Jump to content

Talk:Hastings line

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleHastings line is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 13, 2015.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 24, 2014Good article nomineeListed
June 21, 2015Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 3, 2015Featured article candidatePromoted
May 1, 2015Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 15, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that shoddy tunnel construction in the 1840s forced the Hastings Line to use a restricted loading gauge and special narrow-bodied trains (Class 33/2 locomotive pictured) until 1986?
Current status: Featured article

Congratulations on your Featured Article being on the Main Page!

[edit]

I don't take such efforts for granted. Thank you to all the editors and reviewers who worked so hard to create a great article. You deserve appreciation and applause for your efforts. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

If anyone reading this has even a faint clue about good writing, what is wrong with this sentence?

Although primarily carrying passengers, a gypsum mine served by the railway is a source of freight traffic.

That this made it through the FAC process with this in place is nothing short of scandalous. That it appeared on the Main Page in this condition says nothing at all for our supposed quality control. Embarrassing. --John (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John:} I see nothing at all wrong with the sentence, nor did several other reviewers and editors over a long period of time. Therefore it can't be too far out.
If you have some constructive suggestions for improving the sentence, please feel free to either suggest them here or boldy reword it yourself. Berating other editors' work without saying where or why it is wrong is not constructive at all, and something we can all do without. Mjroots (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh. I taught English to 14-year-olds whose first language was not English and they would have laughed at this. I did boldly fix it and was reverted. It has since been fixed by another editor. Honestly, if you are writing or reviewing at this level and cannot see the problem with the sentence as it stood, you should look again at your skillset. This is not only not brilliant prose, it would fail a high-school English language test. --John (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I used to teach it I used the example I love to listen to music doing my homework. Who is doing the homework, you or the music? In the (actually rather unintentionally hilarious) example from this article, it sounded like the gypsum mine was carrying the passengers. Here's an interesting link, and many thanks to User:Costesseyboy for fixing the schoolboy error. --John (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This book looks interesting: Gorfein, David S. (2012-12-06). Resolving Semantic Ambiguity. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9781461235965. Retrieved 16 October 2015. And this website provides some more examples. “I rode a black horse in red pajamas” is my favourite.--John (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Although primarily carrying passengers, a gypsum mine" is terribly substandard English. Thanks to whoever fixed it. Dicklyon (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible errors

[edit]

Is the endpoint Tunbridge Wells? Or Tonbridge? Both appear in sources; the map shows the line going past Tunbridge Wells to Tonbridge, which is not otherwise mentioned in the article (oh, nevermind, somehow my search didn't find it but it's there). This book and this book it the Tonbridge–Hastings line (with en dash). And very few sources capitalize line, however they choose to refer to it. See [1] and [2]. And spellings of both places seem to vary in the vowel. Dicklyon (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: The matter of spelling was addressed by Mjroots (talk · contribs) some time ago, but I don't recall where.
The northern of the two towns, which nowadays is spelled "Tonbridge", did not adopt that spelling until 1870, so please indicate where you see "Tonbridge" in a pre-1870 context, or "Tunbridge" (without "Wells") in a post-1870 context.
The town of Tunbridge Wells has been spelled that way throughout the relevant period (1820s to date), so there should be no instances of "Tonbridge Wells", so please indicate where you see "Tonbridge Wells" in any context. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find quite a few Tonbridge Wells (in 19th, 20th, and even 21st centuries) in books. Probably the others get misspelled too, but since those spellings were researched, I'm fine with that. Just need to fix the caps then. Dicklyon (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: - not one of those sources you give uses the spelling "Tonbridge Wells". The spelling of T(u/o)nbridge is addressed it the article, and that appropriate to the time is used.
Sorry, I see the search did a spelling correction that I hadn't noticed. Thanks for setting me straight. Dicklyon (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Just need to fix the caps then" - I presume you mean to move the article to "Hastings line". That title is not supported by sources. Mjroots (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sources have lots of "Hastings line", some included in "Tonbridge and Hastings line", "Tonbridge to Hastings line", "Tonbridge–Hastings line", and other different lines. But caps are more rare, both in books and web. See searches for "the hastings line": web and news and books. Where in sources are you finding consistent capitalization? Dicklyon (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hastings line. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 07:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hastings line. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 17:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hastings_line&oldid=1207413660"