Bracketbot is my best friend, but I have deleted a few of his friendly messages to leave space for more.Afterbrunel (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My article about the River Cart Aqueduct contradicts quite a lot written at Paisley_Canal_Line#Blackhall_Bridge. I didn't spend a great deal of time on it, and there aren't many accessible resources, and I'd also be inclined to think your sources are better, especially Paxton. RandomPerson137 (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for taking that so positively. I have seen the article you have written, and while none of it is wrong, I thought it could be amplified. I didn't want to insult you, and I did think of contacting you direct to see if we could agree a way forward, but I have done that in the past (with other people) and it has usually ended badly. By the way I see you have used Canmore --- I forgot to do that myself!

Paxton's material is obviously pretty authoritative -- I would say he is the authority of anything industrial-historical in the West of Scotland. Also I'm always nervous about saying something is "the oldest / biggest / highest" etc as often these things are hearsay. If there is anything you think we can do together to improve either or both articles, please let me know.

I see you have done quite a lot of work on other industrial archaeology. As you may have seen, I am trying to expand all the G&SWR-related articles. These were fine five years ago when Pencefn seems to have written them, but in the light of recent publications, in particular Ross's books, and the fantastic NLS mapping resource, I thought they could do with an update and an expansion.

Any suggestions or ideas whatsoever that you have will be very welcome; I'd much rather work with others in this field than against them. Best regards Afterbrunel (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS should we export some of what I have written within the Paisley Canal article into your River Cart article ... ? Afterbrunel (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied most of the material across and added some more stuff - I'm finding it hard to believe that an aqueduct of 27 m was built in 1810, but from Google maps it looks quite substantial. That it was the longest masonry span seems very plausible - other single large spans, - such as the Luggie Aqueduct - are much less, and anything larger has multiple spans. The only two queries I have are whether it was engineered by Telford or Rennie - or both - and that it now carries a single, not double, track, according to Google maps. Thanks you very much for your patience - I'm trying to get at least a start quality article for every notable bridge in Scotland, and to some time get the Forth Bridge to GA, so occasionally come across other people but often work alone. It's nice to have some company :-) RandomPerson137 (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The railway as built was a double track. As you know, it then closed, and was reopened at the end of the 1990s. When it was reopened it was reinstated as simply a single track, but still following the slightly-skewed alignemnt.

Canmore says that Rennie and Telford were involved in designing the Ardrossan Canal, but Paxton says that Telford designed the bridge. This is quote plausible: John Rennie the Elder was 49 in 1810 and Thomas Telford was 43. Rennie had built up a career in designing canals and harbours, whereas Telford was more a bridges and roads man. At that stage in their careers they would both have had numerous projects on the go at once. It is likely Rennie concerned himself with the broad sweep of the canal's alignment, and that Telford designed the bridges in principle; and some 25 year old anonymous trainee probably did the actual design. But that's just my guesswork.

I wondered if you lived near enough to go and get a photograph of it, to put on Wikimedia? It seems a shame that there is no copyright-free photo of such an important historic structure. Afterbrunel (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's uncertain who actually engineered it it would probably be best to credit it to both of them. Telford has certainly taken on a consulting role in other aqueduct projects such as those on the Union Canal, and was quite famous for his aqueducts. I unfortunately live on the wrong side of Scotland, and study in England, so won't be able to get a photo any time soon, but I've posted a request in WP Scotland. RandomPerson137 (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Caledonian Railway may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• February 1848. A continuous railway route between Glasgow and London existed for the first time. (It had been possible to travel via Edinburgh and Newcastle upon Tyne since 1846, but this involved
• Edinburgh was Lothian Road. Glasgow was reached over the Glasgow, Garnkirk and Coatbridge Railway (successor to the [[Garnkirk an Glasgow Railway]], and the [[Wishaw and Coltness Railway]], which

