Talk:Stoke Gifford depot

Bristol Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: in UK Mid‑importance

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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).

Gloucestershire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gloucestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gloucestershire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GloucestershireWikipedia:WikiProject GloucestershireTemplate:WikiProject GloucestershireWikiProject Gloucestershire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

References

Most of the directly linked documents in the references are deadlinks. On a personal note, I dislike multiple references looking to the same source (IMO they should just be grouped), and references which have several different sources (IMO one reference = one source). -mattbuck (Talk) 09:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links - do you mean 1 or 2 - ie do they work? The southglos.gov.uk site is tempermental - possibly try clicking to the main application

I think the site may be preventing deep links (maybe cookies?)- if you click on 1 it doesn't seem to work until you have visited the parent first ie link 2.. then 1 works..

Can you check this please - if this is what is happening I will modify the links.. Thanks

I've double checked this - as far as I can tell the "parent" 2 application list of documents has to be visited first (takes ~4 secs to respond), then the links eg 1 work, just refreshing makes them load - don't know if there is a fix - I could remove the urls from the "child" links and force people to go via the "parent" - ? Or I could add a note to the references? Or maybe there is a fix?

Have you got it to work yet?

Some references have two sources because they link to secondary and tertiary sources - eg one link is to BBC News (ie notability), the other will be to a planning document (ie much more detail)

In other cases I had to collate from different sources to get a coherent whole, but I will look at it again later, and see if it can be tidied.

Did you mean things like "Indigo Planning Ltd. & Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 2011, section 3.2-3.3; p.5 (p.9 in work)." - these are mostly Template:sfn links - the issue here is that some of the documents are huge, scanned (so text search doesn't work), and also contain more than one publciation withing the pdf - hence the multiple variations linking to the same place... It also makes Template:Rp not a good option -as there are multiple "page 10"s in the same document. (Not my fault..)

As for the multiple links in one ref - eg Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Bundling_citations - I don't mind either way - please de -bundle if you want.Prof.Haddock (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

I think this should probably be moved to Filton Triangle depot, or whatever the official name is. The Stoke Gifford bit is unnecessary disambiguation. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This link is the only thing I can find which actually sheds light on the depots name http://www.railtex.co.uk/_downloads/presentations/Railtex_hitachi.pdf Which names it Stoke Gifford Depot or Stoke Gifford Depot (Bristol). Mark999 (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

..I've read a lot of the literature and so far I've found both "filton triangle depot" and "stoke gifford depot" used about equally, with variants eg "stoke gifford rail depot" "filton triangle IEP depot" etc - Rail companies seem to use "filton triangle", whilst newspapers seem to use "stoke gifford".

Network rail has called it "Filton Triangle rail depot" eg see page 102 http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/projects/great%20western/electrification%20environmental%20statements/england/south%20gloucestershire/gwml%20electrification%20-%20south%20gloucestershire%20-%20environmental%20statement%20vol%201b.pdf?cd=1

I'll move it to that to get rid of the disambiguation, without making any claims of what will be the official title - it's probably too early to know,,,Prof.Haddock (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filton Triangle depot → Stoke Gifford depot – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. Mark999 (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we rename this page Stoke Gifford depot as this is the name used by Network Rail, GWR and Hitachi. It no longer seems to be called Filton Triangle depot anymore. Mark999 (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.