Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2018

Recruit new editors for your project?

Happy new year! I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community.

Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it, and I’d like to introduce it to your project! If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Siemens-Duewag_Supertram#Requested_move_25_December_2017

Hello, WikiProject Trains! Your input is welcome at this discussion: Talk:Siemens-Duewag_Supertram#Requested_move_25_December_2017. Thank you for your help! --Aervanath (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Locomotive identification needed

Locomotive #3018 was hauling the train that crashed near Kroonstad today. What class is it please? Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it a GE Class C30-EMP? Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. South African Class 15F 4-8-2 claims that 3018 was a steam engine built in 1945, but I expect the number has been reused. There is now a clearer video here, with the loco clearly visible around 2:04. Certes (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Please come and help...

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:2017 Washington train derailment#Requested move 21 December 2017, regarding a page related to this WikiProject. Your opinion and rationale are needed so a decision can be made. Thank you and Happy New Year to All!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  12:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Oregon stations

I just noticed that most of the stations in Category:Railway stations in Portland, Oregon have capped Station. I presume these should be fixed; I moved a few. Anyone want to help? Dicklyon (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

They need to be harmonized into a standard format first of all. TriMet is starting to drop using "MAX Station" after each name, so Washington Park station (TriMet) would be better than Washington Park MAX station. SounderBruce 04:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave it alone if someone else is likely to work on it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Support in principle, but I should mention that this sort of move can require a lot of follow-up work. It will probably take me another month or so to finishing cleaning up after last year's "Railway Station" → "railway station" moves, but if anyone else is available to lend a hand that would speed things up. Certes (talk) 11:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Editors may be interested in a similar RM affecting Chinese stations, at Talk:Aiguo Road Station. Certes (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Please come and help...

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Akaike Station (Nagoya)#Requested move 5 January 2018, regarding a page related to this WikiProject. Your opinion and rationale are needed so a decision can be made. Thank you and Happy New Year to All!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  10:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Need your help again...

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Disneyland Resort Line#Requested move 6 January 2018, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Your opinion and rationale are needed so a decision can be made. Thank you and Happy New Year to All!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Current UK TOCs

Template:Current UK TOCs has been nominated for merging with Template:Defunct UK TOCs. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. This also proposes merging Template:Future UK TOCs - please see the Templates for discussion page for details. Thanks. Cnbrb (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Underground railway stations

In Category:Railway stations located underground and its subcategories I've boldly added:

Articles about stations that are part of a largely underground railway system (in particular metro stations/rapid transit stations) should not be placed in this category, per WP:OVERLAPCAT.

I'll wait some time, in case there is any opposition against this, and then I'll start removing the metro stations from these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Why?

Being underground is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of those stations. Why remove them from Category:Railway stations located underground? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with BrownHairedGirl here. Not all stations on a largely underground line are actually underground, and the underground location of any single station is a defining characteristic. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Also agree. Not only is being underground a defining characteristic of those stations, but it's obvious that the categories are intended to include them, being the creators of the cats populated them with metro stations from the start. This addition was too bold, and should have been discussed first. I've removed the notice, but may have missed a subcat, so please double check. And don't remove any metro stations from those categories, as there's clearly universal opposition to the idea. oknazevad (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Being underground is not a defining characteristic of stations in case they are part of a system that is largely underground. This will lead to largely overlapping categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't see how that makes any sense. Are you saying because the system is predominantly underground that the fact that any particular station in that system is underground is no longer a defining characteristic of that station? Because that I can't agree with. If a station is underground then it's a fundamental aspect of that particular station's construction. That doesn't change if the next station on the line is also underground, or if all stations in that system are underground, because it's a characteristic of that particular station. oknazevad (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Is the London Underground largely underground or not? Most of its routes and a significant proportion of its stations are at ground level or even above it (this station's platforms are on the viaduct, and escalators are provided to get there). The LU has eleven lines; in only two cases (Victoria line and Waterloo & City line) are all of the stations underground, whereas of the 34 stations on the Metropolitan line, only nine are significantly below ground level - and most of those are open to the sky for part of their length. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

According to London Underground, 45% of the system is actually underground in tunnels, though I expect the tunnels have more stations. Being an underground station (there's earth on top) and being an Underground Station (tube trains run there) are distinct qualities and there are plenty of stations in all four sections of the resulting Venn diagram. If the category is worth keeping then let's keep it independent of whether the station is part of a metro/tube/subway system so all four sections are clearly defined. Also, what would we do with places served by both tube and national rail trains, such as Old Street station? Certes (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

French (and German) railway station names

What is the naming convention for pages on railway stations?
The majority of station pages seem to have the format "X station" (lower case) or "X railway station"; the only exceptions (why am I not surprised?) are the pages on French stations (which are in French) and German stations (in German) Is there a reason for making these exceptions? Moonraker12 (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Pointers to categories of examples would make it easier for people to see what you're asking about. Dicklyon (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, the first part of the question is whether there is a naming convention for stations.

The second is the observation that they generally seem to be in the format "X station", or "X railway station" (like these, and, with a random dip into the categories here, like these three); but when it comes to stations in France (like here for example, or here), and (to a lesser extent) Germany (here, for example) that seems to go by the board. So I am wondering, why? Moonraker12 (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the links. Some answers: different countries use different conventions, eg. WP:USSTATION vs WP:UKSTATION. The ones at Category:Railway stations in Bavaria look to be fairly close to what WP:USSTATION would suggest, with Hauptbahnhof taking the place of Station when its part of the name, and lowercase station otherwise. In Category:Railway stations in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes the French "Gare" is treated as part of the name. The project link on an article talk page leads you to Wikipedia:WikiProject France and then to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France and French-related#Stations where that convention is documented, and where it could be questioned if you want. Dicklyon (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Similarly, the German station naming convention can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Rail transport in Germany task force/Conventions#Railway stations. Dicklyon (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

With regards to French stations, English-language sources near-universally use the French names when writing about them, something that isn't done for any country even if it's Francophone (with the occasional exception of the Anglo-French-Dutch mashup "Brussels-Midi-Zuid" occasionally appearing owing to the way Eurostar format their timetables)—thus, "Montreal Central Station" but "Paris Gare de Lyon"). Why this is I have no idea but virtually every source consistently follows this, and given that Wikipedia's job is to reflect the sources we should as well. ‑ Iridescent 17:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, Montreal Csntral Station is so called because that is and always has been its name in English. Montreal is and English speaking city, too. oknazevad (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dicklyon, Iridescent: Ah, Well! Thanks for the explanation, and for the links to the relevant conventions pages. At least I can see where these ideas stem from. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Services in infobox station

FYI

Template talk:Infobox station#Optional separation of former and future services --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Oakland Coliseum station

