Talk:Corris 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 |
||
| 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.
|
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | |
[edit] Hughes links
You only need to link the first mention of something. :) More importantly, the "Hughes" page is such a gigantic (and horrible, to be honest) disambiguation page that you are probably better off creating a "Hughes (manufacturer)" or "Hughes (railway company)" or something along those lines and linking to that. I don't think anyone is going to find it by wading through the 32 people and companies listed on the Hughes page :( --Telsa 21:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Link was changed to Hughes' Falcon Works which has now been diverted to Brush, the successor company at the works. RGCorris (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Working towards Good Article status
I'd like to see this article progress towards becoming an officially recognized good article. We're recently got Talyllyn Railway to GA status, and are working on moving it further to becoming a featured article. I see no reason why the Corris Railway shouldn't at least get to GA, and the two make a natural pairing. I've started to expand the history sections of the article, with more to come. I'm also going to see if there are more pictures that could be used. I plan to broadly model the structure of this article on Talyllyn Railway. Any and all help is obviously very welcome. Thanks, Gwernol 02:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Count me in for helping on this one. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 05:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
You are not going to achieve GA status by incorporating long-disproved errors by James Boyd in the article !! RGCorris (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Are you referring to anything specifically? Whilst we should be aiming to get the article as accurate as possible, the important thing is verifiability, not truth. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It is a recognised problem with Boyd that he mixes unverifiable assumptions with facts without distinguishing between the two. Books by Gwyn Briwnant Jones and the Corris Railway Society have verified and corrected his errors. In particular Boyd is wholly in error regarding the parent company, Imperial Tramways, and its links to Bristol. These were correctly stated in the article and have been changed for Boyd's version. RGCorris (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Focus
I suspect this is going to open a large can of worms, but before going much further, what is the main focus of the article? Should it be about the present preserved railway (The Corris is a preserved railway... it is a short section of a 12 mile long line...) or more emphasis on the original (The Corris was a railway... A short section has been reopened...). With the Talyllyn, the two dovetailed into each other smoothly, however, I think this will cause more problems with the Corris. For example, in the info-box, is the terminus Machynlleth (as it was originally) or Corris (as it is now)? One solution, though rather drastic, may be two have separate articles, as is the case with Great Central Railway and Great Central Railway (preserved). What do people think? — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The preserved Great Central is only a tiny portion of the original line, doing a very different job to the original, whereas the revived Corris has ambitions to re-open much more of the original railway (perhaps even to Machynlleth one day) and run it as similarly as possible to the original passenger operations. Certainly those of us who have rebuilt the railway see it as a continuation of the original line, as reflected in the loco and carriage numbering policy. I would therefore vote for keeping the article in its present form, to cover the whole history of the line from the 1850s to date. RGCorris (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, but until that time how should we emphasise the article? At present, according to the lead and info-box, it's a preserved line, with a terminus at Machynlleth. I know what it means, but it's confusing to a casual reader. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 16:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I have updated the terminus information to cover the former and present position, with both ends of the line now shown. RGCorris (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
