Talk:Mid-Norfolk Railway

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Mid-Norfolk Railway.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Mid-Norfolk Railway received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on April 2009 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

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).

Museums Low‑importance

	museums portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums 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.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Lever frame#Ground frames|ground frame]] The anchor (#Ground frames) has been deleted by other users before.
[[Charitable organization#Charitable organization structure|charitable company limited by guarantee]] The anchor (#Charitable organization structure) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Stations

With Hoe having been added as a proposed station, should Garvestone and Wymondham Junction also be added as proposed stations? DiverScout (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tough question. The Trust council has aired their support for a Hoe station and a few materials are already on site. Wymondham Jct Station and Garvestone are still quite a way down the list, so in my opinion at the moment they should remain off the page. Rackellar (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although Garvestone Parish Council have purchased land for a car park at their proposed station, suggesting that the Trust Council must have previously aired support for that as well? DiverScout (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Wymondham Junction Station is now receiving a stronger backing from the trust, especially with the upcoming Breckland Line Resignalling and the donation of WSJ Signal Box. Perhaps it should now be added to the article? Rackellar (talk) 23:40, 21st September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, though may be best to wait until a reference for it can be provided. DiverScout (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Towards GA?

The following request was made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. I have moved the response here since it is a more appropriate location. No text changes have been made. EdJogg (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please would someone have a look at Mid-Norfolk Railway, which I am trying to improve. I think it's around GA standard now, but any advice/suggestions welcome. Thanks. DiverScout (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pleasure

Feedback and suggestions

Consider merging sections 'passenger' and 'freight closure' under section 'decline' Y
Consider adding some info from beginning of 'presevation' section to end of 'history' section - as a closing subsection
The track bed is mostly intact from County School to Fakenham, and is reserved by the council for railway use,[15] meaning non-railway development cannot take place - consider cutting explanation after comma Y and linking to rail bank eg Rail_trail#Railbanking - the term 'rail bank' should be in there I think.

I had a look and "Rail banking" is possibly not the correct term for this, as the US term implies something far more substantial than the protection given here.

The line is also home to preserved stations, Yaxham retaining period features such as ... - should that comma be something else? ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;Y
Subsection 'TV and film' is a little stilted - too many short sentences beginning with 'The'. and probably needs a new name - can't quite think what at the moment.Y
Section 'Route details' - nothing wrong here - but the picture diagram isn't displaying well on my monitor - I think it should be converted to standard rail-route template diagram form eg like Template:ECML article - I don't actually know how do do this myself - but I'm sure some one can/will else can show/help you.Y
Section 'engineering work' - subsection route extension - dates etc - has it started.
Suggest merging 'motive power' and 'rolling stock' sections into one section probably called 'rolling stock', also, the heading 'coaching stock' seems unneccessary.Y
Section 'Support' becomes Funding and associated bodies ? - with more information on funding etc - does the railway pay for itself is what I'd like to know - is it a charitable organisation Y
First reference (from google books) - suggest changing this to the book title/author/publisher/date format - but include a reference to the copy available at google books - If only because the long URL messes up the page width formatting.. eg

Scrivenor, Harry (1849). The Railways of the United Kingdom Statistically Considered. Smith, Elder and Co. p. 334. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) -stick that between some ref tags. I've done that for you - you'd better check the first reference to make sure it's still ok Y

A lot of other references just exist as urls - these definately need to be converted to title/url/publisher format - a tedious task - I doubt you will find many volunteers for that..

You can obviously ignore most of those suggestions. - though the first reference, diagram, and 'rail bank' parts are probably needed. The rest you can ignore as opinion if wished.

The other thing is images - the infobox image gives the impression the article is about a loco - the train takes up too much of the frame - I know Norfolk isn't photogenic but I think a wide angle (or just fair distance) shot of a station + much smaller loco would be far better... A commons gallery link would also be a good idea - are there no budding photographers on the railway?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 00:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a go at the carriages - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mid-Norfolk_Railway&diff=271465717&oldid=271460416 hopefully it's seen as an improvement - if you want the order of the columns moving around, or other minor changes please feel free to ask. I'd also suggest removing multiple interwiki links to air brake in that section..

Finished on carriages - if its made it worse just revert - or tell what's wrong and I will attempt to improve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 01:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT links 11 and 15 are dead, additionally link 24 is a word document and it isn't clear (to me) where it's from - norfolk county council perhaps.

I've made the links format a little better, you have some photographic images in the reference - it might be better to have them in a separate section using, the same goes for some of the page references to 'Oppitz' - which can be done using : <ref group="*"> ..reference.. </ref> ie take a look at Wikipedia:Footnotes for the full details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 02:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with getting an upgrade from B, I'm sure you are very close or already there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 02:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further queries

'Construction and development'
- Are there articles for the constituent companies yet?

No, not at the moment.

- When did the line become part of the Great Eastern Railway (mentioned in the following section)?
  (EdJogg (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)) Y[reply]

'Grouping and Nationalisation'
- When were the extra sidings installed at Dereham, and when removed. What were they used for?
- This section in general is rather sparse on history (during LNER days) and could do to be filled-out, it would then be sensibly split from the BR-era history. (EdJogg (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hard to answer, as these sidings were set up by the War Department and almost no public records have been found, other than the fact that the sidings existed during the Second World War. If anyone finds anything it would be great to see this detail added.

Managed to get opening dates, but nothing on lifting date in public domain that I have yet found. DiverScout (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'External links'
- The two diesel-related external links could be better used as references for those sections, although it might not be unreasonable to keep them in the Links section too...

