86.172.87.194

The "unexplained substantial removal of information" on the Marshlink article is because it wasn't well written. Less is more.

@2A00:23C5:608D:900:BD3B:D0C5:8EBA:8F18: Firstly, for future reference, please leave messages like this on the talk page of the article in question, not personal talk pages. IP addresses change regularly, so if you leave a message on an IP's talk page, it's likely that it will never be seen. I only noticed it because I checked through your edit history. I'm happy to continue this discussion here for now, just to keep it in one place, but in future do use article talk pages instead. Also, don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes.

Secondly, I have to ask you to please elaborate on the "wasn't well-written" comment. You couldn't have been more generic with your reasoning. Using this excuse, I could hypothetically revert every Wikipedia edit ever. It wouldn't even matter what was said - I could always say "nope, I don't like the way this is written" and undo these edits. That's just not how Wikipedia works.

Thirdly, I believe that not only were my edits well-written, but the original version wasn't. That's exactly why I edited it in the first place. This is especially true for the "Services" section (which, by the way, I still think should be a subsection of "Route"). The original version implies that services on the line only call at Ham Street, Appledore and Rye, while the very next sentence then claims that actually most trains also call at Winchelsea and/or Three Oaks, plus some stop at Doleham too. Meanwhile, Ore station isn't mentioned at all until the sentence after that. It was all a complete mess, so I changed the wording to make it clear and understandable. Now, you seem to be implying that the original was better-written than my edit, but so far I'm definitely not convinced that this is the case. The same goes for the "Route" section - many sentences went off on a tangent which are really not important enough to be worth a mention here. "After the tunnel, the line is double track and electrified (originally for access to the carriage sidings at Ore but since their removal the lines are used by scheduled trains)." - that sentence makes very little sense when taken out of context, and even if it didn't, I don't see why nonexistent sidings at Ore should be mentioned at all, except maybe in the "History" section.

Fourthly, you've completely screwed up on your edit. A closer look at the details of your edit (not including the images for now), it looks like you've retained the first couple of paragraphs in the "Route" section the same as in my edit (except for the detail about the number of tracks between Ashford and Appledore, which you've removed completely for some bizarre reason), and reverted the last few paragraphs of "Route" and the entire "Services" section. The problem is that the paragraphs now don't match up. "After crossing the River Rother, the line reaches Rye, which has two platforms and serves as a passing loop for the majority of passenger services. At Rye there is also a disused branch line, which used to run to Rye Harbour. [line break] After the tunnel, the line is double track and electrified." - what tunnel? There was no mention of any tunnels in the previous paragraph? And you've also completely removed any mention of Winchelsea, Snailham Halt, Doleham and Three Oaks stations, and the Ore Tunnel. Why? In my opinion your edit makes even less sense than both the original and my edits.

Fifthly, regarding the images - I don't understand why you felt the need to revert them as well. You removed this picture from the infobox, even though it was fine, and then added it in the "Future" section, where it doesn't belong. That picture has nothing to do with the future of the Marshlink line. I also don't know why you moved the picture of Doleham back to the left side when that layout looks very ugly.

Please address all of the questions I mentioned above. If this isn't resolved, I will move this discussion over to the article's talk page and possibly seek an RfC. 2A00:23C5:D033:4400:5431:6D9D:44FA:A544 (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: No response in four days - I'm now going to take it to the talk page. 2A00:23C5:D033:4400:7943:5007:5D05:E7B0 (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

---