Talk:Dingle railway station

Source
I've just removed this source from the article. Not sure it's a reliable source, but could be useful for reference. Sam Walton (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Subbrit pages are generally OK, but do have occasional errors. They fall within WP:TERTIARY. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Formal request has been received to merge: Liverpool Overhead Railway Southern Extension Tunnel into Dingle railway station; dated: 6 August 2020. Proposer's Rationale: ''The Southern Extension Tunnel is a part of the Dingle railway station and does not need a separate article as they are technically the same. The article on the tunnel is also short and without any citations so it would be better for it to be moved into a separate section in the Dingle railway station article. Thanks! .'' Discuss here. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 04:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Makes sense to me. I haven't looked at this in a while but at the time I couldn't find any references of one topic that weren't also about the other. Sam Walton (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't merge Different entities. A station and tunnel are different entities and the discussion needs to run for a sensible amount of time with all factors considered.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a discussion fork from Talk:Liverpool Overhead Railway Southern Extension Tunnel. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No. This is certainly NOT a fork, especially from a five-year old discussion that took place on the wrong talk page and that went no where at the time. This is an entirely new discussion, and really a no brainer as far as the resulting merger.  The article remains—after five full years of no improvement—unsourced and with no indication of any notability whatever.  The only other practical alternative—as the article currently stands—is deletion, per GNG.  There is no notability found, and the only mentions are in relation to the station. There is little to justify a stand-a-lone article for the tunnel.  I believe you should not have reverted the merge.  I really think this needs to go to AfD now.  Regards,  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 23:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @: I believe the merge was not competently performed fully compliant with WP:PROMERGE, and did not respect the valid points from the earlier discussion. AfD is inappropriate while a merge discussion is in progress.  from the earlier discussion to give them time to come here.  Patience is a virtue; virtue makes a saint; Pompey aint Saints.  Please also note I had various offline sources for railways in Lancashire spread across two counties and it takes me time to check this lot.  Raising an AfD at this point would be a BEFORE failure and would likely not be viewed well.  Now let the thing run for about a week first from once its merge tagged.  Thankyou.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's pretty strong... Please explain my incompetence. GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 05:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The previous discussion had called for the retention of categories when creating the redirect — Ignored. Leaving a merge tag in place for less than a day - there may be other more suitable merge targets which the discussion might identify (If you are going to tag then 48hr ought to be a minimum; and one week better).  Missing Template:Merged-from from this talk page ... it is optional but sometimes used in cascading forward.  Per WP:PROMERGE: Publish the edit, leaving the following edit summary (as required by copyright): Merged content from source page to here. See Talk:merger discussion section  — while it may be argued PROMERGE is over-the-top on the requirement it is pretty prescriptive on it - that said from WikiProject Merge: A copy paste merger creates "attribution dependency". To license the content from the originating article you must, at minimum, provide a direct link to the original article in the edit summary of the page where content is being placed. You should also place the Template:Copied tag on the originating article as well as the target article and while your edit summary was compatible from that the placing of a Template:Copied on the target article which should have been done was not. Comments in  which I take as indirectly referring to me as a "local" .. ie scouser is of insulting, perhaps mainly to Scousers.  Also pinging  for any !vote comment/they may care to make on the discussion.  Thankyou..Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * REPLY:
 * Point one: "...previous discussion had called for the retention of categories when creating the redirect — Ignored When the merge was performed, I was totally unaware of any prior discussion. I'm good, but I really don't read minds.  I'll remind you that that discussion is several years old, took place on the talk page of the article to be re-directed – the exact opposite of where it should have been, and that old consensus can change.  If I had been aware of such a discussion, I certainly would have let what I thought to be a no-brainer merger discussion run its course, as the article was un-cited.  Your calling me incompetent and your assumption of bad faith regarding the original post is  troubling and border-line ANI-worthy;
 * Point two: "Missing Template:Merged-from from this talk page ..." Oh-kay, you mean the alternate template I placed here? Doesn't seem to be missing, does it?;
 * Point three: "...Publish the edit, leaving the following edit summary (as required by copyright): Merged content from source page to here" This target talk page notice is optional at the time of the merge, as a bot shortly afterward places this notice following a merge; also, there is this: edit summary: COMPLETE THE MERGE: from Liverpool Overhead Railway Southern Extension Tunnel and edit summary: COMPLETE THE MERGE: to Dingle railway station; both were used to clarify any movement of content(s);
 * Point four: A copy paste merger creates "attribution dependency". To license the content from the originating article you must, at minimum, provide a direct link to the original article in the edit summary of the page where content is being placed ... and while your edit summary was compatible from that the placing of a Template:Copied on the target article which should have been done was not. Well, that is just simply untrue, as points two and three above address attribution exactly. Also,  Template:Copied does not go on the target article, but on its Talk Page (see point two);
 * Point five: Your over-the-top, melodramatic response to by reference to locals is almost Oscar-worthy. By locals, I simply mean editors far more familiar with an article's past than I am.  I'm pretty much just running through the requests and clearing the merger board.  I certainly meant no disrespect, as I had no clue where in the world you hail from, nor any idea what the heck a scouser is.