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Solway Junction Railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ice floe. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aberdeen Railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page River Dee. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Great Northern Railway and North Eastern Railway. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Border Counties Railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North Eastern Railway. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wemyss Estate Railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great Northern railway. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wemyss Private Railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great Northern railway. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Afterbrunel/Great Western Railway west of Exeter, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Afterbrunel/Great Western Railway west of Exeter and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Afterbrunel/Great Western Railway west of Exeter during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stratford-upon-Avon and Midland Junction Railway may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• and Banbury Junction Railway at Green's Norton Junction, a short distance west of Towcester), and to continue from there, crossing the [[Great Western Railway]] south of [[Fenny Compton]], to
• an 0-6-0ST was supplied by Beyer Peacock, allocated E&WJR no. 1, the third to bear the number), to work to Broom, but its water tank capacity proved too small and it was sold on. Nos 2, 3 and 4

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bracketbot; what a good mate you are. Afterbrunel (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kemp Town railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Southern Railway. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been discussing with User:DavidAHull nominationg West Somerset Mineral Railway for GA. As you have done significant work on the article I wondered if you had any thought about anything else which is needed to meet the good article criteria or anything else you think needs doing before a nomination?— Rod ^talk 19:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of you to ask me. You have done quite a lot sine my work on the article. I'll have a good look through it tomorrow Sunday and give comments then. (I see at least one typo now). Bit rotten that it is only C category, and it "has insufficient inline citations." Afterbrunel (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We are progressing with this slowly. I have now added page numbers for most books and just obtained a library copy of Jones which I will work in. The one book I can't get a copy of is Carter, E. (1959). An Historical Geography of the Railways of the British Isles. Cassell. ASIN B000WSRHU6. OCLC 52023502.. I noticed you added it back in 2013. I wondered if you still had a copy and could add the numbers for us?— Rod ^talk 08:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have missed this message until now, sorry, and someone has provided the necessary information.

But I just hate those back to front citations. Who on earth thinks that (for example) "Madge, Robin (1975) [1971]. 7: Watchet–Brendon Hill..." is a pleasing way to cite an author and book? Afterbrunel (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have started an essay on the concept of narrative flow, a concept that I think is largely undervalued in the encyclopedia in general. I decided to search for discussions where editors had raised the concept, figuring that such editors might want to chime in on the meaning of the concept and I found a mention by you. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has been drawn to my attention that the section on passenger stations on the Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway is rather deficient. I tend to agree and I'll enhance it over the coming days. And do a better map too. Afterbrunel (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Useddenim has now added both the stations of Cairney and of Lasswade Road onto the existing template of the Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the map associated with this article. Thanks to those who drew my attention to the error. Afterbrunel (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for alerting contributors to several Railway Magazine articles on the line. I don't have the index, but I do have all RMs from 1940 to the present. Could you please list the relevant articles in that period, year and page would be ideal, but year and month would do; titles and the line unnecessary, just years and pages or months, I can then take them from there. If you add the refs before 1940 I can include them in Further Reading. All the best, Dave DavidAHull (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done (on WSMR talk page) Afterbrunel (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DaveDavidAHull (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Badminton railway line, Afterbrunel!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Looks OK, I've added tags on the talk page and put in two links. I think it could do with some photos (this is lovely countryside!) and more links to and from other articles, e.g. to towns served.

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Blythwood (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In your recent edit to Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway, you altered all of the existing references. Prior to your edit, all of them, without exception, were using Citation Style 1 templates; after your edit, not one of the references uses a template, of any kind. This drastic and controversial change should have been discussed, per WP:CITEVAR. I have seen you do this before on other articles; please respect the existing ref style particularly if it is entirely consistent, as this one was. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

1 The entire article needed to be rewritten, as a glance at the preceding stage of it will show.

2 The objective in writing articles is to make them as easy as possible for an enquiring reader. It is not to flatter those who may have edited them, whether that is me or anyone else.

