Talk:Western Railway Corridor

This article is written in Hiberno-English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Western Railway Corridor was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 25, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 15, 2005.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Western Railway Corridor, built in the late 1800s, links Limerick to Sligo through the West of Ireland?

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains Mid‑importance

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 44, 2005

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

Mid

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

Ireland Mid‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An image is requested for this article as its inclusion will substantially increase the significance of the article. Please remove the `image-needed` parameter once the image is added.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Western Railway Corridor.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Brenquinn (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

Old 2005 post[edit]

This is an excellent addition to the railway section in west of Ireland. Its a great pity more use is not made of our extensive railroads. Well done Zoney! --File Éireann 10:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delisted good article[edit]

I have delisted this article. Sections have been added that are poorly written. It is illogical in structure, it contains wadges of rubbish quotes undifferentiated from the text of the article. It contains a ministerial statement in full containing some waffling evasive answer to a parliamentary question. In short, someone has broken this article. Curtains99 16:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we actually need these extensive quotations? Comparing what the article looked like as Zoney left it with what we have now, I think his version gives us much the same information -- but far more succinctly. -- llywrch 16:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be fine to link to an external document, I should think. Evertype 17:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking[edit]

User:87.40.116.10 who is a new user has 3 times deleted paragraphs relating to the Irish Times criticisms of the WRC. These criticisms were made both in a leader article and in an opinion column by Frank McDonald. The comments are sourced and relevant and add to the neutrality of the article as most references from decent sources are pro-WRC. The articles in question provoked much comment both in letters to the editor, in the form of a rebuttal article printed in the same paper and in responses in other newspapers.

Following the 3 revert rule WP:3RR I am not going to revert this user's changes anymore but I would appreciate if someone else does before the article sinks again. Curtains99 17:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And so it continues with edits like this [1].

Curtains99 19:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response from User:87.40.116.10

1. There is no intention to mislead or censor. The references given to the Irish Times were not accessible to the reader nor was the reference to the Sunday Business Post and PPPs, the relevance of which was unclear. Feel free to restore them if they can be read in full and also the rebuttal article.

2. The addition of referenced Dept. of Finance statistics can hardly be deemed to be biased in response to a statement such as: "Some also argue with the ASSUMPTION that the West is receiving less than its fair share of government spending." In fact the Department of Finance itself is now stating it as a fact, not an assumption.

3. I agree that the whole page appears overlong e.g. the intricate history of the railway itself. 87.40.116.10 09:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please sign your comments by adding ~~~~ at the end.

I am going to answer your points one by one

1. I accept your assurances that you have no intention to mislead or censor. The question of what constitutes an acceptable source on a Wikipedia page is described in detail here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You will see from this that sources for Wikipedia articles may be printed matter such as books and newspapers or else online sources. The fact that a source is not online does not take away from its reliability. Also please note this section of the article: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Checking_references_may_require_some_effort, which states that checking sources may require some effort. You can see from this that the fact that the internet version of a source is only available by subscription does not take away from its acceptability or reliability. If you wish to check this source you can obtain the newspaper from the library or pay a subscription of €2 to read it online.

2. I can see where you are coming from but please understand that writing a Wikipedia article is not like other forms of writing. You are specifically not permitted to cite primary source material such as government statistics and then add your own analysis of that data - no matter how simple your own analysis is. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Some_definitions for details of which type of sources you may use and the distinction between primary and secondary sources. The policy and reasoning behind banning analysis of source data to make an argument is detailed here: WP:NOR. What you can do is list published sources of writers who have analysed this kind of data. For example, if you could find a newspaper article or an academic paper where an author analyses government data to conclude that the West of Ireland gets less or more than its fair share of spending then you could use that.

3. I am glad you agree that the page is getting too detailed with intricate history. Curtains99 23:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that information. I have attempted to shorten the historical overview, while retaining as much information as possible.

As regards the overall article, if it is perceived that a one-sided view is currently reflected, may I invite you to make whatever changes you feel are necessary to restore the neutral status of the article.

87.40.116.10 10:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS I have now inserted the correct format User:87.40.116.10 in the discussion where applicable and managed to sign successfully! User:87.40.116.10

Thanks for being helpful. Curtains99 11:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag[edit]

This article has been tagged for neutrality due to the systematic removal of all referenced criticisms of the subject matter and the addition of editor-written analysis of primary source material contrary to WP:OR and WP:RS

However, the Department of Finance Report for the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service issued in June 2006 entitled "Progress on the National Development Plan 2000-2006" shows: P20; 4.6 "In the Public Transport area €2.7 billion or 117% of forecast has been invested in the South and East region to the end of 2005," while on p24, 3.9 it states "In the Public Transport area €283 million has been directly invested in projects in the BMW region." Forecast expenditure was €448 million. This means that significantly less than the actual sum forecast was spent in the BMW, although 27% of the state's population reside there.

Please return the article to a neutral state and then remove the POV tag. Thanks, Curtains99 11:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the POV tag as there has been no discussion and issues are minor. Additions of information by 213.202.157.180 further add to this balance. Can people close to the Pro-western corridor lobby groups please refrain from removing cited sources even if they are against your or your group's views. Remember the NPOV official policy which is paramount to the reliability of Wikipedia. Jamesnp 12:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis of published sources to build a case is forbidden per WP:SYNT[edit]

I dropped this paragraph:

The Leader of the Opposition, Enda Kenny, T.D., has highlighted the exact extent of this underspend: (Massive underspend in National Development Plan in BMW Region – Kenny), 9, as has the BMW assembly, the West on Track Campaign (Anger over infrastructure underspend in West - Irish Times 2005), 10, and MEP Marian Harkin (Harkin deplores underspend in BMW region), 11. In February 2007 the Urban Forum highlighted the damage being done to Dublin and to the regions by the lack of balanced regional development and called for the urgent development of an “Atlantic Corridor”12.

