Talk:Don Valley Railway

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 August 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Don Valley Railway is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sheffield Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sheffield, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sheffield 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.SheffieldWikipedia:WikiProject SheffieldTemplate:WikiProject SheffieldSheffield articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: in UK Mid‑importance

Trains Portal

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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).

Cleanup tag notification

I have affixed the {{Cleanup-date}} tag on the Don Valley Railway article due to its writing. Indeed the article's current state revolves more around propaganda than encyclopedic content and requires a rewrite. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 00:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited Article and Move Suggestion

I have extensively edited the article with the intention of presenting it more as a set of facts and less 'biased'. I beleive it should also be moved and listed under the project name to which it refers.

23:52, November 13 2006 - Edited by Kipper.

Backing (+some general comments)

I have removed the 'Backing' section. There are two reasons for this. First, in my opinion this is not very encyclopaedic content. Second, the actual commitment given by any of the named backers is unclear at best... Codecraft appear to just be the DVR's web provider. The city council's backing is referenced to the Telegraph article, but all that that article shows is that the reporter contacted an unnamed spokesman who said that the DVR seemed like a good idea—this is a long way from actual council backing for the project. The commitment given to the project by SYPTE (if any) is unstated. Angela Smith's backing is referenced to the Telegraph article—maybe I am being blind, but I can't find a single mention of her in that article.

In general I would advise caution on what is reported here. The DVR website talks up the project a lot—this is exactly what you would expect as that is the purpose of such a website, but it is not the purpose of Wikipedia. There is actually very little concrete information given about the DVR project, and it appears (from its website) to be a proposal that is at a very early stage of development. Whether Wikipedia should even have an article on such an early stage proposal is debatable (I doubt that this article would survive an AfD), but if there is to be an article it should certainly cut through the propaganda and just report the details of the proposal—always remembering that it is just that, a proposal, and one of at least three current proposals to reuse this line. —JeremyA 01:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine. Thankyou for some constructive feedback. It is rare to find one who reverts/removes my contributions and has the common courtesy of a) explaining why (so I may become a better wikipedian) and b) doing so for some purpose other than goad me into starting slagging matches/edit wars. (Additionally, of the four proposals to reuse this line, three of them have a wikipedia article, so I do not feel DVR article is unwarranted). L.J.Skinner_{something to say?} 03:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

DVR template on station articles

I have an issue with the DVR present on some of GCR station articles. The DVR though existing is an association trying to get train services resumed on part of the GCR to Stocksbridge. Citing the association's work to get services resumed is ok if referenced properly (hopeful by more than the DVR's website which does not present an impartial or external opinion, source) but the DVR does in practice not exist and as such the services they wish to run should not be present in a line template on Deepcar, Oughty Bridge (spelt correctly with a Y), Neepsend articles. I hope the volunteers and volunteers and proactors contributors to Wikipedia understand that the line template's aim is to present services that exist (or indeed have existed, thus notable). Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup efforts during AfD discussion

In the shadow of the ongoing AfD discussion, I've tracked down a couple more secondary sources and fleshed out the content a bit. As of now, the consensus seems to be a weak keep; as the project does seem to be lurching along in fits and starts, I'd think more sources and content should appear over the next few months to a year. Certainly a slow motion effort by all evidence, however. Northumbrian (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Don Valley Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed stations

I have added Manchester to the list of stations as it is mentioned as a destination. See the http://donvalleyrailway.org/faqs/ webpage. I have removed the claim that no station existed at Stocksbridge. The Arup report claims that 'The Stocksbridge Railway Act allows the carriage of passengers, which the railway did until 1931'. (See http://donvalleyrailway.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/DVRF1.pdf pages 2 and 10). I have added Sheffield Ski Village to the list of proposed stations as is mentioned in the documents at the Wayback Machine. I have removed the claim that Wadsley Bridge was erroneously known as Wadslibridge. I can't find any record of this. I have also removed the claim that a station existed at Wharncliffe Side (reopened old halt), as I am sure this is false. See https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/430800/394400 for historical maps of the area. If Wharncliffe Side Halt ever existed it should have its own page. I can't imagine a station on the Woodhead line not being mentioned anywhere. I have also re-ordered the list of stations as they would be encountered traveling from Manchester to Sheffield and given each station its own bullet point. For some reason the DVR proposals, as archived both claim that the terminus will be at Nunnery Square and that the line will go beyond to the Lower Don Valley. If anyone can clarify this then please do. The present DVR proposals also mention Chesterfield and Retford as destinations so I have put them at the end of the list. Present proposals mention Meadowhall as a destination though older proposals mention the Lower Don Valley. I have assumed they are one and the same. Correct me if I am wrong. 2A00:23C4:D891:1100:DD5C:7430:BBE0:82BD (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]