I would appreciate some uninvolved eyes on Oakland Coliseum station. Titanosaurus has added what I feel is an excessive level of detail about connecting bus routes, and continually reverts me when I remove it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The table of bus routes is pretty unnecessary. The best way to convey bus information is to list operators and the general destination of routes in prose, followed by a list of route numbers if necessary. This is the method I've been using for my light rail GAs and lone FA (Tukwila International Boulevard station) and it's worked well. SounderBruce 06:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that aesthetically speaking at least, it is much more easier to locate and understand the bus connection information using the table format as seen on good article Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue or even the list format that Pi.1415926535 wants to use than using the written format as seen in your article where the bus connection information is somewhat "buried" in there. I would also like to note that the station you linked doesn't even see a quarter of the bus service Oakland Coliseum does, is in a higher-income/lower-density area than Oakland Coliseum that is less transit dependent, and doesn't seem to attract as much bus ridership as Oakland Coliseum does (If I am wrong about the ridership please feel free to correct me with sourced information). TITANOSAURUS 07:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that this would be better discussed with WikiProject Buses, as I have created the bus table on the grounds of AC Transit officially establishing Oakland Coliseum station as one of its transit centers. An important bus station/transit center serving routes that carry over 2.5 million passengers a year (the rail services at the station see about 2.6 million passengers a year in comparison) combined between the station and its surrounding high-density/low-income neighborhoods at that. (Source 1 (Starts at Page A-1), Source 2 (Page 20)) TITANOSAURUS 06:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I have started another discussion on the WikiProject Buses talk page. TITANOSAURUS 07:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The detailed information on bus routes and connections violates WP:NOT. Wikipedia is NOT a travel guide, and the fact is that this information is exactly that. I have deleted it. Any attempt to re-add this information needs to state how it is "encyclopedic". At best it can be re-added with substantial editing to remove superfluous details that are making it a travel guide at the moment. - Morphenniel (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain your rationale in detail before you remove what I consider to be a major and informative part of the page that has information seen on many other pages like I just did above even though it seemed to miss you? I would also appreciate it if you linked appropriate and relevant sources to back up your claim. You linked to WP:NOT, except that is a loose arbitrary guideline that doesn't really go into detail about this specific situation, why shouldn't a bus station that is designated as such by several local public transit agencies (as I proved through a source above that you might have overlooked) not have information on the routes that go there? Giving detailed information about a specific place/topic is exactly what an encyclopedia is supposed to do, and what the page currently does. It is also not helpful or informative to simply state that it needs "substantial" editing without going into detail about what specific "editing" it actually needs to have it meet your rather arbitrarily and loosely enforced "encyclopedic" standards. Please do not remove my heavily researched and relevant content without seriously discussing it with me first (WP:DINC, WP:BRD, WP:DRDSTNC, WP:EANOTWC, WP:ETP, WP:DDH), I need to know what the guideline for situations like this is going forward so I can continue to make appropriate and helpful edits to the website in the future. Several other train stations that have a significant public transportation presence (which I yet also linked to above), particularly those in the New York City area, have the same information I put on there, yet everyone seems to be fine with that, so why is this unclear policy being so strictly enforced on Oakland Coliseum all of the sudden? Yes, WP:ATAIDD might lead you to believe that my argument isn't admissible, but that same article says my argument has more credibility to it than your typical "What about article x?" argument as I have referred to and linked to a couple of articles which were deemed Good Articles by several editors, including some who belong to this very WikiProject. If you're not interested in seriously discussing this, leave the page alone, and I will bring the issue up with the Reference Desk or another resource. TITANOSAURUS 17:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Titanosaurus: you mentioned WP:BRD. It is exactly that - bold, revert, discuss. It's not WP:BRRD, WP:BRRRD or even WP:BR(∞)D. You boldly added the info, it was reverted. Next step is to discuss on talk page (or here). Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very clear on this issue. We are not a travel guide. Information of that nature can be found on the webpage of the transit agency. All you are doing is repeating/replicating/duplicating that info on this page. It will be deleted. Now that you have prompted, I shall do the same to other articles that you have added this nonsense to. San Rafael Transit Center looks like a good candidate. Morphenniel (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"Nonsense"? Thanks for showing your true feelings about your intentions and the discussion. You're not seriously trying to establish a guideline or talk about the legitimate arguments that I brought up with sources and links to similar articles, you're just trying to be a hypocrite and disruptive with little regard for the facts and purpose of this website. BTW, I hardly even touched the San Rafael Transit Center page as you're insinuating, so you might want to check the page's history and see exactly what SOURCED information I added before you go and start spreading that "nonsense" here. :-) I would also like to note that the San Rafael Transit Center is a BUS STATION, so is Oakland Coliseum as deemed by local public transit agencies, so why it considered to be a violation of the "travel guide" policy when an article about a bus station says where the buses there go, but not an article about an airport that says where flights go, or articles about train stations that say where trains go? TITANOSAURUS 17:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD allows you a single revert, and then you need to discuss on the talk page and establish consensus. You have now revert twice today [1] and [2]. Also you have via en edit summary of this diff [3] admitted to WP:OWN. To quote you " ... leave this page alone." You are on a slippery slope towards being blocked. - Morphenniel (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I am hardly violating any of the policies that you mentioned. For the like fourth or fifth time already, I made the edits to that article using other good articles that have similar information for reference, so I don't consider anything about my edits to really be "bold". Why are you ignoring my links to those articles that I referenced and not doing the same thing that you're doing to Oakland Coliseum to them? You are coming across as being real disruptive and hypocritical right now. TITANOSAURUS 18:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this station truly an intermodal hub? Then perhaps it should be left as is. If it can be separated as a different entity, such as White Plains TransCenter from White Plains (Metro-North station), then perhaps we can split the section off. I certainly don't think it's necessary to have these lists for every single station, and even that Tukwila International Boulevard Light Link Rail station looks like it could have it's BRT routes split without making a whole gigantic list. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a true intermodal hub, most routes that serve the station terminate there, it connects the majority of high-density/low-income and heavily transit-dependent "Deep" East Oakland with BART and Amtrak, and ridership on all of the bus routes that service the station combined almost matches the combined Amtrak/BART ridership. TITANOSAURUS 18:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I have contacted a admin and he agreed that you are being disruptive and recommended a 72 hour block. - Morphenniel (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Preposterous, I am trying to have a serious discussion and establish some guidelines here, and your arguments against my case have been vague and best and almost juvenile in nature. You are constantly and disruptively removing sourced and informational content that is in line with many other articles on here that have been deemed to be appropriate by members of the community. I guess it's easier to just block out those you disagree with than to actually defend your ideas. TITANOSAURUS 18:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

There is now a WP:RFC on this matter at Talk:Oakland Coliseum station#Request for comments on bus table inclusion, and, it seems, a rather lengthy thread immediately before it, at Talk:Oakland Coliseum station#Excessive detail. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

RDT icons: cross-platform interchanges

I've made a proposal on the Commons BSicon renaming talk page to discontinue the CPIC root by renaming all CPIC icons to become XBHF, XACC and XINT (e.g.  (heCPICr) would become hXBHF-Re). While icons are routinely renamed, this is an unusually wide-ranging change without precedent so it would be nice to have some more feedback there. Jc86035 (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Mexico City Metro station names

These all begin with 'Metro', for example Metro Olivos, should they not all be renamed to for example Olivos Station or Olivos (Mexico City Metro station) or something similar ? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Parking lot section in a station article

Please drop by here and give your view. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Primes vs. apostrophes in UIC classification of locomotive axle arrangements

Should we be using Co′Co′ vs. Co'Co'?, Co′Co′ locomotives or Co'Co' locomotives?

See WT:Manual of Style#Primes and apostrophes? It's a sizable amount of work if we do change this. It affects Commons too. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page

Prussian P 8 links to Class 17, which is a DAB page. (The corresponding German article does the same, so that's no help - and one of the locomotives on the German DAB page is Austrian.) The link has been {{dn}} tagged for attention since September 2016. Can one of you experts help solve the problem? Narky Blert (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I's suggest that the redirect DRG Class 17 (which the above article uses) be re-targeted to List of DRG locomotives and railcars. -- Dr Greg  talk  13:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. de:Baureihe 17 is really a set index or broad concept stub, and so would Class 17 be except for the links to the BR and NSB classes. Should we merge the DRG paragraph of Class 17 into DRG Class 17, and replace it by a link to the latter? Certes (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that you've silently answered a question which was in my mind but did not ask. Did the DR use all types in DRG-17, or just some of them? I suspect all - by the end of WWII, the Bavarian, Prussian and Saxon units must have been all over the place.

Merging the DRG group from the DAB page into the List page makes a lot of sense to me. The redirect DRG Class 17 could be turned into a {{R to section}} or a {{R to anchor}} towards the List page, getting readers directly from either the DAB page or any other page to what they're looking for. Narky Blert (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

On closer inspection, all DRG information on the dab page is also in the table, so by "merge" I mean "remove". I'll boldly go ahead and see what happens. Certes (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The result looks clean and informative to me, and a clear improvement over the link to the DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Station caps in Japan

In Category:Stations of East Japan Railway Company, Category:Stations of Kitakinki Tango Railway, Category:Railway stations in Kōchi Prefecture, etc., I see all the "Xxx Station" titles have "Station" capped, unlike most in most countries. Probably other Japan station categories similarly. Any reason for caps on "Station" in Japan, versus other places that are (almost) all lowercase "station"? Dicklyon (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll work on collecting a list for a fix. Dicklyon (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm in favour but I seem to recall that one of the many pages discussing this sort of thing has objections for Japan, with a picture of the entrance to "Sometown Station" as a source. I can't remember where it is; I'll see if I can track it down. Certes (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

We do get that, in all countries, since signs outside include Station in title case. Nothing Japan-related or Japan-specific in that; and it's not a "source". Dicklyon (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks like there might be significant opposition to fixing this, esp. among the Japan rail fans: Talk:Achasan_Station#Requested_move_20_January_2018. Dicklyon (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

As per the discussion for the MRT station, the capital S should be retained if it is part of the official name, for example Shinjuku Station and Ubi MRT station. 1.02 editor (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

"Official" is pretty irrelevant. The one you mention is not consistently capped in sources; e.g. see Globetrotter book or Imaginarium or Time Out Tokyo. Per MOS:CAPS, we should use lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Another link to a DAB page

DR Class 119 links to hydrodynamic transmission, which is a redirect to a DAB page. The corresponding German article says "Leistungsübertragung: hydrodynamisch" ("Power transmission: hydrodynamic") which doesn't seem to help at all. Can any expert here help solve the problem? Narky Blert (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

RFC on lists of transportation service destination.

