How do we take this forward (if I can be forgiven for speaking proprietorially, even though it's not my article)? I've added quite a bit to history, though 99% is UK history. In itself that's not bad, as modern railways originated in the UK, but there is a lot more railway history out there, as well as vast amounts of non-historical railway 'stuff'. In my opinion this article could usefully be divided into a number of sections, all brought together by links to an umbrella railway category. Otherwise, it will become enormous and unreadable (especially my contributions). Views? Also, what is the general rule re. sources? I could cite plenty of written works, but don't really have any favoured websites (which is not to say that there aren't good railway history sites). Alba 18:05, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
- Feel free to break stuff out to separate articles as needed.
- The general rule re sources is to provide them. Books are fine and are probably preferred as they would usually be considered more reliable, although web-sites are easier to check.
- Philip J. Rayment 22:09, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Move to "railroad?"
My understanding is that Conservapedia does follow U. S. style, and that U. K. usage is not to be imposed on contributors, but that, nevertheless, instances of U. K. usage should be brought into conformance with U. S.
- The Manual of Style says, "Commonwealth spellings, for de novo or otherwise well-maintained articles are welcome". I know of nothing that says that "instances of U. K. usage should be brought into conformance with U. S.", nor that "U. K. usage is not to be imposed on contributors", whatever that means.
- I would oppose moving this to "Railroad" for the following reasons:
- "Railroad" is, as far as I know, a solely-American term, with the rest of the English-speaking world using "railway" (and in fact some American systems also use the term "railway").
- The main two contributors to this article so far are not Americans. It's insulting to be told that the (correct) spelling they are used to is not good enough.
- Railways started in England, which, of course, uses the term "railway". It is therefore arguably the "correct" term.
- Philip J. Rayment 09:57, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
- OK. (Yeah, I know railways started in England... along with radar, television, jet engines, etc...) Dpbsmith 16:29, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
RJJensen's new introduction
I reverted RJJensen's new introduction because it was not generic enough. Specifically...
- "A railway ... is a form of transport in which a locomotive engine pulls freight or passenger cars...": This reference to vehicles being pulled by a locomotive does not really include multiple-unit trains.
- "...on steel rails along fixed routes.": The rails being steel is not a defining point of railways. Even excluding light and short-lived timber and mining tramways using wooden, or even stone, rails, the earliest railways used rails made of iron, not steel.
- "The railway was the dominant form of transportation from the 1840s until the mid-20th century.": This sentence is probably too broad to be of much use, and is of questionable accuracy, as the rise and fall of railway dominance varied by country to country and industry to industry. That is, there are certain markets, and probably even countries, where railways are arguably still dominant.
- The rest of the new introduction was U.S.-specific, so doesn't really belong in the introduction.
That's not to say that most if not all of that information can't be incorporated into the article somehow, but it needs qualification and/or elaboration and should therefore not be in the introduction.
Philip J. Rayment 02:11, 7 September 2008 (EDT)