Talk:Inchicore railway works

Creation Note
Undoubtably worthy of an article and already a red link from Inchicore. Came across when determining Broadstone railway works appeared to be a missing article ... this is more important. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Request
Admitting copy without attribution from article Inchicore which was certainly a an attribution mistake on my behalf. Looking into to this.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

On review accept violation as per WP:REUSE. PLease accept apologies. I choose not to contest deletion but may re-create properly later. Please also delete Inchicore Railway Works redirect.

....

Reading the infringement properly I now notice matching content to chasewaterstuff.wordpress.com/tag/ireland/ ... ( There's actually a mistake in the content as the key date is 1846 rather than 1844!). There's definitely a match between Inchicore and the Chasewater site.

Continuing to go with speedy deletion. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Now I check further, the text was on the Inchicore page before it was on the wordpress site. So the wordpress site is the copyright violation. So I am withdrawing the delete nomination. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

My best attempt analysis is that the subject contentious text seems to be a useful a useful good faith edit introduced to Wikipedia in 2004 ( Diff ) by an anonymous IP address (unfortunately no citation). The sentences had received slight tweaking since. However as far as my eyeball says the Chasewater post seems to precisely match the version on Wikipedia as of 2012 including the metric conversion of acres and case corrections. That says the dec 2012 Chasewater post mainly references the work "'The Works' - Celebrating 150 years of Inchicore Works" (1996) Greg Ryan of CIE Heritage (actually based at Inchicore Works) [Believe theres a copy at NRM York] ... and there remains a possibility they original came from there.

All considered I'm likely going to rewrite the offending line out in a day or two to be sure. It was always my intention to write a 'quick' paragraph here and get on with MGWR which was my focus anyway .... an excursion onto GS&WR tracks where I have been embarrassingly derailed. I remain submitting to lack of due diligence and hopefully intend to rightify the article in a few days. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I have rewritten the article to remove the content of concern before. I have referenced suitable citations (the content of the previously attributed article did not) .... the front cover of the cited book establishing the correct date as 1846. I have felt it now appropriate to remove the attribution template though this will of course remain on record. This is a more dillengent approach that I should have taken in the first place.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Article weight unbalanced
With the Proposed site developments and Creosote Stream sections I would question the weight balance of the article. This is actually quite a significant works in the context of Ireland. I have a couple of references which may help develop the article a little but I do not have access to the obvious core reference publication.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have merged the "stream" text more completely into the new "site" section. As it wouldn't seem to be significant enough to require more than a sentence. And a sentence would not typically require its own section. Guliolopez (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)