Talk:Groudle Glen Railway
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Groudle Glen Railway article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Redirect[edit]
I have added a redirect to the Onchan page as there is enough information there to help the Onchan article but not enough to warrant a full article as yet. -localzuk 14:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Don't you think it should be the other way round - take info from Onchan page on to Groudle Glen Railway Page! AHEMSLTD 15:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Not really. The article would be a stub here, but wouldn't be on the Onchan page - as there doesn't seem to be enough information about the subject, if the information level increased enough that it warranted its own article, I would say yes-localzuk 15:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- We should keep the Groudle Glen page separate since this is specifically about the railway, which is not the same as the place. I agree that we need more info to convert this from a stub to an article, but removing the stub will discourage what we want (two good articles). I'll try to add some better Groudle Glen info in the next few days and get this going. Gwernol 02:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, as it appears I am alone on this issue, I will concede defeat. I will also look into finding some more information. Some photo's might be good.
- We should keep the Groudle Glen page separate since this is specifically about the railway, which is not the same as the place. I agree that we need more info to convert this from a stub to an article, but removing the stub will discourage what we want (two good articles). I'll try to add some better Groudle Glen info in the next few days and get this going. Gwernol 02:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Not really. The article would be a stub here, but wouldn't be on the Onchan page - as there doesn't seem to be enough information about the subject, if the information level increased enough that it warranted its own article, I would say yes-localzuk 15:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)