Talk:Eyemouth Railway

Trains: in UK / in Scotland Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Transport in Scotland (assessed as Low-importance).

Article name

There is disagreement over whether this article should be named Eyemouth branch (the name originally chosen by Rsloch (talk · contribs)) or Eyemouth Railway Company (the name preferred by Pencefn (talk · contribs)). At present, neither is a redirect, and the text differs. To my mind, both names are wrong:

where a railway company built a line or branch and nothing else, and the article covers the whole of that line or branch and therefore the whole of the railway company, we normally name the article by the railway company (by contrast, if a railway company built two or more lines or branches, each of which are covered on different articles, we name by the line or branch name);
we normally omit the word "Company" from articles on railway companies.

I therefore suggest that the article should be named Eyemouth Railway. The page that should be moved to this is Eyemouth Railway Company, because it is the older page, and its history contains the greater number of revisions. I can then see whether the past revisions of Eyemouth branch are significant enough to require a history merge per WP:CUTPASTE. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Faringdon Railway Company built line would be called the Faringdon railway not the Faringdon branch then? ;) Rsloch (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would be Faringdon Railway, capital R because it's a proper name. I note that the German Wikipedia agrees on that specific point. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My original and older Eyemouth branch article concentrated on the line not the company. It should be left that way as that is the format used in the vast majority of branch lines in GB. Rsloch (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I favour the suggestion from Redrose64, and do agree that the word Company was a bad choice. This also follows the naming conention for the rest of the Scottish Historic Railway companies. --Stewart^{(talk | edits)} 19:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I look at Category:North British Railway I see that the majority are "xxx Railway"; there are several "xxx Line", but only two "xxx Branch"/"xxx branch", and just one "xxx Railway Company". Those named "xxx Line" fall into two groups:

lines built by the North British Railway itself, or by one of its constituents, and which formed only a portion of the parent company's system, e.g. City Union Line, Kelso Line
lines built by two or more companies, sometimes over a protracted period, e.g. Glasgow to Aberfoyle Line, Kincardine Line

This line is neither of those. The whole line was built by one railway company, and that company built no other lines. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two branches are:

Coatbridge Branch (NBR) built by the NBR; and
North Berwick Branch also built be the NBR

--Stewart^{(talk | edits)} 08:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Company or line

This article was created to cover the Eyemouth line not the company that created it. It was done in this format to comply with the majority of former British lines. I would like to change it back that way (replacing 'established' with 'was'). Any thoughts? Rsloch (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need to cover the railway company somewhere. If the company has an article separate from that of the line, there will inevitably be a lot of duplication between the two, unless one or the other is exceedingly short. The railway was only about two miles long, with just two stations, one of which was the junction station at Burnmouth. I think that any information which is specific to the company but not relevant to the line will amount to no more than a few sentences.

It would be better to have a shared article covering all aspects, and build it up to the point where it gets very large, when we may better consider a split. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then a section on the company would seem logical Rsloch (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes: but I don't know of anybody who is against that idea. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, formation of company, significant sponsors, etc. into a section about the company. Another section describing the line features, etc (pictures of line features are great). Eyemouth and Burnmouth have yet to be produced. I can put in the basic stub articles for you if that will help you in enhancing the detail. Just remember WP:ORIGINAL and if you need help in getting references/citation the books listed in Category:Rail transport book citation templates may help. This is precisely the way other articles have developed, especially if there was a prime sponsor/traffic flow for the line. Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway, Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway and Lochaber Narrow Gauge Railway are a good examples of what you are wanting to do. --Stewart^{(talk | edits)} 19:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]