This paragraph seeks to prove that the Western Region of Ireland is underinvested by central government. There are two problems with this. First: Wikipedia articles list the published opinions of others but an article cannot draw information from two sources and combine it to build a case or prove something. This kind of writing is non-neutral and forbidden by wp:npov and more specifically by WP:SYNT Second: there is no consensus amongst published sources that one region of Ireland is underinvested compared to the others. Every regional authority makes reasoned arguments as to why it is underinvested and should receive a higher share of investment from central government or EU funds. See the annual reports of each regional authority: Dublin Regional Authority, Mid-West Regional Authority, South-West Regional Authority or Midlands Regional Authority.

The notion of a 'fair share' of central government funds cannot be determined by Wikipedia as it si too complex and would require original research which is forbidden. For example, is a fair share of investment to divide money equally between regions in proportion to population? or would it be more fair to allocate funds based on disadvantage, thus giving to those who need it most? Or maybe it would be more fair to allocate funds according to tax collected in the region, reqarding those who work hardest or pay most taxes? ReadyForTheSedative? 12:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of information showing that there IS an actual underspend cannot be justified. This point is not about "the notion", as you put it, of a 'fair share' of central government funds being determined by Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not being asked to adjudicate on anything. The fact is that in the last National Development Plan the Government of Ireland decided to spend certain specified amounts of money in the various regions of Ireland. It has since publicly stated what the actual expenditures were and the figures show that there was an underspend in the western region. The report entitled Progress on the National Development Plan 2000-2006. Department of Finance June 2006, shows this as fact. I am therefore restoring this reference from the Department of Finance, without commentary. (Watercress 14:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Infrastructure comparisson.JPG[edit]

Image:Infrastructure comparisson.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extension of Western Rail Corridor[edit]

Would there be any support for extending the rail line north of Sligo to serve Co. Donegal? It seems logical to extend it to Donegal Town, (with maybe a spur along the coast to Killybegs, where there was a Railbus service until the late 1950s) then to Letterkenny, and finally meet up in Derry, where the rail line and station already exists. This would greatly help with tourism, cross-border initiatives, environmental issues, and with trade. Any thoughts anyone? Mickeyjoe (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ardrahan railway station[edit]

Ardrahan station is mentioned in the map at the side with an opening date of 2008 - however, the article it links to says the station will open in stages starting in 2009 and that the station is currently closed. Does anyone have a source for the expected opening? Autarch (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main article changes (during May 2009)[edit]

Just a few words on the changes over the past week or so. The article needed a bit of a clean up, so I've tried to get it a little under control and it seems to be getting there. My general impression at the moment is:

The debate section could become a battle ground. So lets just cite a few sources both pro and anti, and let the reader chase up through external sources. Are enough references given to the anti campaign to make this a balanced section?
I removed the Press Coverage section as it pretty much duplicated the Debate references.
The Progess of Works section could use a tidy-up, perhaps a properly timelined sequence of events and developments.
Too many minor edits are being saved by (primarily anonymous) users. Please make an edit, click show preview button, and if happy continue to your next edit without saving. When all edits are completed hit the save button. This avoids lots of minor individual saves showing up on the history.

Anything else?--Milesoneill (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BQuinn207 edits[edit]

I want to talk about the Bquinn207 edits. If, as I suspect, this editor is Brendan Quinn of the Sligo-Mayo Greenway campaign, surely his contributions are not encyclopedic by nature and are indeed biased? Mr. Quinn has campaigned long and hard against the WRC for some years now.

I have removed two POV items from the article; one regarding rail freight and the other regarding the section for TEN-T funding as the section was inaccurate and biased. The Limerick-Athenry section is in fact part of the TEN-T Comprehensive network. This is not mentioned by BQuinn207 in his edit of the section.

Donoreavenue (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further edits to article by Brenquinn[edit]

The recent edits to this article by user brenquinn have been removed. They were POV rather than encyclopedic fact.

Donoreavenue (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The comments removed by Donoreavenue were not as the writer claims POV. Comments made in regard to the Western Rail Corridor not being part of the European TEN-T policy are statements of fact not opinion. Any proposed rail projects which are not part of TEN-T policy are not going to be built. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenquinn (talk • contribs) 20:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

editing of Brenquinn contributions[edit]

The comments added about European TEN-T policy not including the Western Rail corridor north of Athenry are not POV they are statments of Fact. The European TEN-T policy does not support any further extensions of the Western Rail Corridor nor does it have any long term objective for a railway from Athenry to Donegal/Derry. Suggesting a railway corridor is going to be opened north of Athenry is totally and utterly a POV there is no plan from Irish Government, Europe or Irish Rail to suggest the railway will ever be re-opened. This is not POV it's fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenquinn (talk • contribs) 20:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you that there are no plans to re-open the railway line north of Athenry to Claremorris and beyond. West on Track are campaigning to establish a new freight path from Ballina to Foynes via Tuam and Athenry, known as the "missing link". See recent editorials from the Western People and Mayo News supporting this. TEN-T is one source of funding, Inteereg Irish government funding and private capital the other sources. Donoreavenue (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution[edit]

I propose to put this article to the formal dispute resolution process as you have reverted the edits made yesterday and I do not wish to have an edit war on the page.

Donoreavenue (talk) 08:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Western Railway Corridor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Western Railway Corridor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]