Talk:Talyllyn Railway

message: In the Declining fortunes section it states As McConnel's lease drew to its close, there was no prospect of a further lessor coming forward... Presumably McConnel paid for the lease, rather than owning the land, therefore shouldn't this be lessee rather than lessor? Incidentally, who did he lease the land from? — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo 07:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoop, yes it should read lessee, well spotted. I believe the lessor was the estate of John Pughe, I'll need to check in Boyd 1988 though - I'm sure he covers the details. Best, Gwernol 21:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Found a reference and updated it. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bryn Eglwys lease 

message: There seem to be a number of, sorry, ten instances of the phrase "a number of" or "several". Some of these are justified, but can we use exact figures where available? Even approximate values would be acceptable. For example "a number of goods vehicles in use". Five? Fifty? Five hundred? I know I'm guilty of using the phrase, but I've cleared up a couple, and I'll see what I can do about the rest. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Unfortunately most of these are vague because we have no more precise information (that I can find). The example of the number of goods wagons at opening is a good one - all the sources I have say there were "a number of" wagons. This is not surprising at this distance in time, and I don't hold out much hope of getting real figures. Gwernol 13:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  One more thing... 

message: I've nominated the article at WP:FAC. Gwernol 14:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominated for Featured Article 

message: Now that we have grid references for the stations, shall I add the co-ordinates too? Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Co-ordinates

message: I've had some comments back from a friend, who's read through a printed copy of the article and made some constructive criticism. I've updated the article to reflect this.
Unfortunately this article hasn't made it through WP:FAC on the first attempt. It's been suggested we take it to peer review before trying again. As there seems to be no further updates at the moment, I'll put it forward. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been an automated review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/April 2008#Talyllyn Railway. This contains several comments that need to be addressed. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 08:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: I've been bold and moved the list of stations to a separate article. I know the idea's been rejected before, but it was suggested in the peer review and I still feel this is the best solution. I've linked to it at the top of the route section. Hopefully you'll agree with me that this method works - if not feel free to improve/revert as you see fit. I've also merged some of the route sections together, as per PR - this could do with some improvement. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of stations 

message: Hi there
I just stumbled across this article after visiting the railway on holiday with my son, who's a big steam fan, and upon seeing the existing quality of the article I figured I would help get it to FA status by giving it a thorough copy edit and so on.  I noticed that one point which was picked up before was the failure to use  for the measurements, so I've started to add that in, but I've noticed that it auto-converts the 2 ft 3 in gauge to 690mm, whereas the article previously stated 686mm.  Not knowing much about gauges I don't know if the 4mm is significant - if the article were to state 690mm throughout would that be a major problem.........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In some places at least the  template is used which gives .  Checking with Google Calculator says that 2 feet 3 inches = 68.58 centimetres which agrees with th figures from the  rather than the 690mm you got from .  I'd suggest  is used throughout. --Zabdiel (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The way to solve the problem is thus in all cases:  or . The key is "|sigfig=3". Peter Horn User talk 20:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I meant  or  where "|0" gives the extra precision. Peter Horn User talk 21:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the work you've done on this article - hopefully it'll be in a position for reassessment for FA soon. Coincidentally, I was in Tywyn today and took some more photos of carraiges for the rolling stock article - I'll add these soon. As far as the us of  goes, the only disadvantage of it is that it does not (currently) allow units to be expanded in full (i.e. feet and inches rather than ft and in). This is required, at least for the first instance, by WP:UNITS. I've therefore put this back to a manual entry for the first the gauge is stated in the main text. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metric gauge 

message: Just a random fact. If you search for Railway in google, the Talyllyn Railway is the third choice for some reason.... Simply south (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true if you search on www.google.co.uk but not on www.google.com. Its perhaps not so strange that the TR website would come up first on the UK-specific Google page. Best, Gwernol 21:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. I just tried a different neutral one one and for some reason NXEC was first. Simply south (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange fact 

message: The article has just been passed as a Featured Article. This is something we all should be proud of, and I'd personally like to thank all the contributors who have helped. Especial thanks to Tivedshambo and Chris who have made major efforts to improve the article recently. Best, Gwernol 01:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And thanks of course to you too, Gwernol. Well done everyone! —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 06:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hurrah!  And hopefully a few more little tweaks will enable the "List of stations and halts" article to go to FLC next...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article 