- The 'Other places...' should be in a 'See also' section, before References (as they are internal links) however they are not really rlevant to the article, and would probably need to be removed for a GA Review (until then, they do no harm).Y EdJogg (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, thanks. Will work through these along with the others who have already made a start! XD DiverScout (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request GA review

It took some doing, but I think we might be there. Could we have some fresh eyes to see if this is now GA or if there is anything else I can add? Thanks ... and looking forward to tackling my next project ... DiverScout (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some general comments about the article, most of which would be rquired to be fixed up to meet the GA criteria. Some of the stuff I have fixed myself:

The lead should be at least twice the length—see WP:LEAD.
Remember to convert all units to metric (using the {{convert}} template makes it easy).
Avoid forcing image sizes. Also, avoid galleries. I have reformatted the images, and removed the galleries. If there are any images in the gallery that should instead be on the side, make them normal thumbs instead.
The formatting for online sources is insufficient. Ideally, use the {{cite web}} template to generate nice, inclusive references. They should include the url, title, author, date, accessdate and publisher (date and publisher can be dropped if not available). For the sake of a clean source, unused parameters in the template can be dropped.
There are some very short paragraphs and sections under 'Funding and associated bodies'. Could these not be merged into a single section and a paragraph or two?
The use of bold is ideally restricted to the lead; it is also overused to cover other things than synonyms for the article's name/context.
The introduction to the steam and diesel locomotive sections seem very elementary. Almost all people reading about a heritage railway will know what a steam- and diesel locomotive are. For the few who do not, give them a wikilink.

Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments.

I will add some extra information to the lead.
Metrification, where not already completed (thanks) will be continued.
I have restored one of the galleries. Putting them or not putting them in is really personal taste, not Wiki policy, and other editors have requested additional images. I may extend the route description to include the otherwise deleted images from that section.
YHas {{cite web}} become compulsory now? It was always stated that it was not previously, although some editors pushed it very hard? Oh well, will slowly look at them.
'Funding and associated bodies' was a requested section, and reflects content on most other "high level" articles on peer lines.
YBold going...
The introductions are elementary by design. Wikipedia is not a specialist publication and articles should be for all. That is why I added the short introductions, which explain enough for the lay reader, and included a wikilink for those who want to know more. DiverScout (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed the various titles from the 'Funding and associated bodies' section. For clarity I have used bold to highlight the Group names rather than retain titles for each one. I think that this works? If not I'll fiddle some more! XD

Updating the links to {{cite web}} (yuck, btw) has been completed, although I have not included the accessdate in all cases (especially the links to the Carriage Register) as this would negate the 2 column format for the reference list. If people really feel that this information is needed I'll stick it in and change the format to one column. DiverScout (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intention to assume GA

Unless I hear that anyone has any areas for development I intend to flag this as GA at the end of the month. This will be done in good faith and its been up for review for a while with no additional input and all previous comments have now been acted upon or replied to. Obviously if anyone disagrees let me know why and we can discuss it! :) DiverScout (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit

I have reverted the good-faith edit by an unregistered user as:

Wikipedia is not a technical railway journal and a short entry on each type of motive power, with a link to the main article for those who want the extra information, therefore seems appropriate for those Wikipedia users who require it.
68012 is not an LNER J94, however it has been represented as a member of that class for many years and is listed on the page on that class, along with all the other "Fake" J94s. Perhaps this will change once the locomotive has been restored with a different identity, but at the moment this is a valid link.
A photograph showing a member of the same class as the indicated locomotive, already on Wikipedia, is hardly an irrelevant photo. Wikipedia policy is to include photographs where possible. If the restoration is completed and brought into use on the MNR a photograph of the specific locomotive in service can be added. A photograph of a dismantled pile of parts covered by a tarp, as is the situation at the moment, would do little to illustrate the type to the casual reader. DiverScout (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DiverScout, the anon is correct to make the changes.

It is sufficient to simply link to steam locomotive in the standard way, like that. See how I did it? It is not necessary to have a whole paragraph explaining what a steam locomotive is with a {{main}} template. A simple link in the standard way is completely sufficient. The section article is about steam locomotives on the MNR not steam locomotives in general.
The photograph of the austerity 0-6-0ST on the K&ESR is irrelevant to this article as it is not the austerity at the MNR. Try find a relevant photograph of the actual engine concerned (yes even if it's in pieces), or if people need to know what one looks like they should go to Hunslet Austerity 0-6-0ST which is linked. Pictures should be included to illustrate things not (just) because they're pretty. In the long run, we'll get a photo, don't worry.
The "J94" is not either one of the preserved LNER Class J94s -- the link should go to the Hunslet Austerity 0-6-0ST (with possibly a nod towards LNER Class J94), as you have done. "68012" is an austerity; J94s are also austerities, but "68012" is not a J94, except by disguise. If you could identify it properly (i.e. by its works number), that would be helpful. Tony May (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph makes no odds, and I'm happy enough with that change to the text. The photograph, however, shows a member of the same class as the resedent locomotive and is totally relevent as an illustration for the type - a fact made clear in the photo caption. I intend to put the photo back as this is categorically in line with Wikipedia policy. The locomotive is also listed on the J94 page, which I know is something that you personally dislike, but hat does not change the fact that it is listed, currently, as a J94. I believe that the owners intend to change that identity, but until that time it is the correct one. DiverScout (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, really, the use of an irrelevant photograph is extremely unprofessional and as a result it degrades the page as a whole and the reader's confidence in the accuracy of the information. This is not kiddy-wiki; people don't need to pictures just for the sake of pictures. Only a photograph of the engine concerned would be relevant enough for inclusion. Meanwhile, we still haven't identified what works number it actually is. Tony May (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, really, and your frankly patronising attitude is exceptionally unprofessional and unwelcome. Your personal opinion on the photo, while yours to express, is nothing to do with policy. Were the photograph to have ever professed to be one of the specific locomotive concerned, or had it been of another random class of locomotive, you would be right. It did not. The caption of the photograph clearly denoted why it was placed there and it is wholly correct under Wikipedia policy. These entries are here for all readers not just "kettle neds". Actually, so was the description of motive power types, as this is not a feature in a "ned" magazine nor a guidebook entry for the line. It is an encyclopedia entry intended for every potential user.

