Talk:Wisbech and March line

New to this and not sure this is in the right place or of the right style ... how can it be so complicated? Anyway ... I reckon the "last passenger train" which is stated as running down the line in 1984 may have in fact been a train organised by NENTA or similar. I was involved in WAMRAC (as a green teenager!) around that time and remember WAMRAC trains to Cambridge and Lowestoft (why Lowestoft I have no recollection) but no others organised by WAMRAC. Each of these were DMU's and not loco hauled. Markeg 23:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC) markeg

Not sure if this is where you want me to discuss, but the bit about Fenland refusing a grant is not really relevant any more. At the time the group was very young. Other railways have suffered similar setbacks, and I do not beleive it is relevant for this forum.Scottyh98 22:30, 01 October 2009

I agree that several railways have similar setbacks - but, while railways might not want to flag them up on an advertising site, these setbacks are relevant to an encyclopedia. Once the line has managed to open and prove itself a success these comments will be proven invalid, but even then I'd argue that they are still notable. DiverScout (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I might be getting the hang of this now, sorry. I deleted part of an article, as it is personal opinion of author and not fact. Scottyh98 10:29, 30 October 2009

Not sure whether it was factual or not, as referencing on this article is still a bit poor. Something needs to be sorted as the Bramley Line reply to the ATOC report needs to be referenced. It states that the report is published. Is it available online anywhere? DiverScout (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's online at their website. Link is www.bramleyline.org.uk/files/atoc.pdf Scottyh98 13:14, 30 October 2009

Referencing and edit war

Hi! I'm not connected with the Bramley Line in any way, but am interested in the development of this article. As there seems to be a risk of an "edit war" starting between the pro and anti lobby could I ask people to ensure that their edits are referenced so that it is clear that they are not expressing personal opinions! Thanks. DiverScout (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Please ensure this article is written in a neutral way, some of the sections show apparent bias in choice of language (POV-section flagged) PatrickDunfordNZ (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is better now, although this article is still really short on references. DiverScout (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is additonal input I will assume that the edits are fine and remove the tag. DiverScout (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is not neutral becasue it is mainly written by members and supporters of the Bramleyline heritage group. They are the only source of information on plans to re-instate the line. No detailed or audited information re costs, budgets, action plans etc. has been published by them. The article contains a lot of statements about a theoretical future event and it should be flagged as speculative and uncorroborated. Similar tags should be applied to the other pages which mention proposed stations along the route. None exist and there are no verifiable sources to say whether such stations will ever be built. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.193.203.146 (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. I'm nothing to do with the Bramley Line - either the pro or anti campaign who both seem to want to fight their battles on Wikipedia along with the multitude of sites they have created.

The history of the line is recorded fact. The early preservation attempts are recorded fact. Other than the flagged statement, the state of the route is a factual account of the status quo. The ATOC proposals are recorded fact. The Bramley Line proposals are equally fact (whether or not you agree with them, or consider they/are not likely to succeed in their goals). Volunteer work has taken place on the route. Stock has been bought and sold. The line is still owned by Network Rail and the Bramley Line are trying to get a lease. These are facts.

These facts have been presented "as is", using articles posted in newspapers and by ATOC. No costs or budgets (other than figures produced by British Rail and ATOC) have been mentioned (or are needed) for this article. The opening paragraph makes it pretty clear that this is a proposal - and is in line with the large number of similar articles on Wikipedia. DiverScout (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The use of words like "would" and "might" cannot be construed as relating to facts. A proposal is not a fact unless it is supported by independently verifiable information. Conversely, one undisputed fact is that the Bramleyline group list as their friends the Mid Norfolk Railway, where DiverScout works as a volunteer train crew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.193.203.146 (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they may well do but personal comments about my membership of other railways has nothing to do with the fact that this article meets Wikipedia standards and that the facts listed in it are just so - facts. I'm also a Scouter and a former member of the RAF, and edit articles in those areas. I also include editing Wikipedia as an interest. Does that mean that I will be biased when editing on these topics - or does it just possibly mean that I know what I'm talking about? DiverScout (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed your comment "and a member of the Bramleyline group" - relating to Cllr Simon King as I can find no evidence to support your assertion. His entry at Cambbridge CC states, under Outside Bodies: Fenland Council for Voluntary Service, Local Access Forum, Thomas Squire Charity, and Young Lives. There is nothing about hime being a member of a "Bramleyline group". If there is a source for this, please add it. DiverScout (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Councillor King declared his interest as a Board member of the Bramleyline group in a Fenland District Council meeting of 26/11/09. Perhaps you would be so kind as to add the following link: on http://www.fenland.gov.uk/committee_documents/2009/December/17_1400_Cabinet/Agenda-Item-No.02---Minutes-of-26-November-2009.pdf

Looks like you don't need to be a scout to know about scouting. What people want to see on wikipedia are FACTS. We want factual information as to how and when the Bramleyline are going to build and fund stations and passing loops along the route . There are no corroborated sources to suggest this will ever happen.

There is also a website called bramleyline.com. This needs to be added as another source and view on the Bramley line, in order to achieve balance in this article. Can you do that please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitemoor (talk • contribs) 17:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for finding a source. If you add comments it is Wikipedia policy that you add a reference in order to demonstrate that they are facts. If you look at the coding I use when I add the comment you should be able to do this yourself in future, but if you have any troubles working it out please feel free to ask.

What people want are, indeed, facts. There are no facts relating to the things that you wish to be added, so they are not likely to appear on here until they are in reliable third-party sources. There are no sources that suggest that this will happen. Personally, I doubt that it will. That is my opinion, though, and has no place whatsoever in the article.

There are plenty of websites arguing over this issue - but Wikipedia is not a place for this argument to be continued. DiverScout (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added the site you suggest at the bottom of the page, but the content suggests that this is a personal website and, as such, would not usually count as reliable source. In this case I think that it's inclusion, as a source of additional (not primary) information, may be valid - but be advised that other editors may not share this opinion. DiverScout (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bramley Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130105065835/http://www.norfolkrailwaysociety.org.uk/news.html to http://www.norfolkrailwaysociety.org.uk/news.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)