There is an RFC on the inclusion of lists transportation service destinations, including lists of rail stations. See WP:VPP#transportation lists BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Need help adding a station to Leamside line

An editor has asked if a staton could be added to the {{BS-table}} on the Leamside line article. I agree but am not familiar enough with the syntax to add it myself. See Talk: Leamside line#Two stations to add to RDT.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Train termini in Paris is a mess

I started a discussion here: Category_talk:Railway_termini_in_Paris Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Backhead AFD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backhead and comment there. Slambo (Speak) 23:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Railway stations served by London Midland

FYI

The CfD for Category:Railway stations served by London Midland has been relisted and is now at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 20#Category:Railway stations served by London Midland. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Source problem with Alan L. Pettet

Passengertrainman (talk · contribs) created a number of articles on passenger trains back in 2008. Many of these refer to a "Streamlined Passenger Trains of the United States & Canada" by Alan L. Pettet. Several editors throughout the years have been unable to find and verify this book (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Passenger trains task force#City of Memphis (train) - Need help with updating). From User talk:Passengertrainman#Copy and paste., it's clear why:

The items I am copying and pasting from is a proposed book that I personally wrote and all materials represent 40 years of personal research. If you would like a copy of the entire article before I add any additional material I will be happy to submit it to you it is about 256 pages.
— User:Passengertrainman

That's the definition of a self-published source, except that it's not even published. Googling around for Alan L. Pettet I find that Pettet is mentioned on a few pages of Streamliner Schedules, mostly for consists. He's posted on some forums. He's not an established expert. The articles he created were mostly consist lists with some front matter. Some have improved since them; some not so much. Seven credit him explicitly:

• Chicagoan (ATSF train)
• City of Memphis (train)
• Silver Streak Zephyr
• Cascade (train)
• City of Miami (train)
• Shasta Daylight

These articles don't credit him, but were started by him and in the same style:

• Sunbeam (passenger train)
• San Joaquin Daylight
• Shasta (passenger train) (merged into Shasta Daylight)
• Twin Star Rocket
• Red River Limited
• Winnipeg Limited
• Cascadian (train)
• Gopher (train)
• City of Kansas City (completely rewritten since then)

These articles contains a substantial edit from him:

• International (GN train) (was stubbed out a few years later)
• Arizona Limited (was removed almost immediately by Slambo (talk · contribs))
• Lark (train)

I think this should be treated the way we treat copyright violations. None of these additions are verifiable; they'll have to be substantiated in other sources (like Wayner, which is where they probably came from in the first place) or removed. There's a related question of whether the consist information in Streamliner Schedules is reliable, if we're citing it anywhere. I know I've used it for timetable information, but on the assumption that Eric H. Bowen was just referencing the Official Guide or other timetables. Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Central Link stations at GTC

FYI

Project members are welcome to participate in this Good topic nomination, which involves the light rail stations of Seattle, Washington. SounderBruce 22:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Accident lists

The accident lists (e.g. List of rail accidents (1900–29)) contain a mix of tense when referring to historical events. MOS:TENSE clearly states "do not use past tense except for dead subjects, past events,..." These are definitely past events and should be written about in the past tense. For example:

• April 14, 1907 – United States – Blossvale crash of 1907 – Annsville, New York. A two steam engine sixty car freight train derailed killing one fireman.[71]

not

• June 27, 1903 – Spain – A train on the line between Bilbao and Zaragoza derails at San Asensio and falls into a river, killing 90 to 100 people.[30]

Using present tense give a breaking-news sensationalism (almost expected to be followed by "film at 11"). I know editors of these lists disagree; I would like to establish a consensus that the MOS be followed here. MB 15:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, MOS guidance is clear on this. Past tense for past events. It's not uncommon to see timelines done elsewhere in present tense form, but our convention on the matter is past tense. Primergrey (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Clearly should be past tense. Batternut (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Standard gauge railways by country

Most of the subcats of Category:Standard gauge railways by country are named Category:Standard gauge railways in Foo (e.g. Category:Standard gauge railways in Greece).

However a few African categories are named Category:4 ft 8 1⁄2 in gauge railways in Foo (e.g. Category:4 ft 8 1⁄2 in gauge railways in Rwanda and Category:4 ft 8 1⁄2 in gauge railways in Uganda; I just created the latter to fill a redlink).

Shouldn't these "4 ft 8 1⁄2 in" cats be speedily renamed per WP:CFDS to "Standard gauge"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Mjroots (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Mjroots. I have made the speedy nominations at WP:CFDS, in these edits.[4]

No action needed by anyone else, unless they want to oppose the renamings. (Speedies proceed after 48 hours unless objected to). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Andre Kritzinger:, you've done a lot of work on African railway articles, what are your thoughts on this proposal? Slambo (Speak) 12:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Sadly he died a month ago. A great loss to the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Missing end tag for <small> for system=PLR line=Red Castle Shannon

Please see discussion at Template talk:Rail color box#Missing end tag for <small> for system=PLR line=Red Castle Shannon and discuss the issue there, not here. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to California Southern Railroad related meetup

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/May 2018 . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

NYC subway station naming convention

There is a discussion about the NYC subway station naming convention at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Station naming convention#Unnecessary and overlong "disambiguation" parentheticals to station complexes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup of Category:Unreferenced rail transport articles

As brought up in the RfC above, there's a category of 22,000 articles without references under the umbrella of the Trains WikiProject. Having picked a few at random, it seems that these tags (part of the TWP template) are out of date, as the articles in the category have gained references over the years thanks to helpful editors.

Is there a bot or script that can be used to trim the category of articles that no longer qualify? We'll be able to get a decent headcount and focus our efforts on adding references and preventing the use of these articles in broad and sweeping deletion debates like the RfC above. SounderBruce 07:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I would oppose the use a bot to remove the {{unreferenced}} tag since such a determination requires manaual review. If you wish to rapidly review articles, the WP:AutoWikiBrowser tool may be usefull. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 10:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Billhpike: I think that SounderBruce is asking for the |unref=yes parameter to be removed from certain instances of {{WikiProject Trains}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thanks for clarifying. I agree that doing so be a useful maintenance task. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 12:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

As I edit articles I always take a look at the project tags and update them as appropriate. I have added |unref=yes to quite a few that were underreferenced or that did not have footnotes with page numbers, and I'm finding more almost daily that need this designation. I have found a few articles where I could remove the unref tag in the project banner and did so as needed. If there are more than a couple citation or page needed tags, I consider the article as underreferenced and appropriate to be included in the category. As mentioned above, checking the validity of this tag is not something that can easily be done by bots. One of the key factors that needs to be checked for articles in this category is whether the articles are using reliable sources, if the data being referenced is verifiable within those sources (including checking for archive versions of dead links), and finally if there are enough sources for the data within the article. I have a subscription to Newspapers.com and will find and verify newspaper references where possible. If I have time while I'm editing, I will do quick searches to find additional references, but that is more the rarity than the norm. This week I've been working on adding content and references to the Stuart R. Knott article, mostly out of newspaper sources so far, but also using some genealogical sources and soon more book sources. Slambo (Speak) 15:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a category name change would be more appropriate to something like Category:Rail transport articles lacking sufficient references. With so many articles in the current category, it would be a significant project to split it into three additional categories that would follow the pattern of Category:Articles lacking reliable references, Category:Articles needing additional references and Category:Articles with unsourced statements. The split may be the best option after all. Whichever is selected, there is a lot of work to be done. Slambo (Speak) 16:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I have a test version of the banner using |refimprove= at Template:WikiProject Trains/sandbox. Slambo (Speak) 14:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I see no objections after four days, so I plan to make this change live this weekend. Slambo (Speak) 11:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The change to the banner is live. I've been recategorizing pages as appropriate. Slambo (Speak) 15:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Pacerailer

Do any of you have sources for Pacerailer, a privately-funded prototype railbus that ran in the UK in the late 1960s and early 1970s? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

There's a British Transport Films newsreel of it, from the early "clever new British invention" phase. The local MP, Joan Quennell also had some involvement, trying to get some ministerial involvement in the vehicle as a general solution to Beechinged lines.

There were two phases to the project. In this early phase, it was touted as a new vehicle for operating the Beechinged lines in a later-day Colonel Stephens light railway fashion. It was a total failure. There were two aspects to that: firstly technically, it suffered from "not invented here" from BR. Either justifiably or not, it was just too different for BR's tastes. It was very much a coach, stuck on rails, and had almost no railway features. It didn't even (AFAIK) have any sort of standard coupling or braking, such that it couldn't even be towed on rails. It was a Micheline, running on rubber tyres, but it was a four wheeler (AFAIK, still the only one) and it was (again, AFAIK) the only one not involving Michelin in its development, so it ran on fairly standard road tyres. The brakes were modern (for road practice) air brakes, but again out of the standard rail practice. I don't know any more technical details of the running gear. Other problems were a single door and coach-sized passageways inside, so it would be difficult to operate it for rail passenger densities. I don't know if it could be driven bidirectionally from either end, although it's usually claimed to have been (but only had a door at one end). For some reason, Ashby did build a short hand-pushed turntable for it (too short and light for anything else).

