having been added as a proposed station, should Garvestone and Wymondham Junction also be added as proposed stations? DiverScout (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

A tough question. The Trust council has aired their support for a Hoe station and a few materials are already on site. Wymondham Jct Station and Garvestone are still quite a way down the list, so in my opinion at the moment they should remain off the page. Rackellar (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, although Garvestone Parish Council have purchased land for a car park at their proposed station, suggesting that the Trust Council must have previously aired support for that as well? DiverScout (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Wymondham Junction Station is now receiving a stronger backing from the trust, especially with the upcoming Breckland Line Resignalling and the donation of WSJ Signal Box. Perhaps it should now be added to the article? Rackellar (talk) 23:40, 21st September 2011 (UTC)

Towards GA?

The following request was made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. I have moved the response here since it is a more appropriate location. No text changes have been made. EdJogg (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please would someone have a look at Mid-Norfolk Railway, which I am trying to improve. I think it's around GA standard now, but any advice/suggestions welcome. Thanks. DiverScout (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a pleasure

Feedback and suggestions

• Consider merging sections 'passenger' and 'freight closure' under section 'decline' Y
• Consider adding some info from beginning of 'presevation' section to end of 'history' section - as a closing subsection
• The track bed is mostly intact from County School to Fakenham, and is reserved by the council for railway use,[15] meaning non-railway development cannot take place - consider cutting explanation after comma Y and linking to rail bank eg Rail_trail#Railbanking - the term 'rail bank' should be in there I think.

I had a look and "Rail banking" is possibly not the correct term for this, as the US term implies something far more substantial than the protection given here.

• The line is also home to preserved stations, Yaxham retaining period features such as ... - should that comma be something else? ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;Y
• Subsection 'TV and film' is a little stilted - too many short sentences beginning with 'The'. and probably needs a new name - can't quite think what at the moment.Y
• Section 'Route details' - nothing wrong here - but the picture diagram isn't displaying well on my monitor - I think it should be converted to standard rail-route template diagram form eg like Template:ECML article - I don't actually know how do do this myself - but I'm sure some one can/will else can show/help you.Y
• Section 'engineering work' - subsection route extension - dates etc - has it started.
• Suggest merging 'motive power' and 'rolling stock' sections into one section probably called 'rolling stock', also, the heading 'coaching stock' seems unneccessary.Y
• Section 'Support' becomes Funding and associated bodies ? - with more information on funding etc - does the railway pay for itself is what I'd like to know - is it a charitable organisation Y
• First reference (from google books) - suggest changing this to the book title/author/publisher/date format - but include a reference to the copy available at google books - If only because the long URL messes up the page width formatting.. eg

Scrivenor, Harry (1849). The Railways of the United Kingdom Statistically Considered. Smith, Elder and Co. p. 334. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) -stick that between some ref tags. I've done that for you - you'd better check the first reference to make sure it's still ok Y

• A lot of other references just exist as urls - these definately need to be converted to title/url/publisher format - a tedious task - I doubt you will find many volunteers for that..

You can obviously ignore most of those suggestions. - though the first reference, diagram, and 'rail bank' parts are probably needed. The rest you can ignore as opinion if wished.

The other thing is images - the infobox image gives the impression the article is about a loco - the train takes up too much of the frame - I know Norfolk isn't photogenic but I think a wide angle (or just fair distance) shot of a station + much smaller loco would be far better... A commons gallery link would also be a good idea - are there no budding photographers on the railway?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 00:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I had a go at the carriages - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mid-Norfolk_Railway&diff=271465717&oldid=271460416 hopefully it's seen as an improvement - if you want the order of the columns moving around, or other minor changes please feel free to ask. I'd also suggest removing multiple interwiki links to air brake in that section..

Finished on carriages - if its made it worse just revert - or tell what's wrong and I will attempt to improve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 01:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

IMPORTANT links 11 and 15 are dead, additionally link 24 is a word document and it isn't clear (to me) where it's from - norfolk county council perhaps.Y

I've made the links format a little better, you have some photographic images in the reference - it might be better to have them in a separate section using, the same goes for some of the page references to 'Oppitz' - which can be done using : <ref group="*"> ..reference.. </ref> ie take a look at Wikipedia:Footnotes for the full details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 02:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with getting an upgrade from B, I'm sure you are very close or already there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 02:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Further queries

• 'Construction and development'
  • Are there articles for the constituent companies yet?

No, not at the moment.