The locomotive works number, by the way, is HE3193. That took me about three seconds to find on the already-linked page about the locomotive's owners. Research sometimes involves doing a bit of basic research rather than just making snide comments about other editors. DiverScout (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+I note from your history and input on the LNER A1 page that you have a "slight agenda" against replica and new-build locmotives - or at least LNER ones. Perhaps you'll be pleased to know that the intention seems to be to restore the locomotive under its own original identity. When that happens the link to LNER J94 will not be required, but until it has a new public indentity it is still representing the J94 class. To create a new identity for the locomotive that is not applied to the locomotive, purely based on your own opinions, certainly would be original research. Be assured that once the change is made, if it is made, I would be the first to change the link from LNER J94 to Hunslet Austerity 0-6-0ST. Shame we're using the slang for the class rather than Hunslet 50550 Class - but I guess that industrial classes don't really matter? DiverScout (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr DiverScout, thank you for identifying the locomotive, and apologies for missing the link. But please let's not get into anyone having an "agenda" against anything. Also, I don't know what you mean by "kettle ned" but please stay calm and avoid personal attacks. I don't have a problem with new build replicas at all, merely request that they should be treated appropriately. Similarly, I don't have a problem with owners painting their ex-industrial austerities as J94s, but they should be treated appropriately. As a paid up member of the IRS, I find your comments about industrials confusing; not all engines need to have animals painted on the side ;). But if we get back to what you're arguing about now, i.e. the photograph, I'm afraid it is my opinion that it is really irrelevant and out of place (it was also the anon's opinion). Tony May (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for returning to adult discussion. I would ask, however, that you look at your earlier post and consider the concepts of staying calm and personal attacks. "Kettle ned" is a jovial preservation term for a steam enthusiast, of which I am also one by the way, so hardly any form of attack.

I'd suggest that having created a "debate article" longer than the A1 article on why Class A1 "Tornado" is not an A1 suggests that you have an agenda. Agendas are not necessarily a bad thing, we all have them, but we all need to recognise that we have them, keep open minds as well and not let them rule us.

Some of your edits are great, and it is fantastic to have another editor finally giving a hand with the development of the article, but others are starting to restrict the functionality of the entry. What is a "pre-Grouping" coach? The old edit explained to the lay reader what this was. Your edit has not even left a link for people to follow to find out. I say again, this is not a guide book or a railway magazine article. The entry is to be usable by all readers and some of your edits are slightly working against this goal - a problem with many railway articles which assume levels of knowledge found only in the enthusiast sector. I quote from the quality scale, "A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting." The removal of the photograph, included so that non-experts can quickly see what it is that is being listed, also restricts this. It is there so that non-enthusiasts can quickly and easily see what is being discussed.

The locomotive does not carry the identity you are trying to list it under, it carries a BR number - no matter how annoying you may find that, it is the present status. That is what we report on. The other details are fine in the notes section. DiverScout (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My only agenda is to ensure that Wikipedia is accurate, professional and not misleading. That is why I have improved the article by amending content that was innacurate. Tony May (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are now making up stuff on this article, causing false information to be presented. This is vandalism. Please stop. DiverScout (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What an extremely bizarre accusation. My improvements to the article speak for themselves. All you've done is oppose any changes made. Tony May (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they do. You have:

You have:

* Deleted third-party reference to the locomotive.

* Created a fictional operating number for the locomotive. It does not carry its works number.

* Deleted wiki-links.

* Worked directly against the Wikipedia article standards based on your own clear agenda.

Please stop vandalising this article. DiverScout (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. I have improved the article massively from where it was before. Everything I have done you have systematically opposed, and only reluctantly allowed once I have explained in detail what I am trying to achieve (though it should be obvious), while issuing unjustified personal attacks. Tony May (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have not. You have been hostile from your first comment, exceptionally patronising and have refused to enter adult debate on your edits (just making your changes while refusing to discuss them), treat others with even passing respect or adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Your suggestion that a few POV edits and tweeks represents a massive improvement does nothing other than illustrate your opinion of yourself. Until now I have done my best not to be personal - but no longer. Your edits have been, in part, poorly produced and directly inaccurate and I will continue to revert such edits and those that are against the quality guidelines. Where they are good they will be unchallenged. DiverScout (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. You have been unreasonably hostile from your first ill-judged reversion. I have merely been following WP:BEBOLD. As you can see from the article's history; the restructuring of it to where it is now is my work, which you should note and give me appropriate credit for, despite your persistent and obnoxious attempts to thwart any reasonable changes. Tony May (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll not waste any more time talking with you as it is clear that your ego cannot cope with anyone who does not bow down at your feet, but be sure that further vandalism on your part will be quickly reverted, as will any more POV garbage that you attempt to add in place of facts. Thank you, however, for giving me something to chuckle at in the morning before work. DiverScout (talk) 07:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little Barford photo

I've also removed the photo on the right. The reason for this is as follows.

The photograph has not been taken on the MNR but on another railway (The Mid Suffolk Light Railway), although granted it does not contain much of a setting, this is important for accuracy reasons.
Technical fault: it's pretty seriously overexposed
Composition: The composition is not particularly good as the wheels are obscured by an overexposed platform and the front left buffer is cut off.
There's already a photograph of a steam loco, 69621 there, so the need for a photo is not so great as to override the above concerns.

It would make sense to add another photo of this or another visiting engine if a suitable one can be found. Tony May (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that bothered about it going back as it was there from a long while back, but:

Your subjective POV on the quality of the photography is not appropriate and is, once again, against Wikipedia guidelines.
Your POV on the composition is also of no import, see above. If you want a site that just reflects your own POV and has pictures you like please create your own web site.
There is already a picture of a steam locomotive. So what? There will pretty certainly be others soon. They do not need to be of high artistic quality, either, and it is not up to you to judge them on artistic merit. They need to simply portray their subject. If you have better pictures you can always put them up to replace them. DiverScout (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh what a surprise. Are you just being obnoxious for the sake of being obnoxious? Is it my "subjective" POV that the picture is overexposed (and this is its principle problem)? No. If we were to take a look at the image histogram, there would be a huge mountain to the right. That indicates overexposure (which can sometimes be artistically justified but not in this case). The quality of the photograph is important, just as the quality of the writing is. You wouldn't want writing with spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, badly written prose, waffling, deviations off topic, would you? So why defend poor quality photographs? Tony May (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paid staff

Has the MNR stopped paying for retained S&T support for the AOCLs? DiverScout (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation

MOS:INSTITUTIONS says:

"Generic words for institutions (university, college, hospital, high school) do not take capitals:

Incorrect (generic): The University offers programs in arts and sciences.

Correct (generic): The university offers programs in arts and sciences.