3 We are not writing an alphabetical bibliography here. No-one refers to The Merchant of Venice written by Shakespeare, William. Nor to the Harry Potter series of books written by Rowling, J. K. Afterbrunel (talk) 06:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How does any of that - particularly item 3 - explain why you flew in the face of WP:CITEVAR (which, I should point out, carries enforcable sanctions). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The guideline you refer to explicitly mentions that common sense interpretation is more important.

As I said, I considered that a complete re-write was necessary; there is a pressing need to improve the quality [not simply copy-editing] of many railway company histories in Wikipedia.

Most of the citations in the preceding draft were of doubtful authority. Naturally I except from that the respectable source quoted as "Jenkins, Stanley C.; Quayle, H.L. (1977). The Oxford, Worcester & Wolverhampton Railway. The Oakwood Library of Railway History. Blandford: Oakwood Press. pp. 32, 34, 63, 66. OL40."

In my redraft I preferred to use other sources, and none of the earlier sources were reused. This had the incidental effect that all the sources I used were quoted for the first time, and I used a format that seems to me to be sensible. I refer you again to my point about Shakespeare, William, above. No-one would use that inversion in real life. Wikipedia needs common sense usages too. Afterbrunel (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Banbury and Cheltenham Direct Railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Midlands (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Clovelly location map.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned map.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you made a large expansion to the Golden Valley Railway article last year. I've fixed a few small issues but the big problem is the sourcing and I wonder if you have time to go through it again to cite the thing correctly? You seem to be sourcing at the end of each section, not for the specific statements, which makes it very confusing for anyone who wants to check up on things. Obviously, not every statement needs a citation against it but every statement needs to be cited, if you understand what I mean. Eg: you may have three consecutive sentences that can be sourced using one citation, then the next sentence needs to be sourced to something else. - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Sitush, you're entitled to your opinion but we might have to disagree about whether, as you put it, it is cited correctly. The article already has 43 citations.

You seem to imply that every sentence might need to be cited, but in fact to make the narrative readable you have to use compound sentences and paragraphs that incorporate more than one idea, otherwise it descends into The cat sat on the mat.

If you're "checking up on things" ... presumably the verifiability ... then you doubtless have access to the source material ... in my case it all came from a (very good) reference library or on line. I think I have to invite you to make the changes you are interested in. I hope you will be able to do it without spoiling the readability of the finished work.

I can only say "good luck". Afterbrunel (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snarky or what? I was offering constructive and policy/guideline-compliant advice. I specifically said that not every sentence needs to be cited - see WP:OVERCITE. I also quite deliberately did not say that it lacked sources - it doesn't.

And I do not have access to all the sources, nor are they all online, as you note. I am also not doubting that you have correctly paraphrased the sources but if you can't do it properly, perhaps do not bother at all? - Sitush (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I notice from here that this may not be the first time your method of citing has been queried. - Sitush (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: See also User talk:Afterbrunel#Altering references. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, gosh. I think we have a bit of a problem here. Afterbrunel, it is perfectly possible to write stylish prose and incorporate meaningful citations of an academic standard: plenty of academics manage it and our own Featured Article process pretty much assures it. I'm not at all sure why you object so much to the consensus regarding citations but the burden is on you to provide adequate verifiability and I don't think you are shouldering that burden. Aside from the points mentioned by me earlier and by others in previous threads, I see that you often cite an entire book rather than detail the relevant pages thereof, eg: your cites of Mowat in the GVR article.

There is no doubt in my mind that you do write with style but I also think there may be an element of editorialising that is extremely difficult to confirm or deny because of the failings in your method. Our policies and guidelines exist for a reason and represent the consensus of the wider Wikipedia community. Yes, consensus can change and you are perfectly entitled to attempt to achieve such change but you should not over-ride it unilaterally. I realise that most articles here undergo an incremental development and that people willingly take up the slack but there needs to be a firm foundation and yours seems to be shaky at best. - Sitush (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted you at Wells and Fakenham Railway. You're doing the same crap yet again. The citations need page numbers etc. How many more times until you understand that you are being disruptive? - Sitush (talk) 12:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A request for page numbers is one thing, but does it really justify blanking three quarters of the article? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when the contributor is a serial offender and, per a recent discussion above, seems to have no intention of resolving the issues. The burden is on them, not me. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what BURDEN says. Nor do we have "punitive blanking" as a penalty for anything. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't punitive blanking. It was removal of recently-added content because it is not prima facie verifiable. And I didn't link to BURDEN on this occasion; I was using the word in its general "real life" sense, not as reference to a policy or guideline.