• • When did the line become part of the Great Eastern Railway (mentioned in the following section)?
    (EdJogg (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)) Y

• 'Grouping and Nationalisation'
  • When were the extra sidings installed at Dereham, and when removed. What were they used for?
  • This section in general is rather sparse on history (during LNER days) and could do to be filled-out, it would then be sensibly split from the BR-era history. (EdJogg (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

Hard to answer, as these sidings were set up by the War Department and almost no public records have been found, other than the fact that the sidings existed during the Second World War. If anyone finds anything it would be great to see this detail added.

YManaged to get opening dates, but nothing on lifting date in public domain that I have yet found. DiverScout (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• 'External links'
  • The two diesel-related external links could be better used as references for those sections, although it might not be unreasonable to keep them in the Links section too...

Y

• • The 'Other places...' should be in a 'See also' section, before References (as they are internal links) however they are not really rlevant to the article, and would probably need to be removed for a GA Review (until then, they do no harm).Y EdJogg (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks. Will work through these along with the others who have already made a start! XD DiverScout (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Request GA review

It took some doing, but I think we might be there. Could we have some fresh eyes to see if this is now GA or if there is anything else I can add? Thanks ... and looking forward to tackling my next project ... DiverScout (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are some general comments about the article, most of which would be rquired to be fixed up to meet the GA criteria. Some of the stuff I have fixed myself:

• The lead should be at least twice the length—see WP:LEAD.
• Remember to convert all units to metric (using the {{convert}} template makes it easy).
• Avoid forcing image sizes. Also, avoid galleries. I have reformatted the images, and removed the galleries. If there are any images in the gallery that should instead be on the side, make them normal thumbs instead.
• The formatting for online sources is insufficient. Ideally, use the {{cite web}} template to generate nice, inclusive references. They should include the url, title, author, date, accessdate and publisher (date and publisher can be dropped if not available). For the sake of a clean source, unused parameters in the template can be dropped.
• There are some very short paragraphs and sections under 'Funding and associated bodies'. Could these not be merged into a single section and a paragraph or two?
• The use of bold is ideally restricted to the lead; it is also overused to cover other things than synonyms for the article's name/context.
• The introduction to the steam and diesel locomotive sections seem very elementary. Almost all people reading about a heritage railway will know what a steam- and diesel locomotive are. For the few who do not, give them a wikilink.

Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments.

• I will add some extra information to the lead.
• Metrification, where not already completed (thanks) will be continued.
• I have restored one of the galleries. Putting them or not putting them in is really personal taste, not Wiki policy, and other editors have requested additional images. I may extend the route description to include the otherwise deleted images from that section.
• YHas {{cite web}} become compulsory now? It was always stated that it was not previously, although some editors pushed it very hard? Oh well, will slowly look at them.
• 'Funding and associated bodies' was a requested section, and reflects content on most other "high level" articles on peer lines.
• YBold going...
• The introductions are elementary by design. Wikipedia is not a specialist publication and articles should be for all. That is why I added the short introductions, which explain enough for the lay reader, and included a wikilink for those who want to know more. DiverScout (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Have removed the various titles from the 'Funding and associated bodies' section. For clarity I have used bold to highlight the Group names rather than retain titles for each one. I think that this works? If not I'll fiddle some more! XD

Updating the links to {{cite web}} (yuck, btw) has been completed, although I have not included the accessdate in all cases (especially the links to the Carriage Register) as this would negate the 2 column format for the reference list. If people really feel that this information is needed I'll stick it in and change the format to one column. DiverScout (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Intention to assume GA

Unless I hear that anyone has any areas for development I intend to flag this as GA at the end of the month. This will be done in good faith and its been up for review for a while with no additional input and all previous comments have now been acted upon or replied to. Obviously if anyone disagrees let me know why and we can discuss it! :) DiverScout (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverted edit

I have reverted the good-faith edit by an unregistered user as:

1. Wikipedia is not a technical railway journal and a short entry on each type of motive power, with a link to the main article for those who want the extra information, therefore seems appropriate for those Wikipedia users who require it.
2. 68012 is not an LNER J94, however it has been represented as a member of that class for many years and is listed on the page on that class, along with all the other "Fake" J94s. Perhaps this will change once the locomotive has been restored with a different identity, but at the moment this is a valid link.
3. A photograph showing a member of the same class as the indicated locomotive, already on Wikipedia, is hardly an irrelevant photo. Wikipedia policy is to include photographs where possible. If the restoration is completed and brought into use on the MNR a photograph of the specific locomotive in service can be added. A photograph of a dismantled pile of parts covered by a tarp, as is the situation at the moment, would do little to illustrate the type to the casual reader. DiverScout (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

DiverScout, the anon is correct to make the changes.

