Jump to content

Talk:Devon and Somerset Railway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]

I don't know much about this line, but I do think it should be covered by Wikipedia. If you have any more info, please add to the article! Regards, Lynbarn 09:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

[edit]

I propose that Barnstaple to Taunton Line and Devon and Somerset Railway should be merged into one article as they both refer to the same stretch of railway line. At present one article is flagged as an orphan with no links, and the other is an extremly short stub. I beleive that "Barnstaple to Taunton Line" should become a redirect to "Devon and Somerset Railway" as that was the statutory name of the line when it was authorised by Act of Parliament. Geof Sheppard 07:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree There is little information on either article, but merging them as suggested might be the catalyst to start building an authoratative article on the line, perhaps similar to its neighbour, the Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway. Regards Lynbarn 09:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Geof Sheppard 07:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The current routemap, indeed the article as a whole, does not provide a link to the article describing the current line at Taunton, it only links to the historic railway company, whose page has no routemap.

A link would be useful to set the historic line in context. (And, while you're at it, how about some LUECKEs on the mainline? :o) )

EdJogg 11:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted! But on the principle that old railways should link to old railways – and modern routes should link to modern routes – I have put a map on the Bristol and Exeter Railway page. Geof Sheppard (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That'll do nicely! I have also added some {{RoutemapRoute}} templates to indicate the main line orientation to 'non-rail readers'. (On a routemap, cannot assume that 'up' is north!)
EdJogg (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knackershole Tunnel?

[edit]

Change: Nightcote Tunnel ---> Knackershole Tunnel

Although this looks like vandalism, I'm not sure that it is. There are plenty of online refs for the name "Nightcote Tunnel", probably because it is extremely short, but this website (not a reliable source, admittedly) suggests that the name "Knackershole Tunnel" was shown on an OS map!

So...Is this an extremely elaborate hoax? or, did the tunnel name change? (when?) or are there two tunnels? Or, what?

EdJogg (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the OS Map for Dulverton in 1884 but can't see any named tunnels. Do you have a grid ref or other coordinates to narrow it down?— Rod talk 13:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AH-HA!! The key fact is that Dulverton Station is (was) considerably south of the village. Starting from your map and going west (at least once) and south (at least twice) gives this view, and BINGO! right on the bottom edge of the map (left-hand side), just underneath "West Nightcote" is the name "Knackershole Tunnel"!!
Fantastic find!
So, this is presumably also known as Nightcote Tunnel (I can only see the one tunnel, little more than a bridge, between the two stations), so when was it renamed? (and why?)
EdJogg (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! Having reverted the name I now spotted that you have opened this discussion. I too was in the "is this an extremely elaborate hoax?" camp, so I went back to my printed references and could not find any mention of Knackershole. Unknown user ... no reliable reference ... probably just a local name ... not used by the railway ... let's do a revert. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did the same thing with the Tower Bridge article on Monday -- easily done when clearing a watchlist backlog at speed!
It did take a while to track down through Google. Perhaps not a wise search term? (In fact it's only problematic if you search for "Knackers Hole" (the name of the nearby hamlet/farm/cottage) rather than "Knackershole"!)
I could be really awkward and change the name back, and cite it too, seeing as how we now have an on-line map and the more common name isn't actually referenced...but you know I'm not like that. What I will do is add a note (with our first inline reference!) to say that the name has been seen to be different. It would be interesting to find out why there are the two names -- maybe the cartographer simply used the closest name? An email to the owners of the (cottage) website might be productive.
EdJogg (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, are you sure it is called Nightcote Tunnel? The nearby villages are East/West Nightcott. (check the OS Map refs that are in preparation!)
EdJogg (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, officially it must be Nightcote, although Googling will find Nightcott mentioned too.
Have you come across this Government spreadsheet? It appears to list over 4500 bridges/tunnels/viaducts/culverts/abutments(!) on closed railways, and provides grid references for them all!! (Nightcote is among them, as is an adjacent tunnel at East Anstey.)
EdJogg (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

[edit]

There are a couple of issues here;

1: The template that forces an uncomfortable (for some people) sequence of referencing sources; this is especially the case when the work is multi-volume or has some other peculiarity. But in any case it requires more keystrokes in general; why use it? And why is it so important anyway?

2: Irrespective of the code system used, as far as the reader is concerned (who doesn't care what code lies behind the citation) why do we quote surnames first? The President of the USA is Barack Obama, not Obama, Barack. If we were compiling an alphabetical list of authors, as is usual in bibliographies at the end of printed books, that would be a different matter. But why, oh, why, when it is just citations? The bloke who wrote all those descriptions of stations is Mike Oakley, not Oakley, Mike.

There's so much that this article is in need of to make it balanced and complete, I regret that we seem to be debating fine points of the coding system that the average reader doesn't see and doesn't care about.

While I'm on the subject, I had changed the town where Oakley's publisher is located to Wimborne. Isn't that right? I see it has been changed back to Wimbourne.Afterbrunel (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates give a consistent style, since regardless of the information that they are given, or the order in which they are given that information, the information that is output is in a predictable order and format. They also yield COinS metadata, which some people find useful. These templates - such as {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} - are widely used across Wikipedia, although their use is not mandatory. But if the article already uses them (as this one did) removal can be controversial - WP:CITEVAR states (among other things):
Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference ... without first seeking consensus for the change. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it
To be avoided
  • ... removing citation templates from an article that uses them consistently
There were some red cite errors in the article, but these were not because citation templates had been used, but that the wrong template had been used for a repeat ref where only the page number differed - {{cite book}} was used with insufficient parameters, instead of {{harvnb}} or similar.
Regarding Wimbourne/Wimborne: none of my edits changed it back. I expect that in your edits you intended to fix all the instances of Wimbourne, but overlooked some. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Devon and Somerset 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) 19:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Devon_and_Somerset_Railway&oldid=1206953489"