You know as well as I do that it becomes impossible, or very near it, to disentangle poorly cited information, especially when subsequent edits take place and one cannot be sure whether the later contributors are relying on the cited source, on some other uncited source or on their own knowledge. It isn't good enough and I believe you realise that per your comment in reply to Afterbrunel on your own talk page. We don't let such sloppiness apply to India-related subjects so why should we allow it elsewhere? - Sitush (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Afterbrunel, I practise what I preach, eg: this recent article. I know you have tried to answer this question above but I still do not understand your problem with using page numbers and generally more specific citations. You talked of it impeding style/flow etc but we are first and foremost an encyclopaedia that requires verifiability, not a magazine for railway enthusiasts (I am one, and am a member of the LYRS) who appreciate good writing. It is certainly nice to see good writing but not at the expense of the core requirement or in a way that actually inconveniences both the reader and other editors. - Sitush (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply once more, relying on a more measured response from you. It is not necessary to make offensive remarks here.

You suggest that "recently-added content because it is not prima facie verifiable". The primary source I quoted is Jenkins; this is a slim volume with an excellent index, and is easily verifiable. Nearly all the narrative is incremental, so that it is simple to follow the progress.

If as you implied in your first message to me, you are checking the verifiability, then you must have found the passages in your copy of the book(s); why not add some of the page numbers yourself?

You have made 13 edits to the page in the recent past; it now has ten lines of text; do you consider it is satisfactory now? Incidentally the diagram shows a Wells avoiding line that was never built.

Please be polite in any response here. Afterbrunel (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am being polite. I implied nothing in my first message, although you keep thinking otherwise, but you are wrong if you think that your citations are sufficient. I am sure the Fakenham article can be improved: I left the source that you used in the Further Reading section there and my edit summary for that directed people to the article talk page, where the specific problem is explained. I can see this ending up at WP:ANI if it continues but so be it. - Sitush (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what WP:ANi is, bit if it is a means of resolution of this, can you initiate it, please? Afterbrunel (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bearpit, in my opinion. Hang on and see what your talk page watchers think. Or just add the page numbers at the Wells/Fakenham article. - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Lynn and Hunstanton Railway, Afterbrunel!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

A well-written article and a useful addition to Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wellington to Craven Arms Railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stirchley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Afterbrunel,

Thanks for creating Brymbo railway branch lines! I edit here too, under the username FULBERT and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

This article reads like an essay in places, and would benefit from some restructuring that would maintain the encyclopedic, facts/information-only tone.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|FULBERT}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

FULBERT (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Llandudno branch line.

User:Doomsdayer520 while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Thank you for your new article on the Llandudno branch line.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Leeds, Bradford and Halifax Junction Railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halifax (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm overly attached to the old title, but I find the new one rather clumsy. It is also redundant because the article states that it is a railway, hence my impression is that the renaming was not really necessary. Just something to mull over, I'll leave it to others whether to act on it or not. --Schlosser67 (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think any title will be confirmed in the article itself. The article is for people who do not already know about the topic. Someone who types "Pudsey railway" for example into a search field, would probably ignore "Pudsey Loop" if that came up in the list of possible hits, not realising it referred to the railway.