It's second problem was that it was too late. The Beechinged lines were already closed and being lifted. If it might have been possible to use it to maintain a line, but the economics of re-opening one afterwards are a whole other matter. Around this time too, the Isle of Wight Railway (in its early incarnations) were also based at Droxford.

After the first phase of selling a vehicle, Ashby switched instead to becoming a railway operator and trying to demonstrate its use to others by using it himself. He got involved with Vectrail, who were looking at re-opening some of the Isle of Wight lines. This second phase went from being ignored by everyone to actively annoying them, to the point of deliberate sabotage by arson. The Pacerailer had a sophisticated bomb placed on board it, which was triggered when the engine warmed up. This has been blamed variously on the Isle of Wight bus company, a local veteran of the Auxiliary Units owing to its sophistication, or even the IRA (that seems to be a later invention, not contemporaneous, as the IRA weren't active on the mainland at this time).

After the bombing, Ashby seems to have largely given up, didn't push it any further and died a few years later. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

There's a chapter devoted to it in Robertson, Kevin (2013). The Meon Valley Railway Part 3: Closure and beyond. Corhampton: Noodle Books. ISBN 978-1-906419-96-7. which reveals that a report of the fire appeared in the Portsmouth Evening News of 5 May 1970. Mjroots (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Problem of Template:Seoul Metropolitan Subway stations

It contains 20 Rail Lines. So we can't add other lines on this template. Actually, Incheon Maglev is not a member of Seoul Metropolitan Subway Network. If we remove Incheon maglev, we can add Seohae Line in this template. However it would be a temporary expedition eventually. Gimpo Goldline will open in 2018. --Urirnal (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps 21 groups is too many for a reader to take in easily. Could we form a smaller number of larger groups? For example, would it make sense to have an "Other metro lines" group containing subgroups called Bundang Line, Suin Line, etc., in the same way that Line 1 has subgroups Gyeongwon Line, etc.? Someone who knows this metro can probably suggest a more appropriate grouping; that's just an example. Certes (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd consider getting rid of it altogether. Too many links--is it really necessary to navigate between all stations? We have categories for a reason. Mackensen (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If you need more than 20 groups/lists, you can't do it with a single navbox but you can nest them, 20 entries per nested box. What you need to do is described at Template:Navbox with collapsible groups#Nesting Navboxes to get more groups/lists. In theory, there is no upper limit to the number of groups, until you hit WP:TLIMIT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Good god, this is a stunning example of how navboxes should not be used. There is no need to be able to provide direct links from every single station to every single other station - that is, as Mackensen noted, what categories are for. If it is absolutely essential (hint: I don't think it is) to provide links to all stations on the same line(s) as a certain article, then per-line templates with a wrapper can be used. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Updated notability guidelines for companies

I got a note today through the Administrators' newsletter that there was a substantial update to the notability guidelines for organizations and companies. I have only skimmed the discussion, and will make a more thorough read of it soon, but the crux is that articles about companies (such as railway companies) must demonstrate notability by being well sourced to multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. No company or organization is inherently notable. This is significant for WikiProject Trains because a large number of articles within the scope of this project are about companies or organizations, and many of those articles are poorly referenced or completely unreferenced (There are still many articles listed in the unreferenced category that should be in the poorly referenced category; I have been recategorizing as I have time to do so.). I will grant that many of the articles listed there are about stations, rolling stock or other subjects related to rail transport and not about companies or organizations, but the combined count of these two categories is over 22,000 articles, and I've seen many poorly referenced articles just beginning with the letter A that are about companies in rail transport. We need to seriously step up our game on providing the source references as described in this updated guideline. Slambo (Speak) 03:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Tell them to give specific examples of problem articles, and not make vague claims of non-notability. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Some of these may (and I stress, may) be sorted by removing the ref required parameter from the talk page. Take Atlantic Coast Express; its unref=yes parameter was added in 2006 when they were no references on it whatsoever. It only has ten references now, which IMO is too little for an article its size, but also IMO does not justify the unref parameter either. There are probably quite a few that can be sorted by removing this parameter which has been overlooked when citations have been added and tags removed from the main article page. Just a thought. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@The joy of all things: that is why the |refimprove= parameter was provided, see Cleanup of Category:Unreferenced rail transport articles above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

We don't have to wait for someone else to identify articles that need work to meet the updated guidelines; as a coordinated WikiProject, we should be making a strong effort on our own to improve what is within this project's scope. I can point out several just beginning with A in both categories mentioned above, for example: AB Stockholms Spårvägar, Abbeville and Waycross Railroad, Aberystwith and Welsh Coast Railway, Abilene and Smoky Valley Railroad, AC Locomotive Group, African Union of Railways, Agra Metro, AKN Eisenbahn, Akron and Barberton Belt Railroad, Akron and Chicago Junction Railroad, Akron Barberton Cluster Railway, Albany and Northern Railway, Albany, Florida and Northern Railway, Alberni Pacific Railway, Albert Barnes & Co, Alberta Prairie Railway Excursions, and Allegheny and Eastern Railroad.

We have a lot of work to do. Slambo (Speak) 16:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

If they are not-notable, then is this a high or low priority in terms of which articles the project team should work on Has this project not got a list of articles in terms of their importance? Surely, the project should work on the highest priority articles, not articles that are likely to get deleted because they are not that important (relatively speaking). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent Poloz (talk • contribs) 17:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Class-A Review of Goat Canyon Trestle

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport/Peer review . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Metro systems of the world template

Thoughts on this template being added to the main articles of metro systems? User:Tohaomg created this template and used User:TohaomgBot to add them to the bottom of the metro systems articles. First it should be "metro systems of the world" but that's not really the main issue. Would the articles benefit from something like this? Is this necessary? What about the categorization? Why are certain countries (presumably because they have a lot of metro systems) not ramped up with their continents? ​​ Heights^{(Want to talk?)} 19:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

No need for it. That's what categories are for. I'm rather displeased that this was added without asking here, and as an unapproved bot task. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#TohaomgBot. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Pi that's it completely unnecessary. Also inconsistent WP:FLAGCRUFT. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• It appears that User:Tohaomg has recently edited their user page to indicate that they have retired from contributing to the English Wikipedia due to "excessive bureaucracy." Meanwhile the template still remains but the edits that added it to the bottom of every metro article have been reverted. Heights^{(Want to talk?)} 05:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Nominated for deletion under WP:T3. Cards84664 (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
    • CSD T3 is related to duplication, but any duplications were not shown here. There was no a similar nabox before. "Unnecessary, use wiki categories instead" is not a reason for speedy deletion. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• I don't understand the reasons of protests here. Really standard navbox for navigation between related topics according to WP:NAV and WP:NAVBOX. The first version made by the original author was really bad, but it was improved well later. Rapid transit categories in wiki are divided by country, and there were no any navigation tools for different metro systems across the world until now. Per WP:NAVBOX, the navboxes follow some of these guidelines:

1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
5. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.

In our case, a metro system navbox is related to each of that five rules. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• And some words about cited WP:LISTCRUFT. It is not a reason for deletion also, the flags are used in many navboxes, see {{Group of 7}}, {{Olympic champions – Men's eight}}. {{Intercontinental Cup winners}}. The flags are relevant in such navboxes per WP:ICONDECORATION (serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation). But if the comminity decided that flags will be unneeded tools here, then Ok also (btw flags were removed by somebody already [5]). 91.124.117.29 (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

You do realize you're not fooling anyone by logging out, right? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• I am not related to the creator of navbox if you want to say it. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

(ec) The template overlaps more specialised navboxes such as {{Underground rapid transit in the European Union}} but I agree with 91.124.117.29 that it is not a clear duplicate. There may be a case for TfD, but to my mind it doesn't obviously meet T3 or any other CSD criterion. But omit the flags. Certes (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I will leave it to other to discuss whether the template should exist and be used or not. My point of issue was the fact that a user unilaterally created a broad subject template with absolutely zero discussion and then used a bot to add it to every metro system article (apparently, an unapproved task as well). Like in the WP:NAVBOX guidelines you refer, navboxes are typically introduced by WikiProjects and are subject to discussion and consensus before they are added to pages. Especially for such a broad topic area I think one would have been expected to garner this type of reaction if one did this unilaterally to a large number of topics. Heights^{(Want to talk?)} 16:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• I think the wrongdoing of that author is not related to the fact that such navbox is usefull. The readers could easily navigate between all metro systems. I have improved a dozens of navboxes, and as I can see there are many similar navboxes in Wikipedia: {{World topic}}, {{Regions of the world}} etc. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

