Talk:Bodmin and Wenford Railway
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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 |
||
 |
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
|
 |
The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Bodmin and Wenford Railway. |
[edit] The neutrality of this article is disputed
I have placed an NPOV (neutrality is disputed) as the article stated "In the future, the railway will extend alongside this footpath towards Wadebridge." The extension is only a plan. A plan which is unlikely to be approved. There is considerable opposition to this extension as there will not be enough room for the railway track and a decent sized cycle path. It is already very congested in the summer months with out it being made any narrower. The train enthusiasts already have enough track to use. They do not need anymore.
The NPOV notice can only be removed if the article acknowledges that the extension really is only just a plan and that there is opposition to the extension. User:benjaminevans82 31st July 20:05
- I have removed the POV notice and given more information on the other side of the argument. Usually people who want to "play with trains" buy a Hornby set. The hard working volunteers on Heritage Railways are trying to retore an important transport link which most of them believe should never have been removed in the first place.
- Railways and cyclepaths can happily share a track, for example the Brampton Valley Way and the Northampton & Lamport Railway. -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 13:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I can also add that cycle route 45 alongside the Severn Valley Railway coexists quite happily. Cyclists and horse riders may be using a pathway that has not been authorised as a bridalway. Footpaths and bridalways are not the same thing.7severn7 (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- 7severn7, please stop removing the citation needed and who tags from the "Controversy" section. This entire section is unsourced. It must have properly cited sources in order to conform with our policy on verifiability. The whole section should be removed until sources are provided. I the meantime, adding further original research about the status of bridlepaths is not appropriate, and removing legitimate tags without providing the sources required is definitely not a good idea. Thanks, Gwernol 13:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The comments about bridalways is perfectly valid. I recently stopped horse-riding along a route declared as a footpath only.7severn7 (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then it ought to be possible to cite a published source for it. If you can't provide a source, then it can't be verified, so is original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia articles. Sorry, Gwernol 13:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