1. It is sufficient to simply link to steam locomotive in the standard way, like that. See how I did it? It is not necessary to have a whole paragraph explaining what a steam locomotive is with a {{main}} template. A simple link in the standard way is completely sufficient. The section article is about steam locomotives on the MNR not steam locomotives in general.
2. The photograph of the austerity 0-6-0ST on the K&ESR is irrelevant to this article as it is not the austerity at the MNR. Try find a relevant photograph of the actual engine concerned (yes even if it's in pieces), or if people need to know what one looks like they should go to Hunslet Austerity 0-6-0ST which is linked. Pictures should be included to illustrate things not (just) because they're pretty. In the long run, we'll get a photo, don't worry.
3. The "J94" is not either one of the preserved LNER Class J94s -- the link should go to the Hunslet Austerity 0-6-0ST (with possibly a nod towards LNER Class J94), as you have done. "68012" is an austerity; J94s are also austerities, but "68012" is not a J94, except by disguise. If you could identify it properly (i.e. by its works number), that would be helpful. Tony May (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph makes no odds, and I'm happy enough with that change to the text. The photograph, however, shows a member of the same class as the resedent locomotive and is totally relevent as an illustration for the type - a fact made clear in the photo caption. I intend to put the photo back as this is categorically in line with Wikipedia policy. The locomotive is also listed on the J94 page, which I know is something that you personally dislike, but hat does not change the fact that it is listed, currently, as a J94. I believe that the owners intend to change that identity, but until that time it is the correct one. DiverScout (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, really, the use of an irrelevant photograph is extremely unprofessional and as a result it degrades the page as a whole and the reader's confidence in the accuracy of the information. This is not kiddy-wiki; people don't need to pictures just for the sake of pictures. Only a photograph of the engine concerned would be relevant enough for inclusion. Meanwhile, we still haven't identified what works number it actually is. Tony May (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, really, and your frankly patronising attitude is exceptionally unprofessional and unwelcome. Your personal opinion on the photo, while yours to express, is nothing to do with policy. Were the photograph to have ever professed to be one of the specific locomotive concerned, or had it been of another random class of locomotive, you would be right. It did not. The caption of the photograph clearly denoted why it was placed there and it is wholly correct under Wikipedia policy. These entries are here for all readers not just "kettle neds". Actually, so was the description of motive power types, as this is not a feature in a "ned" magazine nor a guidebook entry for the line. It is an encyclopedia entry intended for every potential user.

The locomotive works number, by the way, is HE3193. That took me about three seconds to find on the already-linked page about the locomotive's owners. Research sometimes involves doing a bit of basic research rather than just making snide comments about other editors. DiverScout (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

+I note from your history and input on the LNER A1 page that you have a "slight agenda" against replica and new-build locmotives - or at least LNER ones. Perhaps you'll be pleased to know that the intention seems to be to restore the locomotive under its own original identity. When that happens the link to LNER J94 will not be required, but until it has a new public indentity it is still representing the J94 class. To create a new identity for the locomotive that is not applied to the locomotive, purely based on your own opinions, certainly would be original research. Be assured that once the change is made, if it is made, I would be the first to change the link from LNER J94 to Hunslet Austerity 0-6-0ST. Shame we're using the slang for the class rather than Hunslet 50550 Class - but I guess that industrial classes don't really matter? DiverScout (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr DiverScout, thank you for identifying the locomotive, and apologies for missing the link. But please let's not get into anyone having an "agenda" against anything. Also, I don't know what you mean by "kettle ned" but please stay calm and avoid personal attacks. I don't have a problem with new build replicas at all, merely request that they should be treated appropriately. Similarly, I don't have a problem with owners painting their ex-industrial austerities as J94s, but they should be treated appropriately. As a paid up member of the IRS, I find your comments about industrials confusing; not all engines need to have animals painted on the side ;). But if we get back to what you're arguing about now, i.e. the photograph, I'm afraid it is my opinion that it is really irrelevant and out of place (it was also the anon's opinion). Tony May (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for returning to adult discussion. I would ask, however, that you look at your earlier post and consider the concepts of staying calm and personal attacks. "Kettle ned" is a jovial preservation term for a steam enthusiast, of which I am also one by the way, so hardly any form of attack.

I'd suggest that having created a "debate article" longer than the A1 article on why Class A1 "Tornado" is not an A1 suggests that you have an agenda. Agendas are not necessarily a bad thing, we all have them, but we all need to recognise that we have them, keep open minds as well and not let them rule us.

