Talk:Shipley Great Northern Railway branch line

URL Missing
Fixed it (the missing URL, that is.) The joy of all things (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Title misleading
Shipley and Windhill line? Doesn't that make you wonder where this place called Windhill is, and how long the branch line was from Shipley to Windhill? If you already know the answer, then fine, but the article is for people who don't yet know and come here for information. Incidentally the station list in the article just calls it Shipley Windhill (with no "and").

I worry a little about the absence of the word "railway" in the title, too. For the same reason; if you know it was a railway line, then fine, but the article is not really for you. (At least it's better than XYZ Branch, which sounds like a bank.)

How about "Shipley Great Northern Railway branch line"? Afterbrunel (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Done Afterbrunel (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The original title may be misleading, but it was one of my first articles and I was blissfully unaware of WP:COMMONNAME, so I defaulted to what the navboxes on the railway stations at Idle, Thackley and Ecleshill stated, which was Shipley and Windhill Line. A cursory check of the reference books yesterday lead me to come up with several ideas (Shipley Branch, Bradford and Idle Railway etc) but I have no problem with Shipley Great Northern Railway branch line, however, I think an actual requested move may have been a better way of doing it, but so what. I am not always available to edit at the moment (a notice has been placed on my talk page) so I only saw this yesterday.


 * I will perform a clean up on the article regarding the links. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 09:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, don't take my change as a criticism of what you did. I can see you have been very active on these lines. But I hope you will agree that altering a misleading title is worthwhile, for the benefit of inexperienced readers. Your offer to deal with the links is exceptionally generous; it is a laborious task that I was not looking forward to, and I am grateful to you. Afterbrunel (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The joy of all things (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Shipley
Hi; I think I have just overwritten some of your edits. I was doing a long edit of the Shipley GNR article and you had done something meantime. I humbly apologise, it was sheer inadvertence on my part.

If you could bear to repeat you edits where necessary, I'd be very grateful; alternatively I will try to repair the damage tomorrow.

Meantime thank you for your hard work in this and other articles.

Btw I have shortened the article. It had a lot of duplication by others, and I have streamlined it quite a lot. If some of that overwrites part of your earlier work, I apologise, but I hope you'll agree that the article is better than it was. Afterbrunel (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It is absolutely fine to change things, but why lose the references? And citation styles should not be changed as per WP:CITEVAR. As the article is stable, large style changes should be discussed on the talk page, to where I will move this conversation so that everything is in the same place. Just writing "Suggett, page 150" changes the citation style, and if you do remove text that have Group Notes, remove the note section. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * There was quite a lot of new material in my edit, which I thought was important. I don't know if you agree or disagree. As this has now been eliminated, and as I don't want to start a petty fight with you, can we agree on a form of words for the talk page which would enable a reader to access my material without offending your views on style? Afterbrunel (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you do not want to get into a petty argument about it; neither do I. If you need to change things, then please do, but what you add that you think is important, conversely, what you remove, I may think is important. The biggest issue is not to change citation styles, so if you reference a book, then the full citation is needed, not just a name and a page. IE, one of your cites states "Bairstow, page 15"; is that Bairstow from 1982, 1999 or 2015? If a citation exists as a source and has a HARVID anchor, then you can make use of the short footnotes citation which looks like this and renders it like this . A full citation should look like this


 * In the main, what you added and removed I have no objection to, but the lede/lead is very staccato in your edit and does not flow quite as it should for the prose style that Wikipedia favours. It was also very short in comparison to the article. Large style changes and removal of text should be discussed here before implementation, though as I said, happy on the article name change as that was my mistake. Finally (sorry), please keep the conversation here, as it relates directly to this article and not something personal between us. Sorry about the list, and I do sincerely wish you happy editing. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)