200% agree with Heights. This navbox is unnecessary and has ZERO consensus from editors who regularly edit the affected pages or their respective WikiProjects. It's also inappropriate: navboxes are for navigating related articles. There's no relationship between France's metro and Shanghai's, other than they are both rapid transit systems... a relationship which would be better captured via—wait for it—a category. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF is a piss-poor argument for something's existence. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Via category? Show the category now, which contains France's metro and Shanghai's metro articles directly (not via fifth-seventh subsublevel). You don't understand the categorization principles or navbox principles. If {{Underground rapid transit in the European Union}} exists, why don't expand this small navbox to all other continents/countries? The readers could navigate easily between them and see how many metro system are on each continent (or in big countries). Navboxes are needed for navigation. WP:NAVBOX: All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject (metro). And yes, France's metro and Shanghai's metro are closely related topics, because — wait for it — they are metro both! Similar to how articles in {{Earthquakes in 2018}} or {{Orbital launches in 2018}} are related not depending on location, France or China. By the way, "Metro in the world" navboxes already exist in four other-language wikipedias: fr-wiki, hu-wiki, pl-wiki, and pt-wiki. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it serves your argument to continue referring to WP:OTHERSTUFF and what other Wikipedia projects have done, as has already been mentioned. Again, looking at the WP:NAVBOX guidelines you refer, since you bring up point #1 in support of this template, I feel that there is rather weak evidence for #3 and #5. Per #3: The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent; again, going on what Joeyconnick said, there's not going to be many references in articles between systems in different countries, as e.g. Paris Metro is only loosely related to Shanghai Metro in the sense that they are both rapid transit systems. Again, referring to the guideline, when the articles are loosely related, a list or category may be more appropriate. Going to violate my own rule and use WP:OTHERSTUFF as an example: something like {{Earthquakes in 2018}} is a navbox because the subjects are more closely related (a reader might think, after reading an article on a specific earthquake, "Hey, what other earthquakes happened around this time?"). But there isn't a navbox (at least hopefully not) that lists all of the earthquakes, since the scope is just way too broad and the navbox will be too large. Similarly, someone looking at the Shanghai Metro might want to look at the details about China's other metro systems given their rapid expansion, i.e. {{Urban rail transit in China}}, but will probably be less likely to look at Kazan Metro. And I think that's the main crux here as well: is the scope too broad?/are the articles not closely related enough?

Also, with respect to #5: if not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles; probably not for all the metro systems of the world. The guideline in addition says that the use of navigation templates is ultimately determined through consensus among the editors, and I see most of the opinions presented here are that we don't need this template, as the list and category seem to serve its purpose.

Finally (just to clarify I myself am not leveling this accusation), I suspect that some members here (as has been brought up) suspect that you are related to the original author of the template User:Tohaomg, as the user quickly retired from enwiki after this issue was raised claiming excessive bureaucracy and then your IP, less than two hours later, came to improve and vigorously defend the template. Can you please clarify your relationship, if any, to the original author, and how you came upon this template as an independent unrelated party? Your IP and User:Tohaomg's previous user page both indicate you are from Ukraine. As far as I can tell, prior to this template, you have no contributions related to railways or metros, other than some categorization work. Heights^{(Want to talk?)} 17:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

First, again, I am not related to the creator of navbox. I have found this navbox when it was added to Kiev Metro and I thought it's a wonderful idea of such navbox. I have corrected some wrong details in the original template (clear division by continent, flags etc.). Note, I have removed the wrong addition of Kiev Urban Electric Train immediately [6], while an original author wrongly added it to the list [7] (I think he meant Kiev Light Rail). I have improved many navboxes before (1, 2, 3). And I have no any bots :-) Yes, I am from Ukr, but population of Ukraine is >40 mln, more than in Canada. It does not mean only one editor in each country interesting in navboxes. And about your text. You don't show why (by your opinion) {{Underground rapid transit in the European Union}} with navigation between Porto and Helsinki is Ok, but slightly extended {{Metro system of the World}} is not Ok. Second, "is the scope too broad?", correct question. I think, no. All metro systems relate to a single, coherent subject. Not so much links (157 only) are in the navbox. Compare to huge {{Syrian Civil War}} or {{Mars}}. Also reader might think, after reading an article on a specific metro, "Hey, how much metro are in my continent and in the world totally, what is the country with the highest number of metro system?" He will be shocked it's a not USA (its clear from discussed template). Additionally, such small template as {{Rapid transit in Africa}} should be merged into something broader (for example, to "metro by continent"). Also, some articles like Tbilisi Metro has no related transport navboxes at all. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Trains that stop at different termini on the same line

What are the thoughts on trains such as the Pacific Surfliner and Northeast Regional that have multiple trains a day, some stopping at different termini along the route (for the S-line succession templates)? Seems like the consensus for these articles is to just list the further-most options (NE Regional is listed as "Boston or Springfield" e.g. Washington Union Station). I noticed that there would a bunch of options listed for Solana Beach station; it would probably be best to stick to one standard. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 14:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow, there were two distinct problems with the s-line templates on that article, both of which were an attempt to show much more detailed service patterns than are useful here. First, there were three different rows for mildly different service patterns, which I've condensed to one row. Different service patterns on the same service (rather than distinct named services like the BDFM sharing the same trunk) should only be shown in very rare cases where they're given different identities; the only one in the US I can think of is Caltrain's Baby Bullet services. Second, the left shows three different destinations, but two of those are just short turns (unlike the Northeast Regional, where they are distinct branches). I won't condense that to the farthest destination just yet, but I see no reason not to. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason I make the NE Regional comparison is that there are trains that terminate at New York City and Washington, DC respectively. Seems like if "Los Angeles or x" is added, there should also be an option for DC or NYC in NE Regional s-lines. (Although, maybe it does make a little more sense for Los Angeles as it's a stub terminal? But I think some Surfliners just come in, make a stop and reverse out onwards.) —GFOLEY FOUR!— 15:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

My instinct would be to list branches and not to list short turns, if that opinion is worth anything without a guideline behind it. Certes (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Village Pump proposal to delete all Portals

Editors at this project might be interested in the discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals. Bermicourt (talk) 08:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Coventry railway station

FYI

Talk:Coventry railway station (England)#Move. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Tacoma station (Amtrak, 1984–2017)

Resolved

What should be done about the article title at Tacoma station (Amtrak, 1984–2017)? I originally moved it from Tacoma station (Amtrak) when the station closed on December 17, to be replaced by Tacoma Dome Station, but the station re-opened a day later due to the DuPont derailment. So now we have an awkwardly titled article that doesn't quite reflect the content.

I need some opinions on what to name the article temporarily, until Tacoma Dome is re-instated as an Amtrak stop sometime this year, and for when the station is finally, permanently closed. Should disambiguation involve the year(s) of service at all? SounderBruce 07:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest Tacoma station (1984); that avoids any need to specify Amtrak or the closing date, and serves as a permanent solution. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This might be worth raising at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations); there are other cases like this (Pontiac, Michigan comes to mind). Mackensen (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: I agree with Pi.1415926535's proposal. epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Naming convention for Metro-North Railroad stations

Hello fellow Wikipedians! While fixing up some of the templates for the Metro-North Railroad, I noticed that many of the stations are named [[''name'' (Metro-North station)]] instead of the usual [[''name'' station]]. If I'm reading it correctly, and please let me know otherwise, parenthetical disambiguations should only exist if another article already exists with that name, per WP:USSTATION. I know many of the present Metro-North stations used to belong to other railroads, so that makes sense. However, some of the stations are fairly new, so why do they need the parenthetical disambiguation? I propose that the articles not needing disambiguation should be moved to the second way of naming above. Please discuss! Thanks! –Daybeers (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Daybeers: You might find a better response to your query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Station naming convention. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 14:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

MNRR stations should follow USSTATION; they're mainline stations not subject to the separate subway naming convention. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Right, so they shouldn't have the parenthetical disambiguation if they don't need it, correct? –Daybeers (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Correct. Cuchullain has been doing most of the moves to the new naming convention, but he hasn't done most of the non-Amtrak stations in New England yet, hence why the MNRR stations are still at the old style names. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Pi.1415926535 is correct. We just haven't gotten to these yet. Ultimately all should be at the WP:USSTATION version of the name. Daybeers, if you have the time and inclination, go for it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually since some stations share station names with subway stations, as well as some former stations, they shouldn't. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I think WP:USSTATION covers that: In cases where stations have ambiguous names, disambiguate them. Certes (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Certes is correct; USSTATION covers that. There's no reason to make any exception for the MNRR stations. Mackensen (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there should be exceptions either. In fact I think the stations in other systems should've been left alone as well. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Widespread consensus is that the old format is deprecated and there shouldn't be any exceptions. Ultimately, there won't be. And yes, WP:USSTATION covers this.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the current widespread consensus is bogus. I can't find anything that's "depreciated" about the previous system. I recently split off a commons category for "Trams in snow in the United States," and when I added an image from a light rail station in the Denver Metro Area, I found out it was called "Bellevue Station." I thought that name was created when you people were deleting qualifiers for stations in Washington State! The current format creates more risk of ambiguities and eliminates identities, and that's why it's crap! ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You're talking about Belleview station, which is spelled differently than Bellevue station? Mackensen (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Even with the spelling discrepancies, can you not see how such a mistake could be made? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

In this case, with two similar-sounding names? Yes, I could. This might be a case where parenthetical disambiguation is desirable for phonetic reasons. I would not, however, go from there and say because these stations are ambiguous, we should disambiguate all stations, everywhere. In the meantime, I've added a hatnote to the top of Belleview station to avoid similar confusion, and any move discussion might well determine that's enough for readers. Mackensen (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Daybeers, Pi.1415926535, and Cuchullain: The Metro-North station pages have all been moved, except Garrison (Metro-North station), which I am not moving because Mackensen has filed a move request for that page. epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Why was "Metro-North" chosen as the disambiguating term for all of these articles? Location-based disambiguators (state and/or city) would be better; "New York" and "Connecticut" are much more recognizable both nationally and internationally than "Metro-North", which only people familiar with the system would recognize. Some of the Connecticut stations had already used "Connecticut" as the disambiguator in a WP:USSTATION-compliant format for the past 2 years, while others were moved from "Connecticut" to "Metro-North" 2 days ago. Articles using a proper Metro-North disambiguator were in the minority (excluding all of the articles in the legacy "X (Metro-North station)" format). It doesn't look like any of the New York stations used WP:USSTATION-compliant article naming prior to 2 days ago. --Scott Alter (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Scottalter: Location-based disambiguators (state and/or city) would be better Not really - look at it from the reader's point of view. Metro-North is a regional commuter rail service and is well-recognized within the service area. Most readers to these articles are likely from that service area. If you're a reader already in New York or Connecticut (regardless of whether you're a tourist or local), you would probably want confirmation in the title that this is a Metro-North station, rather than some generic station in that state. If not, there's likely little chance you'd be looking for the Metro-North station anyway. I don't think someone currently in London or Rome would be very much interested in a New York City-area commuter rail system, let alone its individual stations. Same goes with other commuter rail systems: potential readers would most likely be already in the area, making a Google search for "XXX station" on YYY system. There's no need for "national" or "international" recognition in most of these cases.

On the other hand, national railroad services like Amtrak would benefit from a state-based disambiguator, since these stations are shared by other systems or duplicate the names of stations in other states. The main reason (Connecticut) was used as a disambiguator in MNRR articles was because the station was also shared by intercity or other services, such as Bridgeport station (Connecticut) (shared by Amtrak, Metro-North, and SLE), so saying "Bridgeport station (Metro-North)" would be wrong.

Anyway, the "Metro-North" disambiguator is not in violation of USSTATION and I don't see any real reason to change that. It disadvantages our readers who are probably looking for a station within a certain system anyway, and it distracts us content creators from adding substantive information to these articles. epicgenius (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I never said that the "Metro-North" disambiguator was in violation of WP:USSTATION. I'm just making the claim that location-based disambiguation is better for most of these articles. You are thinking too locally and not globally. Readers are all over the world, not just in New York. While Metro-North may be well-recognized within the service area, most people in the world (and even in the US) have no idea what Metro-North is. This lack of wide-spread familiarity is a reason not to use "Metro-North" as a disambiguator. You should not assume: I don't think someone currently in London or Rome would be very much interested in a New York City-area commuter rail system, let alone its individual stations. Same goes with other commuter rail systems: potential readers would most likely be already in the area. You do not know the reason people look at Wikipedia pages. Articles should not be written or titled for a local audience. As I mentioned at Talk:Garrison (Metro-North station)#Requested move 12 April 2018, the purpose of disambiguation is to differentiate between two articles that should have the same title. There may be railroad stations that share the same name in 2 or more countries that need to be disambiguated from each other. From a reader's point of view, if they already know the system of a station (as you claim), then they would clearly also know the state (metro area or country) the station is in, and would therefore have no problem correctly identifying an article using a location-based disambiguator. However, the inverse is not true. If someone is looking for a specific railroad station in a city in New York, but have no idea what system the station is on, disambiguators of "Metro-North" versus "RTD" offer no assistance in providing meaningful disambiguation. To someone unfamiliar with the system (the majority of the world), "New York" is a much better disambiguator. You have moved all of these articles within the past few days. It's not like "Metro-North" has been a long-standing accepted disambiguator used in compliance with WP:USSTATION. --Scott Alter (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll reply your points in order:

Readers are all over the world, not just in New York. While Metro-North may be well-recognized within the service area, most people in the world (and even in the US) have no idea what Metro-North is. This lack of wide-spread familiarity is a reason not to use "Metro-North" as a disambiguator. I'll say it again. Most readers of these particular articles will be within the service area (not necessarily locals, but people who are within the area at this exact time). Besides, it's not like the article doesn't mention that "XXX is a Metro-North station in New York/Connecticut". A decent article will mention that in the very first sentence, it's mandated per WP:LEAD.

You do not know the reason people look at Wikipedia pages. Articles should not be written or titled for a local audience This is technically true, but in practice, there are many other factors. Why would a non-local reader be looking at the article, unless it's to get information about the subject? They likely wouldn't, unless they were explicitly looking for the article. Railroad stations are generally low-viewership articles unless they are about major topics. This goes for the articles without disambiguators as well.

If someone is looking for a specific railroad station in a city in New York, but have no idea what system the station is on, disambiguators of "Metro-North" versus "RTD" offer no assistance in providing meaningful disambiguation. To someone unfamiliar with the system (the majority of the world), "New York" is a much better disambiguator. Again, I find it very highly improbable that they were looking for Garrison, New York station and they don't know what the Metro-North is. I think they would be looking for the system first, and it's more likely that they don't know the station's name or what line it's on. Like, "Take the... I don't know what system, but you have to get to the Garrison train station upstate somehow." I'm pretty sure this doesn't happen.

It's not like "Metro-North" has been a long-standing accepted disambiguator used in compliance with WP:USSTATION. Not necessarily true, "Metro-North" was the existing disambiguator in all of these articles, and obviously there was a consensus to use "Metro-North" instead of, say, "MNRR". I simply moved "station" out of the title. epicgenius (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I will say that I believe either state or system disambiguation would be acceptable, and both have their positives and negatives. But we've typically moved similar types of regional systems to system disambiguation, and the wording currently in the guideline suggests this is preferable. I could really go either way, but at this stage I don't think we should make a move without a wider discussion, probably through RfC.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. AFAIK, both system and city/state disambiguation are still in compliance with USSTATION. The guideline page itself says Context will determine the most suitable distinguishing term, so editors use their judgment depending on whether the system is likely to be more recognizable for readers than the city, for instance when a major metropolitan area's transit system has stops in outlying communities (system) or whether these are stations serving Amtrak and other intercity rail, especially when there are stations in multiple cities that have the same name (state). epicgenius (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Notability of former railway stations

Is any former railway station (whether demolished or still standing) considered to be notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia? I'm asking because I would like to eventually write articles about the stations of the former Malta Railway. In some cases I have very little information to write about, so the articles might be stubs, however there are some other stations (eg. Birchircara and Museum Stations, which both still exist) where it shouldn't be that hard to find some good information. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

If you're unsure across the board whether you'll have enough information for separate articles, consider starting with a List of Malta Railway stations (or similar). WP:SPLIT an article when it can stand alone. --Izno (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I tend to think a former railway station is notable, but if there aren't sufficient sources to write the article, then a list would be preferable. Mackensen (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

For each individual station, it depends on how notable it was when it opened. If you can verify such an article with enough sources, it's notable. If not, then I agree that you can include it in a list. epicgenius (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Remember that notability is not temporary, so if it was notable when it was active it doesn't lose that notability because it's closed. As for whether it was notable when open, also remember that notability is about the subject of the article, and based on possibility of sources existing, not whether they're present in the article at a given time; an article may do a poor job demonstrating the notability of the subject, but that does not make the subject not notable. Finally, one of the most common outcomes of deletion discussions is that railway stations are presumed notable. So don't be afraid to write the articles. oknazevad (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Izno, Mackensen, Epicgenius, and Oknazevad: Thanks for your replies. :) I had thought that railway stations are considered to be notable, but I just wanted to confirm (in my opinion, buildings such as railway stations, churches/chapels, fortifications, major government buildings etc should always be considered notable). If/when I have time, I'll try to write the articles. I haven't really tried searching for sources yet (except for a quick Google search), so there might be some information out there. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

User box

Is there a user box to put on your profile? A 10 fireplane (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC) A 10 fireplane (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

There's {{Userbox/Trains}}, though the colour scheme isn't to my taste. Certes (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@A 10 fireplane: A better one is {{User Trains WikiProject}}, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains#Templates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @Certes: and @Redrose64: for the help it is much appreciated A 10 fireplane (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

LIRR station naming convention discussion

There is a discussion occurring regarding the naming of LIRR station articles. Please weigh in if you'd like to! Thanks! –Daybeers (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

A new WikiProject that would be a related one to this one.