Some of your edits are great, and it is fantastic to have another editor finally giving a hand with the development of the article, but others are starting to restrict the functionality of the entry. What is a "pre-Grouping" coach? The old edit explained to the lay reader what this was. Your edit has not even left a link for people to follow to find out. I say again, this is not a guide book or a railway magazine article. The entry is to be usable by all readers and some of your edits are slightly working against this goal - a problem with many railway articles which assume levels of knowledge found only in the enthusiast sector. I quote from the quality scale, "A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting." The removal of the photograph, included so that non-experts can quickly see what it is that is being listed, also restricts this. It is there so that non-enthusiasts can quickly and easily see what is being discussed.

The locomotive does not carry the identity you are trying to list it under, it carries a BR number - no matter how annoying you may find that, it is the present status. That is what we report on. The other details are fine in the notes section. DiverScout (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My only agenda is to ensure that Wikipedia is accurate, professional and not misleading. That is why I have improved the article by amending content that was innacurate. Tony May (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are now making up stuff on this article, causing false information to be presented. This is vandalism. Please stop. DiverScout (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What an extremely bizarre accusation. My improvements to the article speak for themselves. All you've done is oppose any changes made. Tony May (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that they do. You have:

You have:

* Deleted third-party reference to the locomotive.

* Created a fictional operating number for the locomotive. It does not carry its works number.

* Deleted wiki-links.

* Worked directly against the Wikipedia article standards based on your own clear agenda.

Please stop vandalising this article. DiverScout (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No. I have improved the article massively from where it was before. Everything I have done you have systematically opposed, and only reluctantly allowed once I have explained in detail what I am trying to achieve (though it should be obvious), while issuing unjustified personal attacks. Tony May (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you have not. You have been hostile from your first comment, exceptionally patronising and have refused to enter adult debate on your edits (just making your changes while refusing to discuss them), treat others with even passing respect or adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Your suggestion that a few POV edits and tweeks represents a massive improvement does nothing other than illustrate your opinion of yourself. Until now I have done my best not to be personal - but no longer. Your edits have been, in part, poorly produced and directly inaccurate and I will continue to revert such edits and those that are against the quality guidelines. Where they are good they will be unchallenged. DiverScout (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No. You have been unreasonably hostile from your first ill-judged reversion. I have merely been following WP:BEBOLD. As you can see from the article's history; the restructuring of it to where it is now is my work, which you should note and give me appropriate credit for, despite your persistent and obnoxious attempts to thwart any reasonable changes. Tony May (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll not waste any more time talking with you as it is clear that your ego cannot cope with anyone who does not bow down at your feet, but be sure that further vandalism on your part will be quickly reverted, as will any more POV garbage that you attempt to add in place of facts. Thank you, however, for giving me something to chuckle at in the morning before work. DiverScout (talk) 07:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Little Barford photo

Andrew Barclay 0-4-0 'Little Barford'

I've also removed the photo on the right. The reason for this is as follows.

1. The photograph has not been taken on the MNR but on another railway (The Mid Suffolk Light Railway), although granted it does not contain much of a setting, this is important for accuracy reasons.
2. Technical fault: it's pretty seriously overexposed
3. Composition: The composition is not particularly good as the wheels are obscured by an overexposed platform and the front left buffer is cut off.
4. There's already a photograph of a steam loco, 69621 there, so the need for a photo is not so great as to override the above concerns.

It would make sense to add another photo of this or another visiting engine if a suitable one can be found. Tony May (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not that bothered about it going back as it was there from a long while back, but:

1. Your subjective POV on the quality of the photography is not appropriate and is, once again, against Wikipedia guidelines.
2. Your POV on the composition is also of no import, see above. If you want a site that just reflects your own POV and has pictures you like please create your own web site.
3. There is already a picture of a steam locomotive. So what? There will pretty certainly be others soon. They do not need to be of high artistic quality, either, and it is not up to you to judge them on artistic merit. They need to simply portray their subject. If you have better pictures you can always put them up to replace them. DiverScout (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh what a surprise. Are you just being obnoxious for the sake of being obnoxious? Is it my "subjective" POV that the picture is overexposed (and this is its principle problem)? No. If we were to take a look at the image histogram, there would be a huge mountain to the right. That indicates overexposure (which can sometimes be artistically justified but not in this case). The quality of the photograph is important, just as the quality of the writing is. You wouldn't want writing with spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, badly written prose, waffling, deviations off topic, would you? So why defend poor quality photographs? Tony May (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)