Talk:Great Central Railway (preserved)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
B This article has been rated as B-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.
Mid Importance: mid within UK Railways WikiProject.

Contents

[edit] Cleanup

This article seems to be written in a rather friendly tone - nothing wrong with that, but it's not very professional! Perchance we could clear up the exclamation marks an 'magazine' feel? HawkerTyphoon 12:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is formal, the first paragraph is written in the same format as the rest, and after reading the whole article, I deem it acceptable to Wikipedia's standards. Did you read the whole article HawkerTyphoon? Footballexpert 16:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that lack of formality is the main problem. I think the article is far too long and written in a manner more to promote the GCR rather than inform the reader. I suggest much of the detail would be referred to by hyperlinks. This also has the benefit that only one repository of information needs to be kept up to date.--7severn7 10:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Although it's a good article and puts across the history, current activities and possible future of the GCR it does come across as an advertsing pamphlet rather than an encyclopaedic entry. It could definitely do with a clean-up such as condensing the material into something with the facts and only facts. (Stuey 182 01:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC))
I think the article is fine in terms of tone but perhaps is a little too big in terms of length. Perhaps a slimming down of information such as "Supporting Bodies". Or alternatively move the Rolling Stock information to a new page e.g "Great_Central_Railway_Preserved_Rolling_Stock". - Chaz247 20:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Definately a bit of an advertising tone rather than neutral - although I wouldn't expect much less of the GCR! ;-) Maybe worth revamping the stocklist into something like that on the Midland Railway Butterley and East Lancashire Railway sites? David Martin 13 December 2006

[edit] Proposed Merge

The page Nottingham Transport Heritage Centre is little more than a stock-list, which is repeated under "Ruddington MPD" on this page. I know, because I had to edit incorrect links on both pages for the same engines!!!!

NTHC is only linked-to from this page, so I think it could safely be merged across and replaced with a redirect.

EdJogg 16:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, let's do it 194.106.44.129 19:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Matt

A very wise suggestion, I feel. Although I think to be honest the whole article could do with a bit of restructuring - the history section could probably do with its own article. Since someone had recently created individual articles for most of the stations of the preserved bits of the GCR (and I added the missing one), maybe a way 'forward' (damn that slogan) is to split the article as follows:

[edit] Outline description

  • The GCR and NTHC are preserved railways in... etc.

[edit] Description of route

(Each item below having its own page)

  • Leicester North
  • Rothley (inc. Swithland)
  • Quorn and Woodhouse
  • Loughborough Central (inc. Stanford)
  • East Leake (inc. Barnstone, exc. Rushcliffe)
  • Rushcliffe Halt (inc. Gotham)
  • Ruddington (inc. Abandoned station, 50 steps junction)
  • NTHC

[edit] History

  • "Please see separate article 'here'" thingy

[edit] All the other stuff that's hanging on at the bottom of the page

Any thoughts? Ronstar308 15:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concluded

Having not looked at the page for some months, it is now in much better shape.
There is no longer a need to merge Nottingham Transport Heritage Centre to here, as that is a clearly separate thing, however there is scope for combining its stock list with Great Central Railway locomotives, to simplify maintenance and avoid duplication.
I will do the necessary to suggest that instead.
NOTE - at present there are no direct links between the two pages, which would seem an obvious thing to provide.
EdJogg 10:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Merge (2) - Stocklists

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge into Nottingham Transport Heritage Centre -- Quackdave 22:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There is considerable overlap between the lists of locomotives on the Nottingham Transport Heritage Centre page and the section labelled Ruddington Motive Power Depot on the Great Central Railway locomotives page. This is unnecessary duplication and requires updates applied in two places rather than one.

Since Great Central Railway locomotives is clearly intended to fulfil the role of a stocklist for both parts of the railway, it would make sense to move the loco list from Nottingham Transport Heritage Centre.

At present, the information on the two pages is out-of-sync, so it would be helpful for an editor familiar with the subject to apply the merge, rather than leaving it to an outsider, such as me.

Thoughts, please?

EdJogg 12:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that maintaining the same list in two places is not sensible, and that one should be replaced with a wikilink to the other. However I'd suggest merging in the opposite direction, i.e. keeping the list at Nottingham Transport Heritage Centre and linking to it from Great Central Railway locomotives; certainly at present the NTHC article is of manageable size even with the list in place. My reasoning is that until such time as there's a bridge over the Midland Main Line, they remain perforce separate entities, much as we'd like it to be otherwise! And when they finally are connected, it will be a simple matter to change.
Quackdave 19:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Your suggestion seems fine to me: still solves basic problem yet maintains adequate 'volume' in the NTHC article.
As you'll see from earlier on this page, I was drawn here by the need to fix some links to industrial loco manufacturers. The likes of 'Ruston', 'RSH', 'Simplex' cannot be linked directly, the manufacturer names are much longer. As a result of fixing a number of these bad links, I have seen many heritage railway articles where there is poor-quality (ie lazy) linking, such as mentioned, and far too much detail concerning the current restoration progress of every loco -- that belongs on the railway's own website, not here (except perhaps to say which are usable). It really annoyed me having to change basically identical laziness errors on two pages! (BTW -- thanks for sorting out the buses. Sorry I didn't link them -- lack of time.)
EdJogg 23:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

Is someone having a laugh, so may tags, lets have more.... 62.190.128.210 (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.