Correct (title): The University of Delhi offers programs in arts and sciences."

So in this article, "society" should be capitalised in "the Fakenham and Dereham Railway Society", and not capitalised when written as "the society", and "the Mid-Norfolk Railway Preservation Trust", but "the trust". This is Wikipedia style. User:DiverScout is insisting on capitalising these words on the basis that "This article is written in British English, not Wikipedlish."

It is not clear that there is a standard British style for this. Take, for example, the University of Oxford Style Guide. Page 4 states: "Capitalise only when used as part of the title of a department, not when referring to a department without using its full name" and provides this example: "The Department for Work and Pensions has to make significant cuts this year, as do many government departments." The guide says pretty much the same thing with reference to colleges, faculties, divisions, and fellows.

There will be other style guides, of course, but I think this demonstrates that there is no one British style that should supersede Wikipedia style in this article. Ground Zero | t 20:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Ingafube (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Trust is a charitable trust. Note the use of capitals. The Society is a society dedicated to ... Note the use of capitals. DiverScout (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DiverScout, you have stated your position, but not provided any evidence that this style is "British English" or rationale why your preferred style should be used instead of the Wikipedia style. The Wikipedia style has been chosen by the Wikipedia community in order to make the encyclopaedia more consistent and easier to read. Ground Zero | t 09:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have pointed out that an abbreviated proper noun in British English requires a capital letter. You have yet to explain how your choice can overrule English grammar. This is not a Canadian English page. DiverScout (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my choice; it is the choice of Wikipedia and the University of Oxford. This is a question of style, not grammar. I have provided references to support my argument. Ground Zero | t 12:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, being a graduate of Oxford University I challenge you (and, no, you have not shown anywhere that proper nouns should be employed without capital letters). You have simply confused them with occasions where the common noun is the same spelling. All proper nouns are capitalised in British English. John Smith, for example, would be referred to as Smith, not smith. I have explained, in the simplest of terms, why you are applying policy (and grammar) incorrectly. DiverScout (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to the university's style guide which I linked above. It provides directly analogous examples:

"The Medical Sciences Division is based mainly in Headington. The division’s head is Alastair Buchan."
"Exeter College was founded in 1314. The college is one of the oldest in Oxford.
- NOT: "Exeter College was founded in 1314. The College is one of the oldest in Oxford."
"The Faculty of English is based in Manor Road. The faculty’s phone number is 271055."

The only exception the Oxford Style Guide makes is that "univesity" is capitalised on its own when referring to Oxford, but not to other universtities:

"Oxford University is a large employer. The University has ~10,000 staff members.... She attended the University of Liverpool to study English. It’s a wellrespected university and course."

But that style would not be generally accepted outside of Oxford. Do you think that the Oxford Style Guide has it wrong? Or is your use of "the Society" and "the Trust" somehow different from "the division", "the college", "the university", and "the faculty" in the above examples? In each case, reference is being made to a specific institution (hence the use of the definite article), and not to institutions in common. Ground Zero | t 13:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh give it a rest. I've already solved the problem you are choosing to create. As you clearly do not comprehend the simplest concepts, explained in the simplest language possible, there is nothing to gain from further discussion - especially when you cite the use of University to abbreviate the proper noun University of Oxford, as opposed to the common noun "university". Your example, in fact, proves my point exactly. DiverScout (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no calling for being insulting. You have not explained how the style guides I've provided do not apply, and you have provided no references to support your argument. I agree that the problem in the article has been resolved. Your use of personal attacks which are unnecessary, violate Wikipedia policy, and do not help resolve the disagreement. Ground Zero | t 14:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How typical. Someone who makes an incorrect point (repeatedly), then hides behind the "personal attack" banner when their refusal to read replies is pointed out. Your attitude is a classic example of the problems of Wikipedia. I have repeatedly explained why you are wrong and also explained how the very source that you are attempting to employ also illustrates why you are wrong. As they say, you can lead a human to information, but you can't make him think. DiverScout (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've not offered anything to substantiate your claim, are deliberately ignoring the many and varied examples given by the University of Oxford's style guide, are focusing on that university's esoteric styling of its own name, and are ignoring Wikipedia's on style guide. Despite Ground Zero's best efforts to allow you to explain your position, you continue to hold a position without giving it any founding. You seem to be either so passionate about your cause that you are no longer able to explain it to the uninitiated (something that an MSc (Ed.) Oxon should prepare you not to be) or a troll.

The article should follow Wikipedia's style guide.Ingafube (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you are making deliberate wanton edits to provoke a response - aka trolling. Reverting vandalism. DiverScout (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a dispute over a question of style. "Illiterate edit", "vandalism', "trolling", "wanton edits", claiming that I am not understanding simple explanations and refusing to read replies, is all uncalled-for. I read your replies, and am trying to understand your arguments, but you are refusing to provide any reference to support them, and are relying on "I am right and you are wrong" to make your case. That's not good enough in any discussion, let alone in Wikipedia. Two editors are telling you that you are wrong here, and providing evidence to back it up. You do not own this article, so you will have to accept the views of others on this. Wikipedia is written as a community. It does seem that you have trouble accepting that, and your behaviour is not acceptable. Ground Zero | t 14:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. You (and seeing as you seem to be claiming all replies are directed at you, are you saying that Ingafube is your sock puppet?) are wrong. You have had this explained to you, in standard English, including pointing out that the source that you employ (and the MOS) all agree that you are wrong - however you are, as far as I am concerned, the one choosing to ignore replies. The text has been edited to resolve the situation, and now seems the argument is being revived purely to continue itself and for its own sake. That is unacceptable.

A proper noun is capitalised. An abbreviated proper noun is still a proper noun. It is capitalised. Use as per WP:MOS>Institutions>Political or geographical units - "Correct ("City" used as proper name): In the medieval period, the City was the full extent of London." As stated, however, the issue was edited away from even being there and is now simply, as far as I can see, being dragged out to cause argument on a point-scoring basis. DiverScout (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be a little confused. Please read the style guide, MOS:INSTITUTIONS (quoted at the top of this thread), a little more closely. Then perhaps clarify how you think the example of "the City" (a geographic term) is more appropriate here than the given treatment of "university" (an institution).

