Talk:Felixstowe to Nuneaton railway upgrade

New Article

This is an article in a whole series of articles about key railway upgrades in the United Kingdom. I am making a start. GRALISTAIR (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a section on this in the article Birmingham–Peterborough line but it is such a huge project that I thought it deserved its own article GRALISTAIR (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking for sources that relate to the subject as a whole

Hi GRALISTAIR. Scanning the titles of the sources, correct me if I'm wrong but few or none at a glance appear to deal specifically with the Felixstowe to Nuneaton railway upgrade, instead dealing with smaller parts of this whole. If I do a web search on "Felixstowe to Nuneaton (F2N) railway upgrade" then there are pages out there that deal with this route as a whole. To prove the relevance of an article, sources should exist that relate specifically to the subject as framed. Am I wrong? Or, is there a reason you have not included such sources? -Lopifalko (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Well I can point out individually references that point to the whole route if you would like. I assure you they are in there. However, it is highly unlikely the whole route will be done at once. It is so huge that bits are being done separately. Julian Worth et al refer to the route as a whole but quite a few of the references do too. Let me know if you need reference number and I will point to page numbers etc. GRALISTAIR (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes please do and I will look at it tomorrow. It's a hefty text and long list of sources to review, so any such help is very much appreciated. -Lopifalko (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

And of course no disrespect but the map itself is a huge clue that the whole route is referenced a few times. GRALISTAIR (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Some of what I am about to say is "slightly tongue-in-cheek". I am going to carry on editing this article but pointing out all the references where F2N is specifically talked about will be long and tedious so I probably will not get around to it for a while. If the article gets rejected - hey-ho I wont take it personally. I think it is definitely needed but that is just me. As I said Wiki aint the most reliable source but you may want to start here for the small version. All I have done is massively expanded a project that will be ongoing for many more years yet.

Birmingham–Peterborough line#Felixstowe and Nuneaton freight capacity scheme

Enjoy GRALISTAIR (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@GRALISTAIR: Sorry I don't know what you mean by "the map itself is a huge clue that the whole route is referenced a few times". I don't understand where you're suggesting a link between "the map" and the sources used. None of the sources used the whole route in their titles so I did a quick web search on "Felixstowe to Nuneaton (F2N) railway upgrade" and there are results in the first page of results. You say "pointing out all the references where F2N is specifically talked about will be long and tedious" but all it takes is a couple of reliable sources, such as found in a quick web search, and stuffing them into the lead of the article, even just the opening line, so that a reviewer can see the notability of the topic instantaneously. It's certainly not necessary but I'm just saying that it helps. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

That is easy then. See reference 10 and 11 which are already in the lead. One is evidence to the parliamentary committee even GRALISTAIR (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I have now also relocated a sentence to the lead with corresponding reference/citation - reference 12 which I also believe is key. GRALISTAIR (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Scope

The article is called "Felixstowe to Nuneaton (F2N) railway upgrade" and yet the opening sentence says "The Felixstowe to Nuneaton railway upgrade, sometimes abbreviated to F2N (and also F2MN for Midlands), is a key strategic freight route..." So, is the article about the freight route, or about the upgrade of the freight route? -Lopifalko (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, where the article is called "Felixstowe to Nuneaton (F2N) railway...", is it not a "freight route" rather than a "railway"? The text of the article would appear to support this. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

GRALISTAIR, I'm interested in your thoughts on this. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Well a key strategic freight route that also has passenger use is being upgraded. It is a railway. So I am really strongly against splitting the article up into the 1) the route and 2) the upgrade. The route and strategic importance establishes notability beyond all doubt (in my opinion). If you want to change the title - then that is up to you as you have more experience on Wikipedia than me.

Felixstowe to Nuneaton (F2N) is a key strategic rail route that is being upgraded. So "Felixstowe to Nuneaton (F2N) railway upgrade" seems OK to me. I just think the article should get published and let other editors input from there. Name it what you want I really am not bothered anymore as we are getting caught up in semantics in my opinion. Surely we have to talk about the route to establish notability GRALISTAIR (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The upgrade is absolutely key - that is what the opening sentence on this talk page is about. However, talking about the upgrade does not make much sense without talking about the route also. The subjects are intertwined and both notable 15:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it needs a longer lead but with all due respect you have already acknowledged that. GRALISTAIR (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@GRALISTAIR: Thank you for your thoughts. I'm not in any way suggesting splitting the article. More that it might instead be called something like 'Felixstowe to Nuneaton railway' or 'Felixstowe to Nuneaton freight route'. Part of the review process is to judge whether the article is at the correct title. I have since read somewhere a comment that an article about a "railway" doesn't have to be about specific railway track line but can be a specific route encompassing various railway track lines (I'm not quite finding the correct words here). It seems odd to have an article on the upgrade when there isn't an article on the route. I was thinking perhaps, better to rename it around the railway, and with a section on its upgrade. Or at least just get it straight in the lead.

The opening sentence did earlier say "The Felixstowe to Nuneaton railway upgrade ... is a key strategic freight route". I think it would be better to say something like "The Felixstowe to Nuneaton railway upgrade involves upgrading a key freight route". E.g. it's not the railway upgrade that is a freight route. This is how I'm making example that the language appears confused.

I'm not doubting its notability (though the language you use in the article does try to argue the case for that, in the text, which is the wrong place to do so).

You say "I just think the article should get published and let other editors input from there." However any other interested editor is welcome to chip in at any point, it's not as if I have a monopoly on working on it. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I left a thanks and suggestion on your talk page GRALISTAIR (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Electric Spine

As there was controversy at the time anyway, of The Electric Spine being prioritised over F2N, and as the spine interacted in the Leicester area anyway, I have added a map of the electric spine for comparison.GRALISTAIR (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)