Talk:Hundred of Hoo Railway

Stations

I've created a page for each of the passenger stations. With regard to the halts that opened in 1906, the majority of them only have July 1906 for an opening date, although one of them (Grain Crossing halt) has a date of 1 July 1906. Is it safe to assume all other halts opened on that date, or do they all need independant verification too? Mjroots (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Referencing

Before anyone gets upset about the unref=yes in the TWP banner, my thinking on this is that while there are a few sources listed at the end of the article, I don't see any inline citations at all. This is one of the sticking points of many reviewers as we move articles up the chain through the GA and FA processes. Slambo 42 (unprivileged login of Slambo) - T 15:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Electrification

This text and in 1959, the Allhallows branch line was excluded from the electrification programme carried out on the rest of the Hundred of Hoo railway. has recently been removed and restored to the article. As far as I'm aware, the line was not electrified, so the removal of the text is justifiable. Can anyone confirm this? Was the line originally included in the Electrification Programme and then left out, or was it not included at all? Mjroots (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Berry Wiggins

The article states that the Berry Wiggins refinery closed in 1972. However the Berry Wiggins Oil Refinery's page on Kent Rail reference says 1977, which I think is more likely - it was certainly still there in September 1972 when I last visited. Pterre (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hundred of Hoo Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111009021523/http://www.britishrailways1960.co.uk/SRSESSL10.html to http://www.britishrailways1960.co.uk/SRSESSL10.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems Ok Dr Sludge (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Re-assessing

I have re-assessed this article from B to Start class. The article is largely unsourced, and at 33K of prose is far too long for a relatively insignificant branch line. It could probably be trimmed down to at the very most 10K by blowing up and starting over with a Middleton Press book or two. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Any attempt to do so would be WP:VANDALISM and treated as such. You may also want to consider whether your 'TNT' approach would be equally welcomed on other even more 'insignificant' branch lines such as the Brill Tramway and Hawkhurst Branch Line. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Replacing an article with a well-written and reliably-sourced version written in good faith would never constitute vandalism - ever. See User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to vandalism Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Some fundamental misunderstandings here. First, this article is already well-written and sourced. Second, replacing a well-written and sourced article with a shorter version because you consider that it is too long is, whether you appreciate it or not, unconstructive. Third, the WP:TNT applies to 'hopelessly irreparable' articles, which is not the case here. In any case, your approach raises significant concerns which I will now flag on the project page. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Accepting that referencing needs improvement, a wholesale gutting of the article is not justified. Let's see if we can work to reference the unreferenced text. Mjroots (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I've made a start with the referencing. It looks as though the "Bibliography" section lists sources which have been used, but not correctly referenced. If anyone has any of those sources, please feel free to reference the article with them. Mjroots (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

"First, this article is already well-written and sourced." If that was the case, there would not have been a maintenance tag at the top of the article for the past four years, and Mjroots would not be working on the article now, as there would be no need. As stated above, a good Middleton Press book would be a good place to start, I'm just not sure of which one off the top of my head. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

There are references but they are not inline. I have these sources and will seek to "inline" them time permitting. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:, it's Branch Line to Allhallows. Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

How's that work going? Afterbrunel (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)