Talk:Cork City Railways

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Djm-leighpark in topic Proposed Move to Cork City Railways

Proposed Move to Cork City Railways edit

I feel the stations that in this article mostly now have their own article, with article therefore representing a content fork which is to be avoided. However the track diagram is excellent. I was the process of drafting an article Cork City Railways. The represents the non operating company owning the tracks from Cork Albert Quay to Glanmire Raod and Albert Quay. But with a little expansion that could also link to Cork Electric tramway.

Proposal Rename this to Cork City Railways (CCR) and develop content with main focus on CCR but ensuring all the articles relating to Cork railways and the electric tramways are linked in. Any Station content to be moved with attribution to there own articles or that of the operating company. ( I could create 'Cork City Railways' then merge this article in to achieve the same effect ). Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think I am going to be bold and go for it. If people really dont like the result we'll revert but I'll I may think of some other way to introduce the added content. I'm minded I might have to have an 'under construction' banner on this for a few days ... few more than I'd like really. But I'll Nibble bit by bit and see how it how ... Thanks. The page rename won't happen until it would make sense 15:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

...I've been bold and done the move (Mainly just in case someone created a redirect from Cork City Railways whihc would become a pain to swap). An advantage is I've been able to work on the Categories and these see to make sense. The article is begining to serve nicely both a desecribing the Cork City Railway company and linking the railways articles associated with Cork ... well in my opinion. The article is still under construction for improvementDjm-leighpark (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've completed the move enough and I think the article is consistent enough to remove the under construction template. This is not to say the article could not do with improvement ... so please dive in. I feel like I'd like to do more but I've got other commitments and distractions and I dont have access to sources I really need to improve this, so hopefully someone else may bring this forward at some point. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply