Talk:Alcester–Bearley branch line

Warwickshire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Warwickshire, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Warwickshire. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.WarwickshireWikipedia:WikiProject WarwickshireTemplate:WikiProject WarwickshireWikiProject Warwickshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: in UK 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 Mid-importance).

Scope[edit]

I think it's a little misleading to talk of an "Alcester to Hatton Branch Line" when what was built was a Bearley to Alcester branch of the Stratford-upon-Avon Railway's Hatton to Stratford line (part of what Wikipedia now calls the "Leamington to Stratford Line" – although this overlaps with Wp's "Chiltern Main Line"). -- Picapica (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. This page needs to be retitled and rescoped to Alcester branch line. Afterbrunel (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now edited the article to reflect what I feel to be a much more appropriate scope: as noted above, the Alcester to Bearley branch, although it met the Hatton to Stratford line at Bearley, was in nearly every respect a self-contained operation. My edits have not lost any of the information previously shown -- though I think it would be a good idea in due course to expand the existing Leamington to Stratford Line article to incorporate more historical background material, as here. -- Picapica (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Afterbrunel (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Thornbury Branch Line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The effect of this was that the word branch should not be capitalised. I agree, although it strengthens my view that many editors are more interested in process and rules than providing information. Afterbrunel (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this tends to be particularly the case -- in my sad experience -- where railway-related articles are concerned... :( -- Picapica (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]