 * I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you need to review the merger short-cuts page to familiarize yourself to the acceptable alternate merge templates so that we all can competently discuss mergers going forward. Thanks for your time,  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 06:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello and. Whilst I do agree with the fact that the merger does make sense since the tunnel article does not have much information, we should probably seek to understand the whole situation better before doing something (I personally did not know that there were users with stacks of articles to check and some useful information to put into articles). Personally, I have no qualms with GenQuest as they have helped me carry out multiple merge requests in a timely and efficient manner, however it probably would be good to let others who are more knowledgeable on this topic to decide what to do with the merger proposal before nominating an article for deletion. Regarding the issues with them missing several steps in the merger process, I am still quite new on Wikipedia (and I don't understand the merger process as a whole) and am hence not able to say much. The tunnel article could be improved, and obviously it is a quite neglected article within thousands (maybe even hundreds of thousands) of other articles related to railways and railway stations so it's understandable that no one noticed it needed improvements, and information on these sorts of topics usually will be found in offline sources, not online so it is completely understandable that it will take time to improve an article. Rome wasn't built in a day, and things do take time. I do not want to start an argument on here though, and this is just my opinion. Whilst I don't see the line "the locals are working on it" as outright offensive, perhaps it could have been written in a more generalised and politer manner, something like: "Wikipedians who are knowledgeable in the related topics are discussing the issue". I really do appreciate the help of Dim-leighpark and others like who have more information on these sorts of things and check lots of articles to ensure they are of a good quality (thanks especially to Redrose64 who helpfully pointed out the temporary colour parameter, which I didn't know I had to use in that particular situation), since I'm not from the UK (and am not very familiar with it) but I read articles about railways in the UK (and many other countries) and like to raise any issues or correct anything I can correct whilst reading. Jh15s (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @ Having got a little familiar with the LOR I am fairly convinced both station and tunnel are notable, and that the tunnel reasonably clearly outtrumps the station in my view. Both infoboxes are valid, but I am not sure if they are set up to able to be mated; and while two infoboxes are possible in an article it isn't great.  I might consider getting some LOR  materials from this HCC or WSCC libraries but I've more than eough out from each at present.  The original discussion on the other article was probably the correct place to have it, albeit that article at that time had not been properly developed, and quite frankly it has a fair bit more potential yet but there's several variations on the 1901 fire and its not unknown for the operating company to give a favourable side of things and blame the staff ... I doing a draft on William Creuze where common consent seems to be that certainly happened.  We're not currently helped here bby the alerts system having barfed so good peoples are not drawn here.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me. If you think the tunnel is more notable than the station (and that both are notable in their own right), I could withdraw the merger request. I understand you are quite busy, with having other things to do on Wikipedia, and having to balance that on top of any real-life responsibilities you have, so it is completely fine if it takes a while for you to gather any information and improve the articles. If anyone wishes to help with this process, please reply here and mention Dm-leighpark. If anyone disagrees with what I have suggested, please feel free to reply and speak your mind.

Thanks! Jh15s (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thaks, I haven't really seen much input from the U Railways project this and I might check the Infobox mating at some point but I'm more of a dabller than expert at this point ... I did have a go at trying to allow Infobox locomotive to pigs ear but backed off at the towards the end of that dabble. I did buy a book with an LOR book from a hospice shop at chichester on Sunday but the only citable thing between these two would have been dingle station entrance being like a cinema foyer.  Otherwise the main LOR article generally is in good shape and I'd mostly do more harm than good tryiog to improve it from that source.  Thanks.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)