The article is, of course, for people who don't yet know all about the topic. Afterbrunel (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument concerning the search could apply to any named railway line which does not explicitly include the word "railway" in its name. But Wikipedia search is actually clever enough to show the search terms in excerpts from the found articles. On the other hand, e.g. professions are rarely added to titles of articles about persons unless needed for disambiguation. I'd rather see short and snappy titles, the same way you find them in a printed encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Article titles seems to support this idea. Anyway, it can be changed any time. --Schlosser67 (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion centres on your objection to the word "railway" being in the title. My suggestion is four words long, and you consider it to be "rather clumsy". Are you sure that all this is a good use of your time? Afterbrunel (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just been trying to illustrate Wikipedia:Article titles - that's all. Over and out. --Schlosser67 (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating The Great Northern Railway in Yorkshire.

User:SD0001 while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Hi, it would be good to organise the article into sections with sub-sections.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|SD0001}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

SD0001 (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	I went into the library today to see if I could get some sources for Elham Valley Railway, looked at the article ... and noticed you'd pretty much done the lot! Well done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's very nice of you. I discovered Acocks Green library in Birmingham has got a lot of railway books because of the Tyseley steam centre nearby, and although I don't live there they will lend the books out.

Well done you, for thinking about getting a book at the library, too. A lot of people on here seem to think that's too much trouble. Afterbrunel (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia is approaching its 20th birthday, the "low hanging fruit" has been done, and the remaining information is likely to be tucked away in books that are hard to access. And that, in a nutshell, is one of my main reasons for editing Wikipedia - to get this information out in the open so everyone can read it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All power to you in that. Some of the existing articles are very superficially written ... Afterbrunel (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the extensive addition you made to this article you make reference to a book by someone called Rear but you never fully defined the book - can you add the details e.g. the title. Nthep (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for drawing my attention to this; I have made the necessary amendment. Afterbrunel (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Nthep (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for all your work on Wikipedia. I encountered the word "maching" in a quote in this article for which you seem the main contributor. Is it meant to be "machine"? --LilHelpa (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes you're right. I have corrected it. Always happy to receive notifications of this kind. Afterbrunel (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope you're well. I was just adding sources to West London line and came across your West London Railway article and the bit where you said that it's difficult to find references to them calling it this-"It is not possible to source any direct criticism of any named railway in Punch."

I was reading the West London line page recently having heard the term myself and (not having read that article!) looked on Google Books for sourcing. I'd read it as "Mr Punch's Railway"-I couldn't find that but I did find "Punch's Railway", two certainly about it from 1849 and again in 1850. The first one calls it "our own little railway, the Kensington", and the second calls it "our own dear little railway at Kensington", which makes me think this was already a running joke, maybe there were others the OCR didn't pick up or that didn't use that naming formula.

Any thoughts? Interested in what you think, especially as it looks from the article like you have a lot of great books on the topic which I don't! Blythwood (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. Is this the right way to reply? I never know whether I am supposed to do it here or on your page. Anyway here goes.

a) well done in finding those references. As you imply, this was obviously a long-standing running joke by Punch. The geographical allusions do make it clear they are talking about the WLR / WLER, but it would be interesting to trace back to the first of the Punch articles, and to know what specifically set off this derision in Punch headquarters. You may have set yourself a task here. Feel free to edit the article as you see fit (not that you need my permission, obviously).

b) I had a look round your user page. Like you, I have forgotten most of the stuff I studied in younger days; in fact although it was a vocational course (I am / was a civil engineer) I never used a lot of it.

c) Typefaces: I never studied them in as much depth as you, although I was interested in them in the days before the internet was available, so that casual exploration of the background was not possible. This morning I followed the link to your favourite, Gill Sans. Yes, elegant typeface. I was interested in the West Brompton Underground sign with the four-terminal "W" ... I remember as a child thinking that was the proper way to do W's but finding them rather ugly when I drew them. And the circular O is all very well but it's awfully wide, and I remember practising with various elliptical O's. My favourite quirky typeface was the London Transport one, where the numeral 1 had a sloping top; no serif, but a slope instead. I am ancient enough to remember being taken by my Father into the Underground ticket halls with all those mechanical ticket machines, with 3d, 4d and even (gasp) 1/- marked on the glass panels in that distinctive typeface. And of course, bus destination blinds used it.

d) My book collection. Well, one of the advantages of being ancient is that you can accumulate books over a long period. Second-hand railway histories tend to be quite cheap (except the current trend for big glossy books with lots of pictures in them. (And, personal whinge, lots of human interest stuff (yawn): Joe Bloggs was the signalman at X in 1958 and he used to repair shoes as a sideline. He followed Loamshire Rovers football team, and he never had a bad word to say about anybody.)

e) Have a nice day. Afterbrunel (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! Will think about this and get back to you if/when I edit the article. Blythwood (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. What I've decided to do is...

