Talk:British industrial narrow-gauge railways

Rating class

I had originally put NA because this is a list. Since there's some disagreement, I've now put it at Start class. Please review the quality rating scale and reassess as needed. Slambo (Speak) 11:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Scope of article

Why limit this to only narrow gauge industrial railways? Weren't there quite a number of standard gauge ones. I can think of a standard gauge ironstone IR near Charwelton in Northants for example. I'm sure there must have been more. G-Man * 03:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There were hundreds if not thousands of standard gauge industrial railways in the UK. If anyone wants to create a separate article on them, that would be great. The reason for keeping the narrow gauge lines listed separately is first to keep the article to a reasonable size and second because narrow gauge railways tended to be of a very different character from the standard gauge ones so this is really a different subject. Gwernol 20:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

British military narrow gauge railways

Hi, I found out, inadvertently, that the British military narrow gauge railways had been split out into their own article British military narrow gauge railways, or perhaps it happened some time ago and I did not notice.

My main point however concerns ICI, ICI Nobel, Nobel Industries and all the other possibly combinations. Some Nobel sites such as Ardeer appear in the military article, on the basis of their similarity to the ROF's, and I have no objections to that; however ICI Nobel Roburite is also an explosive site, so what is the criteria for deciding which article they go into? Pyrotec 16:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Referencing

Please could the change to "Harvard referencing" be discussed before implementation? I find it much harder to use, as now the reference linked from the text does not actually tell me where the reference is from, I have to read the linked reference, and then scroll down to read through the bibliographic list to match it up to an author and a publication date there. DuncanHill (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the preferred style for referencing on Wikipedia. It has the advantages of making it easy to maintain references that are used more than once, where individual page numbers are needed. I have a (very long term) ambition to see this article make it to Featured Article/List status. I know we are a long way from that, but if we ever do, then Harvard referencing is preferred. Gwernol 11:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way within Harvard Referencing in which the reference linked from the text of the article can then itself include a link to the work in the bibliographic list? DuncanHill (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Good question, I'm not sure. Let me research a bit and see if there is. Gwernol 11:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, if it is possible it would overcome the main disadvantage for me of Harvard Referencing. DuncanHill (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I think this is possible using the {{harv}} template, but its a bit complex to setup. I don't have time right now to experiment, but I'll try to get this setup tonight to see if it works. Best, Gwernol 12:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed split

At over 100K, this page is far too big. Even with broadband, my browser is struggling to load it in a reasonable time. As the first full section takes up about half the article, I propose to split this to British quarry and mine narrow gauge railways. Any thoughts? —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 14:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Split to British quarrying and mining narrow gauge railways. It leaves a number of refs to be fixed. I think there's a bot that will do these automatically, but if not I'll fix them manually later. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 09:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)