This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in England may be able to help! |
A map would be nice; showing industry, towns, ports, terrain,etc?
We should actually have an article on the former industrial network of Cornwall, since it was quite the hive of industry before the mid-19th century, but that's another story... Graldensblud 17:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The article title has been mis-spelt. Chasewater is in Staffordshire, Chacewater is in Cornwall. I will correct it. Biscuittin ( talk) 12:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes - I think a short quote would be useful here:
“ | Many people are puzzled by the spelling "Chasewater". I have heard it said that this was simply a mistake on the part of an official in London, but [Denys Bradford] Barton's explanation is that it is "a legacy of the days of its (the Railway's) formation when this was the more customary spelling." Certainly Richard Thomas consistently used it in his "Report on a Survey of the Mining District from Chasewater to Camborne" (1819). [1] | ” |
So actually, despite what I said at first, I think it ought to be moved back. A future article on the Redruth and Chacewater Railway trail could perhaps have the other spelling, though Google shows that that isn't consistent. What do you think? — SMALL JIM 15:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it's important that the introduction is pithy and easily comprehensible to the non-specialist reader.
I would like to suggest that the explanation about Cha*S*ewater (which is repeated in different words in the text) is discouraging to someone who just wants to know what the railway was and did. Incidentally I see you have all been having a huge debate about this; with great respect, the company spelt itself with an S and that's an end of it. It's not for us to approve or disapprove, or to rationalise why they did it (unless we can point to an authoritative source ... e.g. a map or gazzetteer of the period using the S spelling). If no-one objects, I suggest we leave the explanation in the body of the article as the sole point of reference for this.
Secondly I was a but flummoxed to read that the railway ran from Devoran to the mines; I'll have to read my reference books again, but surely the overwhelming flow was from the mines to the port? I suggest that the route ought to be described that way round in this situation of a dominant traffic direction.
Oh and a map, did someone say? Yes, I was going to do one a couple of years ago, but I got a bit discouraged by some hair splitting that was going on nearby (present company excepted), but I'll try again, when I have finished maps for some other mineral lines that I am doing. Afterbrunel ( talk) 12:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in England may be able to help! |
A map would be nice; showing industry, towns, ports, terrain,etc?
We should actually have an article on the former industrial network of Cornwall, since it was quite the hive of industry before the mid-19th century, but that's another story... Graldensblud 17:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The article title has been mis-spelt. Chasewater is in Staffordshire, Chacewater is in Cornwall. I will correct it. Biscuittin ( talk) 12:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes - I think a short quote would be useful here:
“ | Many people are puzzled by the spelling "Chasewater". I have heard it said that this was simply a mistake on the part of an official in London, but [Denys Bradford] Barton's explanation is that it is "a legacy of the days of its (the Railway's) formation when this was the more customary spelling." Certainly Richard Thomas consistently used it in his "Report on a Survey of the Mining District from Chasewater to Camborne" (1819). [1] | ” |
So actually, despite what I said at first, I think it ought to be moved back. A future article on the Redruth and Chacewater Railway trail could perhaps have the other spelling, though Google shows that that isn't consistent. What do you think? — SMALL JIM 15:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it's important that the introduction is pithy and easily comprehensible to the non-specialist reader.
I would like to suggest that the explanation about Cha*S*ewater (which is repeated in different words in the text) is discouraging to someone who just wants to know what the railway was and did. Incidentally I see you have all been having a huge debate about this; with great respect, the company spelt itself with an S and that's an end of it. It's not for us to approve or disapprove, or to rationalise why they did it (unless we can point to an authoritative source ... e.g. a map or gazzetteer of the period using the S spelling). If no-one objects, I suggest we leave the explanation in the body of the article as the sole point of reference for this.
Secondly I was a but flummoxed to read that the railway ran from Devoran to the mines; I'll have to read my reference books again, but surely the overwhelming flow was from the mines to the port? I suggest that the route ought to be described that way round in this situation of a dominant traffic direction.
Oh and a map, did someone say? Yes, I was going to do one a couple of years ago, but I got a bit discouraged by some hair splitting that was going on nearby (present company excepted), but I'll try again, when I have finished maps for some other mineral lines that I am doing. Afterbrunel ( talk) 12:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)