Talk:Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom

Non-integer number of failed companies
''Between 1846 and 1868 64 telegraph companies were formed. However, 68% of them failed...'' - that's 43.52 companies. catslash (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, but that's what the source says and I don't have an absolute number of failures to calculate a precise percentage. It could be 68.75% truncated (44 companies). SpinningSpark 23:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Citing references
So, User:Spinningspark it is not self evident that it is better to use the templates for citing references which link from the citation to the properly source. I thought it was and would advocate it. This article is an excellent piece of work, but why use such a limited and tedious way of handling citations and references? --TedColes (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't want to debate with you the pros and cons of different citation styles in general on this page. If I did, it would be a conversation that would have to be repeated over and over on multiple pages.  The proper place to take that debate is to a policy page.  If you succeed in getting it written into guidelines to prescribe citation templates, then I will start using them, or at least, not prevent anyone else from doing so.  In the meantime, please respect WP:CITEVAR and MOS:STYLEVAR.  The onus is not on me to defend the chosen style (although I'm tempted to write an essay), the onus is on you to present a rationale why this article in particular should be an exception to guidelines. SpinningSpark 22:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I was only trying to be helpful, and acted in line with WP:BOLD. To me this is a matter of utility, not merely of style. --TedColes (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments on copyediting

 * Thanks for taking on the copyedit, but would you please refrain from removing the double spaces between sentences?


 * Sure, but it has no impact on how the text appears on screen


 * "...resulting in British telegraphy dominating..." It is misleading to say one thing was the result of the other.  The reasons for British dominance are not solely (or even mainly) due to Cooke's company.  The point of the sentence is rather, here are two things why British telegraphy is notable enough for its own article. Now two sentences.
 * Why have you changed the link from the singular wayleaves (which redirects to the relevant part of the target article) to the plural wayleaves which does not? Surely the singular is better since if it ever becomes a standalone article the title will undoubtedly be singular.
 * I see your point. Reverted.


 * Same on money orders changed to money orders. Forcing through the redirect just seems unnecessary.
 * Money orders is fine-no redirect.


 * "...General Post Office (the Post Office)..." changed to "...General Post Office (GPO)..." The term used throughout the article is Post Office and I note you haven't been changing this to GPO.  The first mention should give the term actually used in the article, whichever one that is.
 * It is usual practice to put the acronym after the first use. GPO is accurate. This is s a 14K-word article and I have no idea if it will be needed later. It does no harm to include it imo.


 * "Electrical telegraphy uses conducting wires to send messages, often incorporating a telegram service messenger to deliver the telegraphed communication from the telegraph office." I'm not very happy with this.  First of all, it has badly broken the flow.  The main point is that electrical telegraphy was x, earlier telegraphy was y, and later telegraphy was z. (Electric telegraphy doesn't "send" anything, hence the change.) It is part of constraining the scope of the article.  The statement about telegrams is really just an aside, which is why it was in brackets – so the logic of that flow wasn't lost.  The following sentence "This is distinct from optical telegraphy..." could easily be misread as being distinct from a telegram service.  On a more minor point, telegram service and telegram messenger are two different things, but they have become conflated in the new sentence.→fixed this. The rest is clear, I feel.
 * SpinningSpark 15:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC) to 16:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

ABC telegraph video
I've removed the Youtube video you inserted. I still have hopes of getting this to FA one day and I think that will just not be acceptable – Youtube is such a red flag that there needs to be a really strong case for including it. Besides, all the information was already cited and none of it came from that video. I don't even think an external link is justified in this article as the ABC is such a small part of the coverage. Maybe in an article about the ABC or in an article on Wheatstone's UPTC company. SpinningSpark 13:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Featured Article progress
Hi I checked in on the article, to see how it was doing. I thought it would be FA by now, long ago really. What gives?  scope_creep Talk  15:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It was put up for FA but got bogged down in verification checks. It was finally killed off by Graham Beards' comments on the prose.  I have in mind splitting it into two articles before putting up again.  That will make it shorter and more readable.  But it also needs a 100% source check because if even a minor problem is found the second time around it will probably be the kiss of death.  I don't have the energy for that right now, and disappointment with that result was one of the reasons I took a long wikibreak for most of this year. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Really sorry to hear that. I don't think it is good idea splitting it up. It is logically complete and good as a single article. It is not particularly long either.   scope_creep Talk  22:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)