Talk:Whitwell & Reepham railway station

About referring to travellers as a different race, the wiki page on travellers states: Irish Travellers are not considered a separate ethnic group for the purposes of the Race Relations Act Amendment (2000). --Kevis 17:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The date and year should be clarified on the sale part as this date has yet to come.

Context

This article lacks context. For example, what is a "traveller's site" really? --Apoc2400 09:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)#

Controversy

Is this really an article which deserves to be on Wikipedia? it seems to be a bit of a rant about travellers, and a current planning application which reads like a blog not an encyclopedia article. So much of it is hearsay and unverified that I've deleted the "Controversy" section except for matters of fact. Ghughesarch 15:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I think it is against the ethos of wikipedia to simply remove 90%+ of an article's content on the pretext 'it seems to be a bit of a rant' without any prior consultation with anyone who made/contributed to the article. I think a tag would have been more suitable given the situation.

While I strongly feel it is not a rant, I do see your point about there being:

A) Many unsourced pieces of information.

B) Some information whose notability has not been fully explained.

My appologies, but I have reverted all but your first edit, on the basis we can discuss on here what needs to be improved/removed, and to signify to other Wikipeidians that this article is in need of a clean-up. --Reverieuk 02:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain why a long list of "the council (which council?) did this," and "so and so said that", none of which is linked to any verifiable source, is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. The person who made most of the edits relating to this entry (and most of the "Whitwell Station" edits under the Reepham and Marriott's Way articles) has made hardly any contributions to any other page of Wikipedia and this looks like somebody pursuing a single issue from a single viewpoint. It's a matter of minor, current, local interest, rather than something that should be part of an encyclopedia. Where 90% of an entry ostensibly about a disused railway station concerns itself with travellers' sites and alpaca farms (and 0% about the history of the station during its use as such), then that too is against the ethos of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is surely not the place for every site which has ever been hinted at as a possible travellers' site to have a dedicated page explaining at length that some locals mounted a campaign against the "proposals" (despite the fact that there has never been an application to use the site as such)

The only reference for the whole page is a link to a press story which (though, alas, it probably counts as a wikipedia source) contains a number of inaccuracies and fails to present a balanced view of the issues relating to the current planning application. It also doesn't mention (this can be checked in Broadland District Council's files) that the "alpaca farm" applicant was told, through their agent, that consent for residential use would probably not be forthcoming more than a month before they committed to buy the site and that they went ahead anyway, nor that farming alpacas forms no part of their application which is just for a house in the countryside, nor that if the application were given consent the public cycle access to Marriott's Way at this point would cease, nor that SAVE Britain's Heritage have withdrawn their support until it can be shown that all non-domestic options for the site have been exhausted (Norfolk County Council marketed it at a low price because they were told that a house would be a non-starter.)

I have gone over the section again and removed the more obvious statments that cannot be verified as fact, and added some balancing information with references.

Ghughesarch 16:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. Your point about the article's diary-style nature is very true. If indeed it is me you refer to in the above (it would only be polite to say so if so..), then I admit that in many of my article edits I neglected to remove repetition or to summarize.

I shall now go read over the revisied article, and see if there's anything that still raises an issue.

One thing I did see removed that suprised me however, was the figures for the size and sale price of the property. True, the source was never noted (probably the same paper), but I class these as important to describing the basics of the article's subject.--Reverieuk 22:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not you I was referring to! The size of the site can be ascertained from a variety of sources, the price paid was on the basis (I understand) of a "best offer" system, so we'll never know, though I doubt either figure has much relevance in an article about Whitwell Station as opposed to Whitwell station site (does the St Pancras article go into that much detail?)Ghughesarch 00:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Can the whole of the "controversy" section now be removed? despite officer recommendation, the planning committee of BDC voted to grant consent for conversion to a house on 18 April 2007 Ghughesarch 16:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of it could do with being summerized to give the general picture of events without going into too much detail. Whatever the end outcome, there was significant disturbances along the way.

There was another article about this I'd like to bring to your attention. I shall return soon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reverieuk (talk • contribs) 22:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

As all the content about the alleged "traveller" site is no longer relevant to the Whitwell Station site, I have edited it away. The new plans for a railway museum, explained briefly on the web site set up by the new owner, put this argument in the past and, imo, remove any need for retention in a wikipedia article on the station.

Complete page revision

As this site is now scheduled to become an operational railway centre, and potentially the centre of a heritage railway, I am planning to start to bring it in line with the other heritage railway pages for the county. DiverScout (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Article title

The 'official' name of the station was "Whitwell and Reepham". On that basis, would it not be more appropriate to move this article to a corresponding page? Lamberhurst (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of ease of navigation, perhaps, but the station was simply Whitwell station until the merger of companies caused confusion between the various stations of the same name under BR - so the original page title was correct for the majority of time that the station was in use. Your text revisions had to be partially undone as they accidentally created or emphasised factual errors, but I have removed the banner as the Norfolk County Council proposal to restore the passenger service of this line is not active or yet mentioned in this article.

