Talk:Mount Cuthbert and Dobbyn railway lines
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Lankiveil in topic 2 Articles
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
2 Articles
editHey guys while I was trying to wikify this article I saw that this article should be broken into two different articles. One should be Mount Cuthbert and the other one should be Dobbyn railway lines. What do you think?--Pratyya (Hello!) 15:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree - The article barely has enough material to cover both lines, let alone two separate articles. The current article should be kept and developed (along with more citations). Only then can we see whether it merits being split into two articles. If we split it into two articles, then there will only be a reverse suggestion to merge them into a single holding article (which is what it already is). I suggest that the person that requested comments do more work on developing this article efore bring this to the attention of the rest of the project. - Bhtpbank (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks @Bhtpbank: for commenting here. But See Mount Cuthbert is a town and Dobbyn railway lines is a railline. Now if I'm going to add infobox here, which infobox I should add? Infobox Settlement or Rail? In here two different things are added in one article. That's why I think it should be broken into two articles. --Pratyya (Hello!) 13:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- I shall now re-state what I have previously said.
(1) There is barely enough properly sourced material here for a single article, let alone splitting it into two.
(2) Splitting the article prematurely will lead to both articles being proposed for a merge.
(3) If you do a simple google search for "Mount Cuthbert and Dobbyn railway" you will find plenty of independent references.
(4) I conclude that this article has a valid title that can eventually be expanded with good sources and does not need to be split.
(5) Before placing a RfC on any further pages, please do some research of your own.
(6) There is no such thing as "wikify"-ing an article.
You need to learn a lot more about Wikipedia before placing any further RfC's on article pages. - Bhtpbank (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- I shall now re-state what I have previously said.
- "Wikify" is a whole project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree - But there is such a thing as 'wikifying'. --Greenmaven (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Pardon me @Bhtpbank: and if you think that my writing is offensive then I'm sorry. But a user who can say There is no such thing as "wikify"-ing an article. shouldn't use @Pratyya Ghosh - You need to learn a lot more about Wikipedia. as an edit summary. Also the summary you've used here is crashing the Wikiquette rule of WP slightly. Anyway again thanks for commenting here and I'll remind your advice in future. Have a good Holiday.
--Pratyya (Hello!) 14:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Conditionally Agree, there should be an article on Mouth Cuthbert, which is a separate locality (and now a ghost town). If the heat abates today I might take a stab at creating it tonight. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC).
- ...and done. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC).