This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hertfordshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HertfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject HertfordshireTemplate:WikiProject HertfordshireHertfordshire articles
@HJ Mitchell: I don't think MOS:GEOLINK applies as it says "For geographic places specified with the name of the larger territorial unit following a comma, generally do not link the larger unit.". In this case the word "in" separates Watford and Hertfordshire and AFAIK its normal to link the sub national geographical entity in articles. The reason I thought MOS:GEOLINK says not to link with commas is to avoid readers having to know that the whole link [[Watford, Hertfordshire]] goes to the town while with [[Watford]], [[Hertfordshire]] the 1st link goes to the town while the 2nd goes to the county. With [[Watford]] in [[Hertfordshire]] is separated by the word "in" which seems clear enough what each name points to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale I think the principle is that we don't link the larger unit. At least that's the way I've always seen it applied in articles (it's how I learnt about that MoS subsection the first place). But I don't think the link is helpful anyway. We don't want to bombard readers with links in the opening sentence and somebody reading about a railway bridge probably isn't massively interested in English counties but if they are it's one click from Watford. I think we as Wikipedians can stand to be a little more discriminatory in what we link; with so manyarticles, almostanythingturnsblueifyou put a pair of square brackets round it!Not sure if you're interested in Herts or railway bridges or just stumbled across this by accident but if you're interested it's part of a little project of mine covering the major engineering works of the London and Birmingham Railway so there are a few others and a few more to come. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?22:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: We generally don't link to things like England, Great Britain and United Kingdom but I think many readers will want to know about counties, I'll ask at the geography project. I frequently remove links from things like countries and common nouns that don't need to be linked. I don't have any specific interest in the London and Birmingham Railway but I came across this from Category:Articles with OS grid coordinates being in my watchlist. I am currently working on adding Commons categories for Grade I listed buildings which I should be finished in the next few days. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