• I've changed references to "Mr. Punch's Railway", which I can't find in period sources, to "Punch's Railway" which I do have sources for.
• I've then removed the statement that it's not clear that they ever did call it that-I think we have sources for that now, and that it was known. (Most incredibly the term shows up in a parliamentary inquiry! I think that would seem pretty rude today.)
• With your comment that "The West London Extension Railway had been built by the date to which the anecdote refers" when he says "half a century ago"...I'm not sure I'm following what you mean. Is he talking about something that happened around 1853, then, do you think, or later? Blythwood (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Er, not sure I can find that. A search of "anecdote" in the WLR article doesn't show anything. While you're reviwing it could you consider rectifying "Capitalstar operation brought third rail electrification throughout. " which is unreferenced and probably doesn't mean much to most people. (Is it true?) Afterbrunel (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bishops Castle Railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chancery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Track_gauge_conversion#Confused I agree, most of the first paragraph is dubious. Some stuff I commented on years ago seems to have been deleted, but the whole article is a bit of a disaster. There is confusion between permanent change of the gauge and vehicles changing gauge to travel from one to another. Many false assumptions. It looks as though it was written by enthusiasts with no real understanding of the issues.

Chris.Bristol (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your final sentence is certainly correct. I have rather given up on this (and on editing railway articles in general) because too many enthusiasts are wedded to superficial ideas about the subject matter, and are hostile to more scholarly changes. I am tired of childish obstructionism. Afterbrunel (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see another editor improving the St Neots page, thank you. I've spoken to the Curator at the museum and she mentioned you might need help along the way with this and related pages. Happy to help if I can. Richard Slade 14:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Richard. At present I am concentrating on Neot, the monk, but I plan to come back to doing St Neots in general in a week or two. My intention -- I hope you will agree -- is to make the St Neots page as popular / accessible / user friendly as possible. There is a separate History of St Neots page where the more academic stuff can go. I visualise that the people who would hope to get something out of the main St Neots page might be people who are planning to relocate here, or who live here and don't know much about the place. So I hope to get current information, like an outline of what shops and work opportunities there are here for example. As you will know, Wikipedia requires text to be verifiable, so we need citations for "Beales has closed down" even though it is obvious to you and me. (I'm assuming you live here.)

The other thing is that there are some subisdiary sites: Eaton Socon, Eaton Socon Castle, Eynesbury and St Neots Priory. (Can't remember whether any of the churches have their own page. I added some stuff to Eaton Socon church about the fire.) Need to integrate them. Also need some material about Wintringham and Loves Farm.

I've no objection if Liz Davies gives you my email address, or you can tell her to tell me yours as the case may be. (I don't want to put it here because this is public.)

But the most important question is, what aspects of the topic are of particular interest to you? Let me know, and I will try to steer clear of it while you develop them on Wikipedia. Afterbrunel (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked in and spotted your kind reply. You've been busy with quads etc which is great news, so thank you again. Delighted to see how you've split up the main page and created more useful and relevant sections. Other then the local paper, Hunts Post that has an article about Beales closure there won't be much else around. Yes a local resident and my interests are a bit more sporadic so don't worry about an overlap. Have you tried the library's local history section as they might have something useful about the Priory. When I created the museum website I added quite a few local, human interest stories to help improve their coverage for local history. The work you're doing here will also help enormously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sladedesign (talk • contribs) 14:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saint Neot (monk), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eynesbury.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your invaluable contributions to British railway history over the years, as well as your more recent work on Cambridgeshire local history. Jr8825 • Talk 01:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you, thank you. Afterbrunel (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#There_are_too_many_sections_in_far_too_many_poorly_written_articles_about_UK_rail_lines. Your opinion is of course welcome. One specific thing which I'd try to suggest avoiding is not to make single-sentence sections; and also to use different levels of headers when appropriate (for example see this. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Afterbrunel,

