Talk:Nickey line

Split

Name of article

This line was always known as the "Nickey Line" and it was a mistake by the Council to leave out the "e" when building the cycleway - this is confirmed in the Oakwood Press book referred to in the sources who show several examples of tickets with "Nickey" on them. I would propose moving the article to "Nickey Line" unless there are any objections. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I would propose leaving this article as named to deal with the cycleway and move the content about the line to a separate article entitled the Harpenden and Hemel Hempstead Railway. This has been done with other articles such as the Cuckoo Line and Cuckoo Trail. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

TBH, at the moment, the cycleway does not appear to be particularly independently notable, the only information given is an apparantly original research description of the route. At present, the article is a coherent description of a railway and its ultimate demise. It then mentions that the track bed has been re-used as a cycleway. Personally, I think your original proposal is to be preferred. If the notability of the cycleway can be shown then I will of course re-consider. Op47 (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Split tag

Someone added a split tag. Over a month later, and no one seemed interested in said tag. As far as I can tell, the Harpenden and Hemel Hempstead Railway is also called the Nicky Line, i.e. the proposed new article and the current article are about the same thing. Given the lack of intrest and the lack of an obvious split, I removed the tag. The tag has been replaced without further explanation of what is intended or why, but protesting the lack of discussion. Can some further information be added so that a sensible discussion take place? Op47 (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If you were to look further up this page, you would see that a split was proposed in November by myself and the reasons for so doing are also set out. The two articles are "not the same thing" as one deals with the historical railway line and the other with the cycleway. In accordance with WP:Silence, it is not to be assumed that the proposed is rejected. Quite the opposite, silence=consensus. You had no right to remove that tag and so it has been reinstated. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Lamberhurst, I can see why you would think I was being rude. I did look for the discussion above, I can assure you of that, and did not see it. I am sorry. Op47 (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• A split is not appropriate per WP:SPLIT. There is no need to split for either size or content reasons. The section which describes the route applies to both the railway line and the cycle path. That section is in need of attention as it is disproportionately large, and is unsourced, appearing to rely on first hand assessment by the writer rather than reliable sources. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Duckhall Gasworks Halt

A station called Duckhall Gasworks Halt appears on the route map of this article but unable to find any further reference to its existence. I have looked on "Disused Stations" website by Nick Catford and in the book "Private and Untimetabled Stations" by G.Croughton and neither mention it. What is worth noting is that there was never a regular passenger service between Hemel Hempstead and Heath Park Halt which are the stations either side. The line was constructed and used by a few freight trains but no regular passenger service on this section of line. Accordingly I have deleted it from the map of the text article on the stations.It requires deleting from the route map on the right hand side of the page of this article.Steamybrian2 (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)