Ingafube (talk) (an account unconnected to any other) 22:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the term "the City" is a proper noun referring to this place, which is not London itself but a small area in the middle of it. There is an example of the use of city as a generic term three lines higher up in MOS:INSTITUTIONS, where it is not capitalized. --Stfg (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DiverScout's misinterpretation of the exception as being the rule suggests to me that some clarification is needed at MOS:INSTITUTIONS. I will propose some in the next few days, citing this discussion as demonstrating the need for them. Ground Zero | t 23:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed clarifications to the guide here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Clarifying_MOS:INSTITUTIONS. Comments are welcome. Ground Zero | t 12:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on capitalisation in British English

This RfC was closed because consensus was reached to follow MOS:INSTITUTIONS. (Have I done this right?) Ingafube (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes :) --Stfg (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should nouns denoting institutions (e.g., society/Society and trust/Trust) take capital letters in British English when the full proper name is not used? Ingafube (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled "Capitalising proper nouns" to see if I could find any source that says that "the Trust" would be a proper noun and therefore must be capitalised. I looked first at UK sources, but there were very few and none was definitive. That must be why DiverScout has failed to provide any source to support his argument. American and Australian sources rarely address the issue, but seem to support the idea that capitalisation here is a question of style, not of grammar, and that "trust" is a proper noun only when part of the full name of the organisation, and not when it is used on its own. Ground Zero | t 14:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to follow Wikipedia's style guide. The examples of the University of Oxford's own style guide and also The Economist's should sufficiently demonstrate that standard British usage in this case is no different from Wikipedia's. Ingafube (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:INSTITUTIONS. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Jonesey has pointed us to the MOS's say on this issue, I suggest speedy closing this RFC. An outcome other than what the MOS stipulates would be invalid per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the debate rumbles on in the section above this, with the principal dissenting voice silent here. How ought we to proceed? Ingafube (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the source of the disagreement has left us. How do we go about wrapping this up quickly?Ingafube (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC#Ending RfCs offers a few ways. Ingafube, as the initiator, I think you're you'd be fine to close it yourself as a snow close if you like. The fact that the MOS, a community-wide consensus, resolves the issue justifies that. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mid-Norfolk Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mid-Norfolk Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090810152348/http://www.wensumvalleytrust.org.uk:80/wensumvalley/ to http://www.wensumvalleytrust.org.uk/wensumvalley/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mid-Norfolk 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) 01:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Mid-Norfolk 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) 20:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mid-Norfolk 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160109121745/http://www.thebrecklandview.com/2013/05/19/mnr-hst/ to http://www.thebrecklandview.com/2013/05/19/mnr-hst/

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) 13:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mid-Norfolk 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010728130751/http://www.locomaster.co.uk/traction_98_part_2.htm to http://www.locomaster.co.uk/traction_98_part_2.htm

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) 04:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mid-Norfolk 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080803050355/http://www.mnr.org.uk/photos/steam/ to http://www.mnr.org.uk/photos/steam

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) 12:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Mid-Norfolk Railway Logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The D05 group

The official page for this group states that its locomotive is based on the MNR. Deletion of this is, therefore, inappropriate until and unless their official information changes. Neith-Nabu (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting utter tripe

The line starts at the 0 miles, at Wymondham South Junction. Who maintains the first few panels relating to the maintained mainline junction is neither here nor there in terms of the mileage of the branch. The line in MNR ownership then extends beyond County School station, 17.75 miles. Actually a little but further. This is pure, simple and absolute fact and the editor wanting to create his fictional data needs to stop trying to add utter nonsense to this page. Neith-Nabu (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is your source for these claims? You have provided no sources whatsoever, contrary to the policy on verifiability.

If you examine this book:

Padgett, David (October 2016) [1988]. Brailsford, Martyn (ed.). Railway Track Diagrams 2: Eastern (4th ed.). Frome: Trackmaps. map 13B. ISBN 978-0-9549866-8-1.

you will see that the zero point for the branch is actually within Wymondham station; Wymondham South Junction is at 3 chains; the property boundary is at 8 chains; the end of the line at North Elmham is at 16 miles 23 chains; hence the length of the MNR is 16 miles 15 chains. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you knew anything about the subject … the branch mileage starts at 0m. The branch in MNR ownership extends to the point stated, beyond County School station - past the 17.75 mile post. Neith-Nabu (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the idiots backing the fiction writer, the simple FACT that the line extends to County School, not North Elmham, is public domain common-source. The simple fact that County School is at 17.5 miles is also public domain, common source. If you lot really want to back someone who can't even get the basic fact about where the line ends correct, then you really are more of a joke than I thought. Neith-Nabu (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neith-Nabu several points; 1 ) we are not idiots, please refrain from personal attacks. 2) What sources, other than your observations do you have for the line's mileage? I have the above trackmaps book and I can confirm that it states the line to be 16 miles and 15 chains, as the boundary is listed at 8 chains in from the junction. 3) We are not friends of Redrose64 but we do support their stance on verifiability, a central tenet of Wikipedia editing. 4) Calm down and realise that to include statements of fact on Wikipedia, you will need a secondary or tertiary reliable source that states the fact that you wish to append. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The joy of all things ... I believe Neith-Nabu has done some good faith work on the line routemap ... are you able to cross check any of the mileposts on the Routemap. ? Is the issue on how the northern end of line is defined? Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark I don't doubt that Neith-Nabu has done some sterling work on the article, and I am not calling that into question (the routemap is fantastic!) However, the personal attacks of idiots etc, is contrary to the etiquette principles on Wikipedia. Neith-Nabu is removing sources that clearly state 16 miles and 15 chains and inserting the mileage they claim is 17+ without any citation, reliable or otherwise. The trackmaps are deemed as a reliable source by (most?) editors. Whilst it can be incorrect in view of recent extensions or operational attributes (it was printed in 2016), I don't think that asking for an updated source is too much. It shows the extension as mentioned by Neith-Nabu, but also clearly shows a break in the track between the two entities, therefore the line length cannot be classified as a whole until the two are joined (my opinion, of course, otherwise we might as well include all other sidings and tot them up for a really long line length, but I seem to remember that it is down to what a railway has as operational track in its entirety.) As Redrose64 states, it is about verifiability. I am more than happy to be proved wrong, have been wrong before, will be again definitely, but it would be nice to have a) a reliable source and b) some civility. You and I have just proved we can do the second point there. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS; are you able to cross check any of the mileposts on the Routemap? You mean you want me to walk the line....? The joy of all things (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to view a you of peoples random trips on it .... I seen a '9' milepost in the middle of nowhere and a '1/4' or something at an identifiable location ... but then I give up. I been on google streetmap and looked at the offending bridge over the B1110 (more like 2 pillars) ... so on that basis I suppose I might hope you'd walk the line ... there again there's a safety aspect to that.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Length of line

There is no requirement to source self-evident facts. There never has been.