Thank you for creating Fraserburgh and St Combs Light Railway.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

There are various unsourced statements within the article; these require inline citations to satisfy WP:BURDEN.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Meena}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

– Meena • 18:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sheffield and Rotherham Railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turnpike.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Afterbrunel. Thank you for your work on Aldershot and Alton lines of the LSWR. User:Trainsandotherthings, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article. Please consider using Sfn or equivalent to better organize citations.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Trainsandotherthings}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Afterbrunel. Thank you for your work on Mid-Sussex railways. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 23:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article.

I've made a couple of minor edits to the article and left some comments on the talk page. The article was drawn to my attention as you linked to five featured articles I wrote in one paragraph! You might want to look at adding links to appropriate other articles so that it gets some visits DavidCane (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I plan to do that. But hey, cut me some slack; this has taken me about 50 hours of work and involved buying books, with real money. Shepperton branch line was waiting for another book which came yesterday, so I have linked from that. One down, only 250 to go. Afterbrunel (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You added a very useful photo to Lyme Regis branch line but then made an error. You were editing Chertsey branch line and somehow replaced the entire Lyme branch text with the Chertsey article. I've fixed it but I thought you deserved an explanation as why an edit was reverted. The Lyme Regis branch line is now correct but I haven't (nor am I competent to) checked the Chertsey branch line. Best wishes OrewaTel (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thank you. The mistake was of course 100% mine. I'm grateful for your courtesy in taking the trouble to send this message -- usually in Wiki people don't bother. I've put the edit in the right place (on Chertsey) now. Thank you once again. Afterbrunel (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Afterbrunel. Thank you for your work on Putney to Wimbledon line. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Afterbrunel. Thank you for your work on Windsor lines of the London and South Western Railway. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article! Hopefully you can write more. Good day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn: Thank you Sundawn. I must say I am grateful for a courteous and constructive comment. There is often a lot of negativity on here, and your kind words make a refreshing change. Afterbrunel (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Afterbrunel. Thank you for your work on Ascot lines of the London and South Western Railway. User:Onel5969, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Very nice job on the article. Keep up the good work!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: You're very kind, thank you. (Wrestling with the text books for the Isle of Portland Railways now.) Afterbrunel (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Afterbrunel. I think there's an issue on your https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ruabon-branches-1906.png map; I think you have the order of the station labels on the Ponkey Branch wrong. Your order is Aberderfyn Halt - Fennant Road Halt - Ponkey Crossing Halt ... but when I check on a map, Fennant Road (Y Ffennant) - https://mapper.acme.com/?ll=53.0151,-3.0481&z=11&t=M&marker0=53.0151,-3.0481, - is north of Aberderfyn Road - https://mapper.acme.com/?ll=53.0123,-3.0466&z=11&t=M&marker0=53.0123,-3.0466 - suggesting the order of stations is Fennant Road Halt - Aberderfyn Halt - Ponkey Crossing Halt. And this would be consistent with the rail line template boxes at the foot of the various wikipedia pages such as Aberderfyn Halt railway station#External links. I'd be grateful if you could look at this & update the map. thx --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I'll rectify that at once. Afterbrunel (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Afterbrunel (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles seem essentially similar. Should they be merged? Jheald (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks as if someone has been having some fun doing this. Please make sure you merge them carefully, retaining any essentials in the deletion. Afterbrunel (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The Estate Railway now redirects to the Private Railway. The two texts were pretty much identical, but I have transferred a handful of copyedits that had been made to the Estate Railway article. Jheald (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]