It has been proposed and can be found here : Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/US railroads. If you are interested, please add yourself in for support. If enough support is found, maybe we ditch make a North American rail transportation WikiProject instead. Thanks for reading. XXCooksterXx (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC) XXCooksterXx (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

A map I am creating. (NOT COMPLETE)

https://www.google.com/maps/placelists/list/1sJA_MDk4oISH8ERPd8scBasGQ6Y?hl=en It is of Abandoned RR’s in South Dakota. IT IS NOT COMPLETE. IT IS ALSO NOT 100% ACCURATE, SOME PLACES REQUIRED AN EDUCATED GUESS. Here are a few things this map includes:

• Depots
• Bridges
• POI’s (Points of Interest)
• Connection with other railroads or branches
• Wye’s.
• Rail Yards
• Ghost Towns on railroad
• Roundhouses.

THIS IS INCOMPLETE. I REPEAT, INCOMPLETE. You can help me with this, but please keep in mind the following: Tracks between Platte and Napa are not abandoned Tracks between Rapid City and Kadoka/Mitchell is not abandoned Sioux Falls to Manly MN is not abandoned- they are rebuilding it Also: If the line goes outside of SD, just mark it at the border, do not follow the line outside of SD. Most importantly, MARK RAILROADS AND NOT ROADS/NOTHING. I may seem strict, but i want to make this a complete map for use for reference. Please go to my talk page if you want to help. Thanks, XXCooksterXx^{❯❯❯ talk?} 18:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC) P.S. I know that there are some markers on Dakota Southern (NOT ABANDONED) but please leave them. XXCooksterXx^{❯❯❯ talk?} 18:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Kingston, New York railroad stations

I've proposed splitting up Kingston, New York railroad stations at Talk:Kingston, New York railroad stations#Split article?. This could really use the attention of someone familiar with that region. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Locomotive 3ա705-46

Can anyone provide any info about the locomotive seen at commons:Category:Locomotive 3ա705-46, which I saw last week at Yerevan railway station, in Armenia? Presumably its a standard Soviet type? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Some more info on this particular loco here. The Russian E class (with sub-classes) were 0-10-0 freight locos with around 11,000 built. Oddly enough we don't seem to have an article on them, although they are covered in Russian section of the 0-10-0 article. Robevans123 (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Name in lead discussion

There is a discussion occurring regarding the format of the opening sentence of US station articles. Please weigh in if you'd like to! Thanks! –Daybeers (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

HTML errors in rail transport articles

I'm going through Special:LintErrors, and I've found a almost 700 high-priority errors in articles tagged by this WikiProject. The wikitext parser is going to change in June, and any page with an error may display strangely.

What's needed right now is for someone to click these links and compare the side-by-side preview of the two parsers. If the "New" page looks okay, then something's maybe technically wrong with the HTML, but there's no immediate worry. If that column looks wrong, then it should be fixed.

The first, huge list is all "deletable table" errors. If you want to know more about how to fix these pages, then see mw:Help:Extension:Linter/deletable-table-tag.

Taking the first item as an example, the problem is in the infobox in the ==History== section (if you scroll down to the editing window, it'll highlight the likely source of the error). It has a nested copy of {{Infobox RDT}} for the route map, and the table's closing in a different spot in the old vs new parsing system. This results in the "This diagram: view • talk • edit" line being visible outside the show/hide box.

There are 600+ pages with errors here, and it's possible that most of them have the same one or two errors, and that an update to the templates would fix this on all of them. With that in mind, I'm going to post the SQL query, so that if you update templates, then you can get an updated list.

Extended content

select p1.page_title, p1.page_namespace, linter_cat, concat('https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/', p1.page_title, '?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=', linter_id) as url, linter_params as more_info, linter_id as linter_id, linter_start as start_offset, linter_end as end_offset from linter join page p1 on p1.page_id = linter.linter_page and p1.page_namespace in (0, 12, 100, 118) join page p2 on p2.page_title=p1.page_title and p2.page_namespace = p1.page_namespace + 1 join categorylinks on categorylinks.cl_from=p2.page_id and (categorylinks.cl_to='A-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='B-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='C-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='Stub-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='Start-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='GA-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='FA-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='Template-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='AL-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='BL-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='CL-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='FL-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='List-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='Unassessed-Class_rail_transport_articles') where linter.linter_cat=7 or linter.linter_cat=12 order by linter_cat;

None

This second, much shorter list is "misnested tags". There are only 56 of these. See mw:Help:Extension:Linter/html5-misnesting for more information. This error often involves span tags or lists/line breaks inside infoboxes and similar templates. For the first article in this list, the highlighting indicates that the problem is in {{Circle Line RDT}}. Something about the HTML is technically wrong in that template, but the side-by-side display looks the same, so I probably wouldn't worry about it right now.

None

For more help, you can ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Linter. Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at twenty or so of the British ones, I could only fix one. Most of the rest had one common theme: they have an RDT which is built using the {{routemap}} template. As you all know, I cannot handle this at all (for those of you who don't understand, try going to Template:Circle line RDT and open it for editing. Now, how do you find the lint problems in lines that look like like {{BSsplit|[[District line]] &|[[Piccadilly line]]||i}}! !dCONTg blue\fdCONTg\\\\\?). Therefore, Jc86035 and Useddenim, being the routemap enthusiasts here, please fix up some of the mess here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

At least some of these are the result of combining {{Infobox route diagram}} with {{Routemap}}. Mackensen (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is an edit from Nov 2017 I made to fix a deletable-table-tag error in case that is helpful. Before fix, After fix. SSastry (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I've knocked out a bunch, and they've all been resolved by removing infobox rdt. This has at times required some minor adjustments to the wrapping code for the route template, but not the template itself. Mackensen (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I've done about half of these. Broadly, they fall into four categories:

1. Actual mistakes with tables, such as double start templates or missing brackets.
2. Infobox rdt wrapping either bs-map or routemap. It's not necessary to wrangle actual routemap code to fix these, though you often need to add the inline parameter to the template before removing infobox rdt from the article.
3. Old-style RDTs which use {{railway line header}} and don't use bs-map at all.
4. Articles from the German Wikipedia which use {{BS-daten}} and need to be refactored. Similar to the use cases above.

This is tedious work but not especially difficult. Mackensen (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Done; the last run of the query showed no articles. The bulk of these were Indian stations which incorporated routemaps. Per @Redrose64: the Circle line RDT problem was hard to find, but it wasn't an issue with the Routemap itself. Rather, a small tag was wrapping a list, which isn't valid. Wrapping each item individually is a little ungainly, but it worked. Mackensen (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hanging category

Hi folks. I know nothing about locomotive categorisation, but I've come across Category:1′Eo1′ locomotives which was created by Andy Dingley last week and currently has only one category, Category:1′E1′ locomotives which is a red link in violation of WP:REDNOT. Can someone who knows more about this stuff work out the appropriate categorisation? Just seeing those apostrophes in a category name makes me nervous and there don't seem to be any corresponding articles. TIA Le Deluge (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• It's best to understand these categories as part of a set: Category:UIC classification. As you can see apostrophes are common. Mackensen (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Also they're not apostrophes, they're primes. A slow process is ongoing to fix them, also to replace the categories which have incorrectly missed them out altogether. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

There's another one at Category:1′C+C1′ locomotivesLe Deluge (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Naming conventions and capitalisation for loco class articles?

Most recently in reference to Category:Standard gauge electric locomotives of France, although this is a general issue.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that WP hates excess capitalisation, particularly in article names. Even when capitalisation (or enforced lowercase) is strongly imposed by the subject of an article, WP will hammer that article name into strict Sentence case, with no more than one capital, unless there is a signed note from both the OED and the Académie française agreeing to the contrary and conferring proper name status (and note the lowercase f in française).

So why are our loco articles mostly in Title Case? SNCF Class BB 12000, L&YR Class 28 etc? In both of those certainly, the word "Class" was never used by the original subjects, thus stretches our rules to be anywhere near a proper name. There are exceptions (of course): Commonwealth Railways CA class. For every LNWR Dreadnought Class there's a Furness Railway 115 class or a Furness Railway K1 and even a Furness Railway Class D5 0-6-0 (why include such an undistinguished and non-defining wheel arrangement?). Or aberrations like the unpluralised CGR class C1 and C1a. And then of course the anachronistic British Rail Class D3/7, built in the 1930s, let alone under British Railways and withdrawn before British Rail came along.