It is a categoric fact that the Mid-Norfolk Railway extends from Wymondham through to a point beyond County School station. This cannot be argued against. The fact that one person has chosen to use an intermediate former station site as a point that he has chosen to become a fictional terminus of the line does not make it a reality. I could, for example, find a source for the mileage between Wymondham and Ryburgh, or Yaxham, or to Foulsham - but the fact that I could add a reference to that statement would not, in any way, validate a claim that any of these related, in any way, to the overall length of the MNR. (I feel that Wikipedia:Fictitious references applies to the reference from Rose.)

The figures in the info box clearly include an overall length and an operational length. The fact that the line between the operational section and the overall length of line owned includes sections where track is being replaced makes no odds to the fact that the MNR clearly, irrefutably, extends to County School station. The cover photo on the Wikipedia page on the latter station includes the 17.5 mile post, located in the platform, with track visibly extending beyond it. The MNR have even offered periodic rail replacement bus services to County School (look up their Vintage Bus Day for an immediate case in point).

The southern "limit" can possibly be considered a case for discussion, as to whether the section of the branch maintained by Network Rail (under contract to the MNR) counts as a part of the main line. It is, to me, also clearly part of the line. The mileage of the line starts there, and always has. Trains coming on and off the MNR operate over it too. However, there is some vague scope for that end to be a grey area. This is not the case with the fact that the northern end of the MNR is beyond the 17.5 mile post.

The "offending" bridge over the B1110 is beyond the limit of the section being disputed by the person you are all choosing to back, by the way.Neith-Nabu (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me for being stupid ... but are we talking about 3 different lengths here.

The total current operational length of the MNR over which trains can operate ... (I think there is no issue here).
The total length of the MNR including sections that have been lifted. (I believe this is Neith-Nabu's position)
The total length of the line that is laid and under MNR jurisdiction ... (that may be the claim of the Padgett source).

Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC). Thought: it's actually more productive to focus on the explanation as why the two figures are different and the reason for the discrepancy then its easier to agree how to handle it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the Paget text - but it would seem that the indicated figure relates to the former BR freight operation line in 1989, as given in the sectional appendix of that era, rather than anything to do with the MNR as a corporate entity.

I have reverted the data back to the long-standing 17.5 mile distance that has been in place on the article for many years while this conversation is ongoing, as this removes both my extension of the distance to the northern land boundary of the company and Rose's claim that it stops in North Elmham (at a point where track is missing and being replaced in any case).

I've pointed out that County School is a station on the Mid-Norfolk Railway (albeit non-rail served), and that MNR (bus) services operate to the station periodically. I've also provided a link to the MNR's interactive route map, which includes miles and chains, and to the photo of the station on Wikipedia that clearly shows the 17.5 mile post in the platform, with track extending beyond it. As such, I think that I have made an appropriate edit, to stand while the discussion continues (should it need to do so). Neith-Nabu (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone finding it hard to use the official MNR interactive map, simply scroll up to County School (noting that this section counts as part of the MNR). The mileage of the level crossing in miles and chains is included. As previously stated, the photo of the station ON WIKIPEDIA shows the 17.5 mile post. Neith-Nabu (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said the County School is not part of the MNR, what I did state was that an an independent, reliable, secondary source stated the line length was 16 miles and 15 chains. The satellite imagery you have provided quite clearly shows that there is no track connecting County School to North Elmham, between bridges 1705 and 1707, even the colour of the the tracking line changes between the two points from red to blue. Therefore the Operational part of the line ends at North Elmham. You have refuted the trackmaps reference, even though you fully admit you don't have access to it and accuse us of providing false references!

Take for instance Aysgarth railway station on the Wensleydale Railway. It was, up until recently, owned by Wensleydale Railway and had a small section of track and a carriage or shunter there. The line length of WR is defined as being 22 miles between Northallerton and Redmire, but if Aysgarth was included, then the line length would be nearer 32 miles, which it is not, although they have a stated aim to run trains to that location. My trackmaps reference shows County School as part of the MNR starting at 16.75 and the station being at 17.33; but here is the kicker - it shows a great big gap between the two.

You say that there is no requirement to source self evident facts. How is it self evident to someone like myself, who has unfortunately never been to the MNR? How I am supposed to just realise what the line length is? How is the line length self-evident? It isn't. It needs a reliable, secondary (or tertiary) source to tell the blissfully unaware, like myself, that it extends for XX miles and XX chains, which is shown in your reference by Jenkins. I don't have that book, but I'll take you at your word, WP:AGF and all that. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike a couple of others, including the initiator of the dispute, you have engaged in adult conversation on the matter and sought a proper resolution and so you will be treated with due respect. Please note that other comments have been made on a range of places, so not every comment on here refers to you! The fact that the line if under restoration does not change the length of the overall MNR any more than the length of the ECML changes when a section is removed. County School is an integral part of the MNR, operated by the MNR as a visitor centre, included in MNR events and having periodic MNR (bus) services operating to and from it. The formation through the station is owned, outright, by the MNR, with planning consent for restoration and operation given (links included in the article a long time ago).

You ask how someone who has not been to the MNR would know? Well, there is a Wikipedia article including links that tells you most of what you would ever want to know. ;) However, I agree. That is why I am only editing on a couple of pages on locations close to me, rather than trying, as it appears to me that some are doing, to gate-keep the entire encyclopedia by making ill-informed edits on matters they neither know nor care about, and then abusing policy to bully and threaten people. I'm afraid that, WP:AGF or not, I am not able to respect people who push people into edit wars, then threaten them for edit-warring. A simple "Could you explain..." message is all that is probably ever needed in order to get a respectful reply.

