Talk:The Biggest Little Railway in the World

Article Suggestions

 * Please try and ensure all content additions are cited. e.g. We mostly know the ferry sunk ... please ensure it is cited.
 * Please try to focus this article on the project and not on the TV programme, though they are symbiotically linked.
 * Please be aware of all Wikipedia Policies etc.
 * Otherwise please contribute and your good photos welcome on Wikimedia Commons if they improved on what is already there. Please ensure added to the The Biggest Little Railway in the World or below it if it ends up with subcategories.

Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * New source:
 * Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Major engineering projects
The more interesting aspect of this was the major projects. So there ought to be separate sections for each of those. What was there?
 * The ferry
 * The truss bridge over the canal
 * The balanced cable incline
 * The long trestle bridge across the stream
 * The spiral

Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I think list is about it. The first was mechanical/operational, the last three civil. I've also been very careful to cite heavily up to this point .... but it may be necessary to 'cite media' for some of those. I am aware wikimedia prefers to use prose rather than list ... and while I edit up to probably 'C-Class' and perhaps 'B-Class' I am somewhat aware of the limitations. It may be best to initially expand the content of a list item as perhaps I did for tracks. Inclines were tacked in a number of different ways. Each project certainly is composed of a Problem Element. Design and implement solution. Use, remedy and bodge the solution. One of the key things would be to describe the location of the project including perhaps its coordinates.

As a article and content expands there will best be a need to have a section for these ... or perhaps a table. But there may be a need to keep the article overall balanced. At present I've tried a Civil/Mechanical/Operational split .... but unsure this will work going forward.

Theres also possibilities of a route section and a route diagram.

In the end some things may need a consensus input. But thanks for your support! I have to relocate now for the evening. Having some appropriately licensed images available would be really nice! Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh ... and we should be describing the engineering and yet avoiding WP:ORIGINAL ... can be trickyDjm-leighpark (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I've added a little about the Abercalder Viaduct ... please note people I am trying to gather facts. I better persentation for this can be done later, as can the engineering behind it. Also am declaring a co-ordinated relationship with its appearance on Google Maps.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Routemap
Am preparing (or at least hoping to be preparing) a routemap at User:Djm-leighpark/sandbox-BLR-routemap ... input welcome. If anyone would like to take this up please discuss/dive-in .. it's not my forté and I'm a stumbling amateur. We need to use routemap and not BS-map for mobile devices.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC). The schedule section ... still under development together with the notes below, would be of some help composing a routemap.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have done a published a routemap into the article. While its the best I've ever done it has issues (Especially too many wavy water lines at the moment!) its sort of okay for a start.  I might or might not give it slight tweak over the coming days ... weeks ... but it would likely be a background task for me.  However I'm hoping and expecting someone will simply come and refactor it into a neater job.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Work Notes
I am preparing some work notes at User:Djm-leighpark/sandbox-BLR-routemap ... your welcome to help though any help may end up not being attributed. There may be a case for moving this to a workpage WP:WORP it it looks useful. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC) I now have some notes in place and at some point these would usefully go to an 'official' article talkpage, but I would have to clean them up first. I have begun an official workpage and referenced it at the top of this page
 * I've now transferred most of my notes to the workpage, and I've published my version of the routemap from my sandbox to the live.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Train schedule
The train schedule appears be useful contribution fulfilling multiple purposes of cataloguing the route, linking to place on the route, identifying the planned and actual progress of the train and giving some brief notes. The table is sparse so unknown information can be added later. Most of the information is citable from the programme, however online photos may at some point help cross check times. Distances have always been an issue on this project ... even the lengths have been quoted variously as 70+,71,72 and 74 miles! Having filled in the table I have become aware of a couple of inaccuracies which is a little awkward as we are in article space. There are a couple of key locations that are also not obvious to locate. While I hope the remainder of the article is accurate there are more issues with this section ... I have though best to tab it with a not verified template as an interim measure. Alternative options would be omit not verifiable information (but merging it back is a lot of effort) ... split to draft space ... effectively isolating it from being seen at all and reducing improvement chances ... or move to 'list of' associated article (section hasa lot of templates) ... I think the article has growth potential to reach split point ... but is not there yet. ( ie less than 40k bytes .. Rolling stock is in my opinion another split candidate if necessary). The table has also reached the point where it can be used as the basis of a route diagram ... but that requires a little time.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Uncited contributions
Please note I'm writing this of the cuff rather than with a lot of checking of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I've just modified an good faith uncited contribution disputing a cited report. The contribution modified the previous statement to It was reported that .... which seems at first glance to be pretty ... unfortunately the source of dispute was not cited (and even if it had of been it may only have been on social media). The key place to start on this is to read WP:CITE .. etc. etc. which I understand to be necessary for disputed content. Very roughly speaking it may take 5 minutes or less to added uncited material from an IP address and walk away, 2 minutes to cn tag it (and cn's are bad news) ... 2 minutes to undo it quickly, and 10 minutes to undo it rightfully and politely, and about maybe an hour to try to find citable material. Please Please discuss on the talk page first and someone outght to be able to help, and apologies if this doesnt sound welcoming to wikipedia newbies. I'm a tad in a rush.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Walkout
Citation for this may be difficult. I was one of the volunteers on the programme, so I know the Telegraph article's claim of a "walkout" was incorrect. Any advice of the best way to offer a citation for this point? Mattaf1990 (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OK ... First a couple of quick points (mostly as usual off the top of my head):


 * A volunteer will likely have signed an NDA ... unless something is really important and needs to be whistleblown ensure you dont breach any NDA unless you really really have to.
 * From memory a good rough rule of thumb is dont edit the article but if you feel something is wrong then point it out on the talk page and declare an interest. Hopefully neutral people will consider and will work a considered solution.  You may have seen a little of that already in how I have moved round the article prose.
 * In my opinion the appropriate course of action if you feel media has done something wrong is to escalate through their complaints procedure.   Thats providing its not of breach of NDA.  If a public retraction is achieved then that can be cited.
 * The production will I assume have had to have funded this project and for it to be possible must have a sellable product.
 * It's fair to say I am aware of at least handful of social media posts on Social media posts where film editting/cutting have been used to help the TV production people weave some entertaining television. Usually this is 'harmless' banter than most navies can cope with.  If it ends up on a reliable source then can be entered into some of criticisms/controversies section of something without disrupting the article.
 * I think List of policies and guidelines may be a good useful place to go but you may feel like you're going up a helix spiral and heading for a derailment if you follow that too must.  WP:NOV, WP:ORIGNAL.  I think COISELF may also apply here.  There is a helpdesk or coffee lounge or something which is a good place to go for advice (especially as I'm involved in a lot of this article content I'm not the best to advise on some things) ... and there's a standard welcome template that has where to goto for help and I'll try and did that up and put it on your talk  page.  (Actualy WP:DISCLOSE is probably the best directed guidance. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC))

PS: A few ORIGINAL photos that people can load to Wikimedia Commons are are prepared to offer under am Attribution-ShareAlike X.0 Generic (CC BY-SA X.0) license would be great ... it ant be used if it doesn't, and my trawling of the net has found none so far. Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC) .. I see someones beaten me to it to put the template on your talk page already ... Welcome! Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible WP:BLP on that content I originally introduced so withdrawing with immediate effect pending consensus. I might be over the top but that is correct way to handle. Intend to comment further within a day. (I'm watching Shetland then going to bed) Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Release I haven't re-read the citation properly before making above comments ... I used faulty memory to recall they had said 'walk-out' (THe paper said filed out' but I used 'insurrection' above but have now realized the article actually used the term 'insurrection'.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer walkout Issue Restatement
Fact: The key citation was from a Daily Telegraph article from the 7th January 2018. The key area of contention is likely around:


 * Model train enthusiasts, it transpires, are surprisingly unruly. Asked to attend an opening health and safety briefing before their attempt to build the world's longest model railway, 56 train-loving volunteers swiftly mounted an insurrection. It was their first morning on the makeshift Highlands campsite on which the two-week project would begin, but the volunteers didn't care: en masse, they filed out of the tent, leaving empty seats and a puzzled lecturer.


 * Fact: The Telegraph used 'insurrection' and a 'file-out' and 'leaving a puzzled lecturer'.

The contribution on wikipedia article creation was: (I have made a typo corrections):


 * Walkout from safety meeting by volunteers to view the Jacobite steam train passing over the Glenfinnan Viaduct, resolved after the train had passed.


 * Fact(minor). (to view the Jacobite) passing over the Viaduct was factually incorrect. (Explanation:  genuine reading mistake).  Opinion is this is not a key factor.
 * Fact Wikipedia prose used the term 'Walkout' and noted the matter was 'Resolved'.

Regardless the way forward is whether and how to add this contribution to the article. The best way would be to see if a consensus of a form of words can be reached on talk and then for it to be added (ideally by a third party ... it could be argued my hands can no longer be regarded as 100% on this point).
 * Personal notes and impressions:
 * The newspaper article and style is somewhat in a tongue-in-cheek manner, it likely conveys 'facts' in a (gently) selective and creative way to make an entertaining feature read.
 * I think most people would read it that way.
 * Health and Safety is serious. Perhaps specially to professional engineers.
 * It can reasonably expected expected them would take a dim view they were alleged to have walked out of a safety meeting.

We may be able to say something like ... (as a first shot) (Though it may in itself have issues). Thoughts anyone?:


 * It was reported that the volunteers had mounted an insurrection and left a safety meeting simply to view the passing Jacobite steam train, however there is some possibility aspects of this report were tongue-in-cheek creative writing.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Spelling
drumnadrochit is spelled incorrectly. The second “r” is missing. 2601:980:C201:1980:6CEB:CD95:3E94:3C61 (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Well spotted, now fixed. Thanks Stroness (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)