message: Reading the front page of Wikipedia today, I read the text about the Talyllyn Railway. In no place was it obvious for a lay-person where is this railway situated in the world? I guessed UK or Australia, and discovered the answer when I clicked on to the article itself. I believe this should be remedied.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.243.61 (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the blurb so the front page now reflects the changes made to this article. I'm not sure whether it's necessary to clarify that Wales refers to the UK, not New South Wales. Personally I tend to think it's obvious, but on the other hand it's difficult to judge how well known places on your doorstep really are. The only thing I can compare it with are other Welsh FA's such as Wales national rugby union team, Slate industry in Wales and Tom Pryce. None of these seem to think it necessary to clarify that Wales is part of the UK. What do others think? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of sentences later it say "first narrow gauge railway in Britain authorised...". Assuming by Britain we mean the United Kingdom (rather than Great Britain), this ought to be changed and linked? --Jza84 |  Talk   23:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What needed to be clarified, Tivedshambo, was that the railway is, in fact, in Wales. This was not stated. The "Slate industry in Wales" states that it is "in Wales". So does the "Wales national rugby football team". So does the "Tom Pryce" article. This article did not state what country the railway is in, at the time that I wrote my comment, and, presumably, at the time that the unnamed editor above left their comment also. If you look back at the edit summaries, you will find out who fixed it and when. It occurred about 100 edits ago. Amandajm (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Amandajm, see my comments in the previous section. To reply to Jza84, changing Britain to the United Kingdom is not as clear-cut as it may seem. As I understand it (though I may be mistaken), back in th 1860s the UK included what is now the whole of Ireland, as well as England, Scotland and Wales. Britain refers only England, Scotland and Wales. (Apologies if I'm explaining what you already know). Now, Ireland had a large amount of narrow gauge, so it may be that there was a steam passenger line authorised there that pre-dated the Talyllyn. I'll check the two sources cited for this tonight, and see what they state. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 13:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow-up: Mitchell & Eyres specifically states that the Talyllyn was "the first narrow gauge railway in Britain to be built for steam operation" (my italics), so I'm inclined to leave it as that. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 06:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the text on the front page 

message: I've removed the links to the you-tube videos added here. Whilst you-tube links are not banned outright (see WP:YOUTUBE), I feel they should only be used where they contribute something of value to the article, e.g. to provide evidence of something that is not otherwise referenced. Unfortunately, I cannot view the videos at present, as my home PC is out of commission, and youtube is blocked on my office pc as company policy. If it's felt that either of these videos do add to the article, feel free to reinstate them, but these should be in the external links section at the end, rather than a separate section in the middle. What we should avoid are long lists of unnecessary links to fan sites, home videos etc. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 08:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links to on-line video 

message: I think that you can probably afford to say that it's a saddle tank engine. Amandajm (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) (logged on as Pek) 10:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead pic

message: The article states:
:In 1947 the British railway system was nationalised and the Talyllyn was one of the few operating railways not included. The reasons for this are unclear, but it is significant that all official mention of the railway had ceased several decades before and it is likely that the line was simply forgotten by officialdom.
A check of the Transport Act 1947, third schedule (pp. 145-6) shows that not only was the Talyllyn not nationalised, but no independent narrow-gauge railways were nationalised. It is true that several n.g. railways did become part of the British Railways system: but these (the Corris, Welshpool & Llanfair and the Vale of Rheidol) were already part of the Great Western Railway, so under Part II, section 14 of the Act, these would have needed additional legislation to separate them off and so avoid nationalisation.
In the main text of the Act, Part II, section 13 is relevant: it implies that the railways which were to be nationalised were those which had come under Government control during World War II, under the Defence (General) Regulations 1939. Such railways would have been those used for the carriage of troops, munitions and other vital supplies; if slate didn't come under that heading, it's no surprise that the Talyllyn didn't come under Government control. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: By 1947, were there any other "independent" narrow-gauge railways still in operation in Great Britain ? The only one that comes to mind is the Snailbeach, which was never a passenger-carrying public railway. RGCorris (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not included in the nationalisation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Talyllyn Railway. 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/20120401155246/http://www.imeche.org/news/archives/11-10-30/Top_engineering_honour_for_railway_that_helped_inspire_Thomas_the_Tank_Engine.aspx to http://www.imeche.org/news/archives/11-10-30/Top_engineering_honour_for_railway_that_helped_inspire_Thomas_the_Tank_Engine.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Talyllyn Railway. 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://archive.is/20140121130007/http://www.heritagerailway.co.uk/news/queen-honours-talyllyn-railway to http://www.heritagerailway.co.uk/news/queen-honours-talyllyn-railway
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This old FA looks in pretty good shape, but there are a few unsourced statements that I flagged as . FA criteria require that an inline citation at the end of each paragraph. (t · c) buidhe 21:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Buidhe - I don't think there's anything controversial in those statements, and they shouldn't be too hard to source. I've made a start and will do the rest in the next day or so.  — Voice of Clam 07:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: All  tags now replaced with refs.  — Voice of Clam 13:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020|FA sweeps]]—notes