Talk:Wolverton Viaduct

Reversions of my and others' edits

Greetings and felicitations recent editors (User:Redrose64, User:Kelly222, User:TheTechnician27, USer:HirowoWiki, User:John; the others are mentioned in the text). I noticed that User:HJ Mitchell you reverted my two edits to Wolverton Viaduct, with the comments "that's not cleanup, the only rendering change was to add a blank external links section for the Commons template" and "Wikidata SD is better".

Regarding the first edit, I did more than just add an "External links" section (which is now recommended per MOS:ELLAYOUT), I also added two parameters to the coordinates, so as to specify the scale and location of the bridge, and moved the "Footnotes" section and adjusted the width of its columns to better match its contents. I realize that User:Earle Bartibus Huxley is the one who moved the "Footnotes" section back, but in any case and IMHO 30 em too wide for almost all of the citations—20 em is better.

Regarding the second edit, how is not specifying the type of bridge a better description? It's more specific and it is forty characters.

I'd also like to move the last image ("Lithograph of Wolverton Viaduct (1839) by Thomas Roscoe") to the right side, as in my (very wide) display it impinges on the "References"; moving it will make that less prominent.

In any case, can we stop overwriting each other's edits and come to a consensus? —DocWatson42 (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! As the Commons template is objectively an EL and not a reference (just placed in 'References' seemingly because that's the only place it will fit), there is a template for this exact problem, and I'll see what others think of it. I personally think it's an elegant solution, as the Commons link really doesn't belong in the refs section. I have not yet read the rest of this discussion and thus don't have an opinion on it presently. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

In the past the last section was where it and its ilk would have gone, but that has recently changed (and I wholeheartedly support that change). —DocWatson42 (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Per Template:Commons category, this template should be placed at the top of the last section on the page and per WP:MOSSIS, should be put at the beginning of the last section of the article (which is usually, but not necessarily, the "External links" section). There are also cautions against creating a section just for this template. Nothing about Special:PermaLink/1244487242#References was against either the template doc or the MOS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Then we have a conflict between the MOS, and Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects and the template's instructions. Edit: I pointed this out to the source of the decision, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. —DocWatson42 (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

No we don't. And nobody is "overwriting each other's edits"; you made two edits, I reverted them with reasons, you disagreed so now we're discussing. That's as it should be. A section that is empty apart from a link to Commons is not helping the reader, and nor is hiding the link right at the bottom, below the references. Maybe in a long article with lots of links, especially on a broad subject, but this is a relatively concise article about an individual bridge and readers are likely to appreciate being directed to where they can find more photos.

I don't really have strong opinions on image placement. It looks fine on my laptop and my phone but my settings don't look like anyone else's. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Electrification date

1958 seems rather early since in West Coast Main Line we say "The first stretch to be upgraded and electrified was Crewe to Manchester, completed on 12 September 1960. This was followed by Crewe to Liverpool, completed on 1 January 1962. Electrification was then extended south to London."

There's an article in the Daily Telegraph of 27 June 1960 where John Betjeman complains that the overhead electrification will be "A blot on the scene" saying "The effect of these cables over the country can be seen already between Manchester and Crewe and in the Peak District." "these stanchions are quite out of scale with our scenery and are soon to ruin for good hundreds of miles of it."

Is there a contemporary source for when the work was done? Cavrdg (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cavrdg I thought 58 seemed early when I wrote it. Historic England seem quite adamant but I'm not sure how much weight I put on that. I've changed it to "beginning in 1958", which is more plausible and still ties in with the beginning of the programme. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Electrification can take many years (look at Paddington-Penzance - how far has that got to?). The WCML electrification began with Manchester-Wilmslow via Styal, this was followed by the other Manchester suburban routes. Having reached Crewe and Stoke, it continued north to Liverpool and south to Birmingham. It was done in stages to spread the cost: less plant and fewer workers would be needed, and the workers of one stretch would then work on the next stretch without needing the cost of fresh training. Also, as each stretch was completed it could be opened and start earning money. IIRC the last stretch to be completed was Rugby-Euston in the mid-1960s, round about the time that blue and grey livery became the norm. It'll be in Railway Magazine. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)