To me, the map clearly shows three colours - with the "not MNR" colour starting after the station. Actually, the railway seem to have set it way too close to the station, but that is irrelevant to restoring the long-standing stated 17.5 miles of the line. It only fails to confirm the fact that they own a further quarter of a mile, so I will not chase up that edit until I manage to get it updated in a printed format some time. Another battle for another day.

By the way, can I just check the Wikipedia policy on closed lines. The same editor is claiming (on the Kimberley Park railway station page that the line at Wymondham is "closed" as it carries no scheduled passenger trains. Instead it carries regular, scheduled seasonal maintenance trains, periodic passenger charters and irregular workings on and off the main line. To me, labelling it as closed seems rather misleading. Neith-Nabu (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The disruptive user has now been blocked for edit warring, can we restore to the correct version? Jeni ^(talk) 08:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeni Actually blocked or not the user was trying in a way to coming to discussions on this talk page whilst others seemed to be goading them into edit warring and not discussing on this page ... I am actually minded some of his points may be valid and I am far from totally convinced the source added was correct in all respects or may need qualification by a note or something. I'm perfectly OK with RedRose for adding the source and I'm perfectly okay of that source to be marked as say dubious for example as I think the mileposts are somewhat compelling .... but its needs more of a looking at and the blocked user while in good standing seems to have identified an alternative source so we still are going to need a mediated discussion even if they are not part of it. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark Looking at the mileposts and saying, hmm, that is 17 miles is WP:OR. Redrose64 provided a reliable, secondary source that stated the line's length. I can concur with that, because I have that self same publication. Neith-Nabu labelled it as a false reference even though they admitted they did not have access to that source, thereby not being able to refute the veracity of the claim. They then added a primary source, that of one from the MNR to replace the secondary source. In doing so, they were abrasive and rude and labelled us as idiots, stating that self-evident facts do not need sourcing. Whilst I am in no way in favour of, or opposed to a ban, if Neith-Nabu had been civil, then it would have been easier for us to reach a resolution on the length of the line.

I have explained at length above about Aysgarth and why it was not counted as part of the whole line of the Wensleydale Railway due to a break in the line. In my opinion (and I could be completely wrong here), that doesn't mean it should be included in the total length of the line. For me this all comes down to the verifiablity of the stated sources. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to look at in depth so these are quick interim thoughts before I do something else and I haven't followed all arguments above. We'd obviously like Neith-Nabu to work the discussion with less colourfulness and I feel that (hopefully) was beginning to happen. Infobox rail line was more definitive on linelength and tracklength parameters that would be useful. Using RedRose's reference with a note indicating this this continuous length of line to North Elmham buffer stop (and there's a bit more at County school) might be part of a solution proposal. This online document at GE130 perhaps is the reasonable source for the distance to County School station. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "blocked user" has answered comments made by people on this thread referring to mileposts, yet the "blocked user" is the one suddenly accused of suggesting them? Thank you, by the way, for noting that the edit-war was being engineered. I did not label the source as false, I labelled the application of the source as false. There is a large difference in those statements. I have supplied a number of references, including a published third-party reference that refers to the length of the actual MNR, not the rails (which are not a constant during restoration work). Neith-Nabu (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Padgett gives County School as 17 miles 36 chains, but this is on an isolated stretch beginning at 16 miles 75 chains. I do not doubt the existence of mileposts 17 and 171⁄4 in the vicinity of County School; but it is not possible to run a train through from the main portion of the MNR. So far as I am aware, that isolated section doesn't have any rolling stock that is capable of moving - Class 100 DMU car 56301 is a trailer, and there is no powered vehicle with which it could be used. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as much as I care little for self-created guidelines, I would refer you to your own one in relation to primary sources, "An article about a business: The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities. It is not likely to be an acceptable source for most claims about how it or its products compare to similar companies and their products (e.g., "OurCo's Foo is better than Brand X"), although it will be acceptable for some simple, objective descriptions of the organization including annual revenue, number of staff, physical location of headquarters, and status as a parent or subsidiary organization to another. It is never an acceptable source for claims that evaluate or analyze the company or its actions, such as an analysis of its marketing strategies (e.g., "OurCo's sponsorship of National Breast Cancer Month is an effective tool in expanding sales to middle-aged, middle-class American women")." Therefore, the fact that the MNR identifies itself as operating the line from Wymondham to County School, that it identifies County School as an active facility within that company and that the entire line between the two points constitutes the MNR are valid to be referenced from MNR sources - especially when backed up by an independent source. Neith-Nabu (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually realised this uses Template:Infobox heritage railway. Its description for length states length of heritage railway in its current state. Which to some extent can be read ambiguously for the phrase its current state. The fact it is in the preserved operations section perhaps tends towards operations as being a key factor. The case of the 17.5ml is almost about as strong as it reasonably could be for this heritage railway given the ownership of trackbed; various other agreements; the active use of County School and the active intention to extend; it is still a little bit WP:CRYSTAL ball future, thought the owenrship trackbed ownership is solid with no infrastructure issue. If choosing the 16 mile length I think I would wish a Template:efn note saying something like Additional to the 16 miles of connected track there is a further track laid near the planned terminus at County School station around the 17.5 mile mark I wonder if this would be an acceptable solution? Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A sensible possibility. However, a previous editor made a comment in this thread sarcastically referring to the use of sidings to boost mileage. In this case, that would be what was being done. The info box, which I presume is what we are still discussing, includes the operational length of the line and the overall length of the Mid-Norfolk Railway as a corporate entity. The length that a certain adversarial person keeps attempting to include is for the buffer stop at the end of a head shunt, not for the limit of the existing running line. In fact, additionally, that head shunt has been isolated for over 20 years, with panels also missing through the original North Elmham station site, meaning that the limit would possibly be North Elmham level crossing.

Apart from the fact that this year all the track at North Elmham is being lifted and replaced - as part of the MNRs ongoing restoration of their line to County School - which has been going on for quite a wile now.

