Talk:Lynton and Barnstaple Railway
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Lynton and Barnstaple Railway has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment. | |||
|
||||
 |
See also: WikiProject Trains to do list |
||||
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-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 article is within the scope of WikiProject Devon, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics connected with Devon. If you would like to participate, you can visit the WikiProject Devon project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. | |
 |
The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Lynton and Barnstaple line. |
Contents |
[edit] Merging the L&BR Trust article
It has been suggested that the trust article should be merged with this one.
This is the main article of a number relating to the L&B, but whereas this is primarily concerned with the history of the original railway line, the other is about a modern charity created to support the restoration. There is little information that is common to the two, and the main article is already around the suggested maximum size for an article, therefore I believe the two should remain as individual articles. Regards, Lynbarn 22:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Merge - as per Lynbarn. I see no problem with keeping the articles separate, indeed, I can see no real reason why you might want to merge them.
- EdJogg 01:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Oppose Merge - for the reasons stated aboveOxyman42 17:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] <G>
86.136.173.80, I'm not sure that Wikipedia is the place for a request for information such as you have added re.Lew - it is after all an encyclopedia - to inform - and not a discussion group - to enquire - (despite this page<G>), but I would be interested to hear other views on this. Regards, Martyn (Lynbarn) 29 December 2005
fair enough lynbarn, i'll keep my contributions stictly factual in future
by the way, what page are you referring to? if this (<G>) is a link it dosent work
The <G> isn't a link, it's short for Grin - I was alluding to the fact that these talk pages - connected to each Wikipedia article - do sometimes carry enquiries relating to the subject of the article!!! Martyn 16:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
ohhhh Doubledgedsword 17:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] pictures off the website
sice you're assistant webmaster for the website, are the pictures on there available to put up on wikipedia? if they are ill put some up straight away Doubledgedsword 18:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Probably, but I don't own the copyright on any of those currently shown. Also, they are mainly modern pictures, not so applicable to an encyclopedia entry, and as they are on the web site anyway, people can see them there by following the link. I have some others available though - I'll add some more in the next few days Lynbarn 18:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Aiming for Featured Article standard
I've been told this article is close to meeting Featured Article Status - although a few changes are necessary, some of which I have made already. It is also 33kb long, with is about 10% above ideal, so some trimming may be necessary. Will also press on with adding more citations... Lynbarn 21:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC).
- You could make the article shorter by splitting off the part on locomotive/rolling stock into separate articles. Our Phellap 23:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Alternatively, there will come a time when it is natural to split the article into two, divided chronologically: one page describing the original railway (and stock); the other covering the re-born railway. Not sure how this would affect the 'featured' status! EdJogg 12:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] heritage rail template
It might be worth replacing the infobox rail template with Template:Heritage Railway as more information can be added about commercial and preservation history.
Done Lynbarn
On a different note, why was the preserved L&B webiste link removed as spam? Nearly every heritage railway article has a link to the railway's official website, so why should the :&B be any different? Our Phellap 15:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- The link is still there, but just via another article, following some discussions with User:NigelR (see also [1]. It seemed not too bad to me, although he did point out that there were over 30 links in total in wiki, which I could see was a little extreme. Lynbarn 16:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Resolved.[edit] Terminus
In the infobox on this article it lists Woody bay as the terminus station, should it not readLynton and Lynmouth? I understand that woody bay is the center of the preserved operations but observe that this is cited lower in the same infoboxOxyman42 23:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out - it is not clear from the template which data relates to original and which to preserved status. it has been wrong for several months! I will correct it shortly. Thanks again. Lynbarn 01:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge from Perchance it is not dead but sleepeth
Please merge relevant content, if any, from Perchance it is not dead but sleepeth per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perchance it is not dead but sleepeth. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:07Z
Done Lynbarn 12:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
