User talk:ColinFine/Archive 19

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - October 2023
Delivered October 2023 by MediaWiki message delivery.

If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

13:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Midland Railway station in Bradford
I have seen that many years ago you also got caught up in the discussion of the naming of the Midland Railway station.

I have found some contemporary directories at www.bradfordfhs.org.uk from 1861 to 1917 (Kellys and Post Office).

Also I have found the maps at the National Library of Scotland maps.nls.uk useful. They have OS maps and Town Plans giving greater detail for selected places. It gives the choice of year where they have enough maps.

Comparing maps show development and cross-referencing with directories explains some otherwise uncertain matters.

In 2016 I corresponded with the Midland Railway Study Centre in Derby, midlandrailwaysociety.org.uk. They were very helpful and photographed an employment record for someone who had been a driver at Manningham. BlueWren0123 (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Assorted other sources:

Back Track Jun 2016 Vol 30 No 6 No. 302 Putting Railways on the Map J. D. Bennett P372-373 www.pendragonpublishing.co.uk

Steam Days Feb 2018 Bradford Terminii Andrew Wilson P13-28 www.steamdaysmag.co.uk

British Railways Illustrated Apr 2019 Vol 28.7 The Midland Way to Bradford Gavin Glenister P300-305 www.irwellpress.co.uk

Steam Days Apr 2018 Rails between Skipton & Burnley Andrew Wilson P 51-63 www.steamdaysmag.co.uk

Back Track Dec 2018 Vol 32 No 12 The Contribution of Britain's Railways to the Great War Jeffery Wells P741-745 www.pendragonpublishing.co,uk

Back Track Apr 2019 Vol 33, No 4 No 336 Advice for Victorian Travellers Alistair F Nesbet P244-248 www.pendragonpublishing.co.uk

BlueWren0123 (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I think. Unfortunately, those all sound like primary sources. Unless any of those is a reliable secondary source for the issue of the station name, they're not usable for this issue - and in sending me to look at Bradford Forster Square railway station you have caused me to realise that eighteen years ago I perpetrated some original research there. I can't bring myself to slaughter my baby, so I've asked for somebody else to trim the section. ColinFine (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I had not done any checking against your edits, I was just letting you know about sources that had been helpful to me while doing my family tree. I am new here, does your recognition of a problem not indicate that you are free from COI? BlueWren0123 (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think removing my own OR would be acceptable, but I don't want to do it myself, partly because it would be painful, and partly because I might not be objective in my decisions.
 * You can find my research (and the sources I used) at http://fine.me.uk/railways/
 * (I see I haven't updated it since 2006). ColinFine (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I have given it a try. Will my Victoria Embankment Gardens reference 'Stand up' to scrutiny?.

I think I only went to Station once about 1965 to see family members off. Recall style was typical Midland Railway. Had relatives Dudley Hill/ Ilkley / Shipley / Skipton mostly.

Remote connection to Frank Watkinson. Believe he did some building at one of the stations but do not know which. He did not complete work due to financial problems.

I used to have a readers ticket to PRO (now National Archives) at Kew but their RAIL category was not useful for family tree stuff. Online searching now gives too many possibles without knowing just what you want. But it seems that Wakefield may have useful items.

I have noticed that OS maps have Wike / Wyke interchangeably. Census enumerators struggled if not from local area and did not have a translator to assist. They wrote a description of the area being enumerated but accuracy varies.

Have looked at old Acts of Parliament they mention maps & plans but not included. Most are money matters and transfer of liability between Leeds & Bradford and Midland railways. Some are authorization for extensions Bowling area. Hansard is occasional, not searchable and not indexed so just too hard. Gazette could be worth a try. BlueWren0123 (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - November 2023
Delivered November 2023 by MediaWiki message delivery.

If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

11:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - December 2023
Delivered December 2023 by MediaWiki message delivery.

If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

19:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - January 2024
Delivered January 2024 by MediaWiki message delivery.

If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

13:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Tea house question about citability of campaign websites
&#91;perma&#93;

Hi Colin, I appreciate your consistently fine advice at the Tea house and your willingness to aid new users, but I have a quibble about your response to a user asking about citing a campaign website for statements about a politician. You said:
 * Wikipedia is not interested in his views, except as they have been discussed in independent reliable sources ... You may use his website for limited uncontroversial factual information

but that seems unduly limiting to me. I would say we are interested in a politician's views, even if they are only reported on his campaign website, as long as he is independently notable as a politician as reported in independent RSes. I'm inclined to follow up and add a comment to that user to the effect that, "Yes, you may use Singh's campaign website to source statements about Singh's political positions or platform, per WP:ABOUTSELF", but you came to a different conclusion having read the same policy I did, and I wanted to discuss it with you before replying to the user. As I see it, you may also use a campaign website, which I assume would be self-published by the politician (or self-published by a campaign committee under his control) because ABOUTSELF says:"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as: [followed by 5 numbered points]" I read "about themselves" as meaning "about Singh" including "about Singh's platform" and "about Singh's opinions", as laid out by Singh or his campaign committee, and there's nothing in the numbered points that negates that. Even a tweet by Singh laying out a campaign position is citable without independent secondary coverage, per ABOUTSELF and WP:RSOPINION, which explicitly allows self-published websites and social media statements about the person who published the material. I didn't want to confuse the user by getting into a policy content disagreement at the Tea house, so I thought it better to discuss this with you here first. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, Mathglot. I can see where you're coming from. I accept that if that material is appropriate to the article, then the self-published source is good enough (from WP:ABOUTSELF; I don't think WP:RSOPINION is relevant).
 * My thought is not about sourcing, but about what belongs in an article. By your argument, a company's "mission", or "vision statement", if published on its website, could be included in the article about the company. But we don't accept these.
 * Having said all this, I'm not going to insist on my position, but neither am I going to abandon it. I will continue to hold to it unless somebody persuades me otherwise. But I recognise that others may not agree, and if you give different advice, I will not argue with you. Like many other places in Wikipedia, there's editorial discretion. ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - February 2024
Delivered February 2024 by MediaWiki message delivery.

If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

12:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)