As I've tried to point out, the MNR own the entire line from Wymondham South Junction to north of County School. That is what the MNR is. There is a difference between their operational length and the overall length of the line - and I think that more people are now seeing this. Attempting to use the buffer stops at Elmham as a reference point is meaningless in any context, other than in an argument where, for some specific agenda, someone were wanting to make the line seem shorter than it actually is.

Route boxes vs factual accuracy of Wikipedia

The instigator of the last edit war is still trying to create issues through now claiming that the line south of Wymondham Abbey / Kimberley Park is "closed" - and in insisting that this misleading (and dangerous, with the potential of criminal liability) misinformation is included on Wikipedia even when it is only an optional addition to the route tabs in any case. Neith-Nabu (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Neith-Nabu: What is this "potential of criminal liability" of which you speak? You made similar comments here, here, here, here, and here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pointing out that your blind determination to include false statements on active railways lines being "closed" which could be seen to be inciting criminal trespass and endangering trains. Now, where is the policy that specifies that all such boxes (which were designed to indicate stations) are even required to include reference to line or service status as you declare at the same places? Neith-Nabu (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Routeboxes that describe historical, disused, heritage and future rail routes (i.e. all those that are not present-day National Rail or London Underground routes) show the open/closed status of the adjacent station, and of the line connecting the described station with the adjacent station. There are four possible combinations:

Line and station closed
Line closed, station open
Line open, station closed
Line and station open

In each case they refer to current timetabled passenger services. Use of a stretch of line for goods or for occasional special workings does not make it "open". If you wish to change that long-established (by which I mean more than ten years) practice, you need to do so by discussion at a central location such as WT:UKRAIL, and not by unilaterally removing that information.

As for "inciting criminal trespass and endangering trains", I pity the intending criminal who uses Wikipedia as a reference source before deciding where to commit their crimes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat what ought to be a very simple request. Where is the written policy stating this?

Secondly, if this applies only to the types of line you state, why did you apply it to an active part of the national rail network? I checked (and have rechecked) a large number of heritage stations - and this information seems to be missing from the majority, which makes me doubt your assertion that it is required. In fact, the entire box appears to be optional - so, please, do me the honour of showing me where it directly states that these are required on all such articles, in the format that you seem to prefer, including the very misleading information that you seem to personally advocate - as it really seems that it is just your personal choice at this time. It certainly seems strange that if this has been required for over a decade, it is missing from a large number, possibly the majority, or articles. Neith-Nabu (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was policy, I said that it was established practice. The absence of this information from a routebox merely means that we haven't yet got around to ensuring that it is included. Don't forget that a large proportion of information is added by people who have not been around for long enough to be familiar with normal practices.

Which "active part of the national rail network" are you referring to? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's not a policy, and is not in place on the majority of pages. So, basically, it is your preferred option - so my edits (which you posted a complaint about as being disruptive after block reverting) were perfectly valid and not against any Wikipedia policy - especially in the context of this optional information being misleading in these instances?

You have applied this same preference to Middleton Towers to Kings Lynn - an operational freight line on the national network (where you even reverted an edit stating "Open (Goods)" to clarify that it wasn't a passenger line.

You assert that something that is not a policy, and for which you cannot provide reference, has to be included and that this has been the case for a decade - despite it being missing from possibly the majority of pages. As such, I feel that my statement that the information on the state of the station and lines is included in the body of the article, making the addition of it on the route link boxes obsolete, coupled to the fact that it seems to be misleading, if not actually incorrect, in its application means that my edit was a valid one, and that it was reverted without any reason other than your own stylistic choice. Perhaps one of the other editors here can shine some light on this?

Project GUIDELINES are great - but they are not enforceable - and if they result in the misrepresentation of facts, then surely accuracy of the encyclopedia itself has to be given priority over "nice ideas". Neith-Nabu (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the info boxes, and referenced the same. This removes the issue created by the misrepresentation of opinion as fact and, therefore, removes the need to remove them in order to preserve the veracity of Wikipedia. I would strongly suggest that if this is a stylistic choice of some group of editors, that they reconsider it due to its application causing false information to be spread through the page. I would also suggest that any attempt to revert this edit will need to include verifiable references that state categorically that these lines are "closed", as per ORR definitions rather than in the opinions of a group of Wikipedia editors. Neith-Nabu (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are routeboxes, not infoboxes. Your reference says nothing about provision of passenger services between the MNR and Wymondham station: it is about the MNR providing stabling facilities for some GA trains. There is no suggestion that the trains are carrying passengers as they move between Network Rail tracks and those of the MNR, which makes them empty stock workings, not passenger services. Therefore, in the absence of confirming evidence, you cannot consider that the stretch of line between Wymondham Abbey and Wymondham South Junction line is open for passenger services; hence, we consider the line between Wymondham Abbey and Wymondham to be closed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. it doesn't. It tells you that the line is not closed. I'm afraid that a "closed railway" has a status beyond that which you choose to use in your opinion. Your opinion does not over-rule open or closed status for a railway. If you wish to continue to claim that it is closed, find a verifiable reference to back your claim. Otherwise, keep your opinion for your own, personal web pages - not an encyclopedia. Neith-Nabu (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as self-contradictory

As an editor, with the support of others, seems intent on adding information that directly contradicts information (elsewhere on this page and on associated Wikipedia articles (and in the real world, plus on MNR sources)), I have tagged the article so that visitors have a chance of realising that this page can no longer be trusted as being accurate. Neith-Nabu (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? Diffs? Because otherwise you're just waving opinions. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am reporting reality. Thank you for your opinion. Neith-Nabu (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're reporting reality now. What happens in 10-20 years time (since Wikipedia has been around for that long), and I come along and want to fact check something and cannot find where it is? I can't necessarily ask the editor who added it, because they may have forgotten, retired, been blocked or even died. So we need sources now to be able to verify things later. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the only information being challenged is the actual overall length of the MNR, as opposed to its operational length. Being as the former is the overall length of formation owned by the railway company over which they have consent to lay track and operate trains, it is a lot less likely to change than the extending operational section does. This is why I felt (and feel) that this is a "the sky is blue" type of fact rather than anything else - although I added references (and can keep adding more, although the reference numbers building up after the simple, obvious fact would seem rather silly to me). Neith-Nabu (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]