The station did not close in 1964, but in 1959 along with the rest of the M&GN network. The title for the museum is now the Whitwell and Reepham Railway, so the page my end up needing to move again! DiverScout (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Disappointed to see that my revisions have all been reverted, without so much as even a discussion on the talk page. I would like to know what exactly were the "factual errors" as I'm pretty confident that my source (Steam Railway, March 2009) is accurate and the information it contains is repeated elsewhere. Nevertheless let's go through your specific comments:

• The station was known as "Whitwell" until nationalisation. All my sources indicate that it was "Whitwell & Reepham" from the beginning. See Digby (p. 104-105, with original plans), Clark 1978 (Plate 103), Butt and Clinker. Do you have any source to support your theory?

• Norfolk County Council have/had a proposal to reinstate passenger services along the line. I believe this was formally ruled out as "impractical as part of a strategic route". [1]

• The station closed in 1959. To passengers yes, but it remained open for the purposes of freight until 1964 (Source: Clinker).

• The page will need to be moved for the purposes of an article on the museum. I don't think so, there will always need to be an article for the station itself. Some of the content could, however, be transferred to another article at a future point in time.

Perhaps you could let me have your comments? Lamberhurst (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

An ironic comment from someone who not only modified, but also retitled the article without consensus. Still, lets both assume good faith and move forward. You may like to note that although a revision was made, large amounts of your edit were retained through that revert. That aside:

• Whitwell station was such under the M&GN, as recorded on the original M&GN section notes (Motor Trolley Section No.42, 39m40c to 43m30c).
• The reinstatement of this route has certainly not been ruled out, it is in the strategic plan. This is the document you list, which actually states this fact (see: p39 or 41, statement of protection on p43).
• Most stations appear to record passenger closure as the main closure date, with goods (not freight in the UK in this context) closures recorded after that fact.
• Please note that I said "may", not "will" - and this relates to the content that has been developing on this page since the latest project started on site, in common with other similar pages. DiverScout (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please try and understand Wikipedia rules before making unnecessarily aggressive comments. We're all mostly here to try and improve the material on the website, and my response was in reply to your original message. I neither have the time nor the inclination to make personal sniping attacks on other users, and I tend to assume the same about them. First off, regarding my modification of the article title "without consensus". I did post a comment (above) floating the idea of the change of name more than three months ago and no reply was made, so pursuant to Wikipedia rules silence equals consent. Secondly, when reverting edits, it is useful to have an edit summary or explain the action. I just wanted to know why you thought my edit was unnecessary and what exactly are the errors or misunderstandings that it contained. I only make edits to Wikipedia once I have solid material with which I can contribute, and if what is contained in my source is wrong, the magazine should be contacted and put right. I've never found a single reference to "Whitwell station" in M&GN works, and whilst you may be right about the initial naming of the station, isn't it better to use the name which is generally known? Regarding the closure dates, Wikipedia tends to follow Subterranea Britannica's system which gives weight to the date when goods services were withdrawn [2]. Finally, I don't see any remains of my first edit - which parts do you object to? Lamberhurst (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As a fairly well established editor I understand Wikipedia rules, and do not consider my comments to have been any more or less aggressive than yours were. If you felt that they were, I happily and freely apologise. As I said, let's assume good faith and move forward.

As an editor I am used to my work being mercilessly edited, and will always be bold with my own editing. A summary was placed on this page, as per recommended best practice. Please note that I have not contested your re-naming, giving the same reasons you do for it being a good idea.

I'll have a look at more railway station pages, but until now have not noticed the goods closure dates being given priority. With the M&GN especially the celebrated closure date for the majority network is always given as the passenger closure of February 1959 (hence the celebrations on the NNR and at Whitwell), and I'd argue that the goods date is misleading as a recorded closure date for what was dominantly a passenger station! I'll bow to the majority if that it so, however. Please note that the info box gives a date in early March - any idea why?

As I said, I was attempting a partial revert. Coming back to the article I have found that your work on the "Revival" section, which I had intended to keep, was also reverted. I had thought that I had copied this section into the edit I made - and have now done so. Unreserved apologies for that!

No matter how much research people complete, mistakes happen. For example, you made a mistake over the status of the railway line to Norwich as a protected formation retained for future rail use. I am just as likely to make them as anyone, so don't think I am lording this over you, but please don't assume that anyone always gets it right - including railway magazines who are almost notorious for getting facts wrong. DiverScout (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Whitwell & Reepham railway station

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Whitwell & Reepham railway station's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "jenkhist2":

• From Mid-Norfolk Railway: Jenkins, S. (1993). The Lynn and Dereham Railway. Middleton Press. p. 167. ISBN 0-85361-443-1.
• From Wells and Walsingham Light Railway: Jenkins, 1999, page 70

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

What a lovely, polite Bot! DiverScout (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)