Talk:Network Rail route MD 140

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This redirect 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

Low

This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

Merge?

I do not see any need for this article. Apart from the distances (for which no references are given), there is nothing here that isn't stated in Marston Vale Line. The article title is not something that the average user is likely to be searching for, and the only article that links here is Marston Vale Line. If there are no objections, I'll merge the distance data into Marston Vale Line and nominate this for deletion. The same can probably be said for other similar articles (see Category:Network Rail routes). – Tivedshambo (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use the distance data in the Marston Vale Line article by all means, but I would be sorry if the NR route articles were deleted. Yes, I'm sorry that I've neglected to add to them as intended and I'm conscious, in particular, that they lack references as yet (an omission I had been intending to remedy for some time, since I have, of course, been working from published sources) -- but I do feel that there is a place for them since there is seldom such a neat correspondence between the sections chosen for such articles as that on the "Marston Vale Line" (which often seem to be based on TOCs' marketing titles, sometimes confusing lines with passenger services) and Network Rail's actual classification of its routes. Finally, I disagree that "The article title is not something that the average user is likely to be searching for" is grounds for an entry's deletion: 1) Wikipedia does not pretend, as far as I can see, to be an encyclopedia only for "the average user" (there must be thousands of articles which an average user is not likely to search for); and 2) articles are found not just by searches for titles but also, if not chiefly, by links from other articles. One of the chief purposes of Wikipedia in my view should be lead people to places where they can learn what they never knew they didn't know. -- Picapica 19:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point on the article title, but I don't really see what can go in this article that isn't already in (or could go in) Marston Vale. Perhaps this article could redirect to it? However, I'll give it some time, and see if I'm proved wrong. – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no further development of this article in over a month, I have merged the articles. – Tivedshambo (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Data sources?

If this is using Oakley's dataset, then I hope the uploader has read Oakley's copyright note. ShakespeareFan00 19:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has, and it isn't. Mr Oakley's work is far more detailed than the kind of thing I am listing here, which is based on Network Rail information in the public domain, and I doubt that the distance between one station and the next is coyright information just because a multiplicity of authors mention it in their books. I thought I was being helpful in suggesting a couple of resources "for further reading", but I'll take them out. -- Picapica 19:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK No worries, No need to remove the external refrences then :) ShakespeareFan00 22:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]