I propose the following:

1. Avoid capitalising "Class" unless that has some claim to being a proper name from the original subject. So LMS Ivatt Class 4 and BR Standard classes keep it, others are decapitalised. Don't capitalise other descriptive terms either, so: LMS 3-Cylindered Stanier 2-6-4T → LMS 3-cylindered Stanier 2-6-4T
2. Should we even use "class", if it was never used originally?
3. Aspects like designers, tank/tender and wheel arrangements should follow much the same rules as disambiguations: use them when needed to make a distinction, or if their omission amongst a group using them would become confusing.
4. Articles on classes with multiple names in the same scope should pluralise "class" (if used). So CGR class C1 and C1a → CGR classes C1 and C1a.
5. How should CGR for Cape Government Railways / Ceylon Government Railway be disambiguated? For short numerical class names, we will see overlaps.
6. We don't combine names across history. So GCR Class 5A / LNER Class J63 stay as a redirect from one to the other.
7. French locos We don't need any "Midi E 4000 → SNCF BB 4500 → SNCF BB 1600" names. So I would support SNCF BB 1600 and Midi E 4000 (and use redirects, where needed) rather than BB 1600 or SNCF Class BB 1600.
8. Nor do we need tautological categories of "New Haven EP-1 locomotives of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad", invented solely for a foolish consistency because some other classes had multiple operators.
9. Avoid anachronisms. British Railways locos are British Railways, not British Rail.

I have no great wish to rename vast numbers of articles. But it would be good to clarify some of the goals before creating any more.

Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like you're proposing a naming convention, which is long overdue. It could also serve to formalize the convention of "Manufacturer Model" for North American diesels. Mackensen (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The CGR classes can be disambiguated by using the full title where there is duplication, with the initials used as a dab page. If there is no duplication, then initals should be fine. Be aware that CGR can mean one of four railway companies. Mjroots (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

See also WP:TITLEFORMAT, third section. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

We certainly need some kind of carefully-considered consensus before Dicklyon drives in their steamroller. It might be that no one-size-fits-all solution is possible, and we may need different conventions for different countries, rather like WP:NCUKSTATIONS etc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. A well thought out convention, with the possibility of differing conventions for different countries/regions is far preferable to Dick forcing hamhanded, knee-jerk attempts to force one-size-fits-all rules where reality doesn't conform to those rules on the first place. Personally, I tend towards keeping he caps on the principal that locomotive models are no different than automobile models in being proper names, but I could be convinced that models that just have some "(C/c)lass #/letter" name shouldn't be. oknazevad (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you should malign another editor without notifying them. Tony (talk) 02:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, well, I'm used to it. Some of these rail fans like to carry a grudge. Andy has gone off on my competence at another discussion; quite a gang. Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

When you're in simultaneous naming disputes on five pages and an AE, then it's clearly the other peoples' fault.

Your competence is being questioned here: Talk:Ring counter#Overbeck? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about. Did you start an AE thing without telling me, too? And you're referring to RM discussions as naming disputes now? Dicklyon (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you should go with "classes", it seems to me that a prefix of X class makes life simpler for everyone, though if you're going for eg classes X and Y I'd rather see the main article at class X with class Y being a redirect.

Regarding anachronisms, I agree with British Rail vs British Railways, but I think the current British Rail Class 707 structure works well, even if 707s were not even a twinkle in BR's eye. Having some be British Rail class X and others British rail class Y seems confusing. Unless we're going to go whole hog and go with Porterbrook Class Z? -mattbuck (Talk) 17:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Skipping over all the testy parts. I'd looked at those, and assumed they were official model names and numbers, not descriptive WP:NPOVTITLEs. If they're the latter, then yes, it should be "class", since WP just made them up (or someone else did and we thought it was good enough for our purposes). The capitals can't just mystically arrive from Narnia; there has to be solid rationale for them. I know people don't like that, if they've come from one field/topic of interest or another in which people like to Capitalize All Important Jargon to make it stand out, but WP doesn't do that, or pretty much everything would be capitalized here, because everyone's an expert at/specialist in/superfan of something, everything has its experts/specialists/fans.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

We need to remove acronyms for railroad names per WP:NCA: "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject", with NASA and Central Intelligence Agency given as examples of either side. Nearly all railroad abbreviations—though not all—are completely unknown outside a select group of railroad enthusiasts. For example, I'm familiar with railroad history, yet could not name any of the four "CGR" railroads mentioned above. (I'm happy to start an RfC on this over on the MoS talk page, but I'd really rather not have to take that step.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

No we don't. The sheer verbosity of that would be ridiculous, and right against COMMONNAME. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey Andy, could I ask you to go back and re-read the article titles policy? Scroll up from COMMONNAME and you'll find "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." L&YT, LNWR, and CGR are not recognizable to most people. Cheers, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I could also point to the same page's article title format section, which is even more explicit: "Abbreviations and acronyms are often ambiguous and thus should be avoided unless the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject (e.g. PBS, NATO, Laser).". Again, I casually dabble in railroad history, and acronyms like CGR are completely unknown to me. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Recognisability and COMMONNAME are precisely the reason why we should favour LNWR over the full expansion. Certainly for UK articles, the full name was almost never used, in favour of it. In the US things seem to have gone differently (at least in the 20th century) and although the full names weren't used either, the tendency was to shorten to the first words: thus the Far Tottering and Oyster Creek might be the "FTOCR" in the UK, but the "Far Tottering" in the US.

We should be accessible to those unfamiliar, but not at the cost of becoming bizarre to those who are. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

As a representative of the non-train-geek community, I'd tend to prioritise the key attributes of a name - Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness and Consistency. It's worth noting that Conciseness is equally important - The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Ed, you mention the Central Intelligence Agency as a full article name - but when it's compounded into another article name it is usually (if not entirely consistently) abbreviated - see articles in Category:CIA activities.
There's also the point that you may not know any of the CGRs were - but if I asked you to name a railway in colonial Sri Lanka, you wouldn't have been able to come up with the full name of the Ceylon Government Railway, so are you any better off if it's expanded? It's unlikely that a non-specialist publication would be mentioning it in the first place, so you don't lose much by abbreviating it. As an example that's maybe closer to home - your argument would say that SMS Bayern should really be at Seiner Majestät Schiff Bayern because casual readers won't know what SMS stands for in this context. But only a battleship geek would be reading that article in the first place.
If it was decided that some kind of split between "obvious" abbreviations and not was desirable, might I suggest looking at pageviews? I'd argue that the British Big Four would certainly count as "better-known-as-abbreviations" and looking at their pageviewsthey're all at least 150/day whereas eg the LNWR is down at ~92/day, I'd suggest ~100/day is a reasonable threshold for "heard-of-ness". Le Deluge (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The LNWR is presumably the second-highest scoring of the pre-grouping 'big beasts', so there must surely be some doubts as to the value of any test which concludes that it, and the likes of the Midland & the Caledonian, are largely unrecognised by posterity.

And surely the test is not how well-known the railway was, but whether those who knew it generally referred to it by its initials? "The Compagnie des chemins de fer de Paris à Lyon et à la Méditerranée (usually known simply as the PLM) was a French railway company." says the lede to chemins de fer de Paris à Lyon et à la Méditerranée and what matters is not the level of modern interest in the company, but the relative obscurity of the company's full name compared to its initials. Rjccumbria (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

(And -by the way- your Bayern analogy is two-edged. Wikipedia's treatment of German capital ships is anomalous. Equivalent ships in other navies get article titles such as French battleship Courbet (1911), Japanese battleship Kongō, Italian battleship Andrea Doria. That would suggest that for consistency as well as to assist non-specialists SMS Bayern should really be at German battleship Bayern. But I for one have better things to do with my time than righting that particular minor wrong. ) Rjccumbria (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm actually with Rjccumbria here, including his note about ships. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

And yet HMS King George V and USS Canberra! :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes) for related prior discussion. Mackensen (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we perhaps extend this discussion to include individual locomotives? Category:Individual locomotives reveals a real hodgepodge with no consistency even within some countries. Mackensen (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I've tried to distill this conversation into a proposed guideline: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (locomotives). Feedback appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

That guideline wont work for the UK, at least not the last two sections. I don't know what common practice is in the US, but in the UK the manufacturer will almost always be entirely unknown to most people. I'm a rail enthusiast, and even I couldn't tell you the manufacturer of the relatively recent British Rail Class 175 without looking it up, let alone the older British Rail Class 503. I think that if any international naming scheme is possible (and I'm not convinced it is, as US and UK common practice is different, let alone other countries), it has got to start with determining whether a class of rolling stock is commonly known by (a) the operator's name (e.g. Barry Railway Class F), (b) the manufacturer's name (e.g. Bombardier CR4000), (c) system's name (e.g. Eurotunnel Class 9), (d) a national/subnational classification scheme (e.g. British Rail Class 801), or (e) a class or product name (e.g. Blue Pullman, but there are probably better examples). There would then be separate standards for each group, articles for multiple classes that don't have a group name, e.g. British Rail Classes 485 and 486, need to be accounted for too.

Individual locomotives, at least in the UK, are all over the place in terms of naming but only two of 133 use "No." ahead of the number, and in one of them, Locomotion No. 1, it is arguably a proper name. For these we also need separate schemes by how they are commonly known, (a) only a name (e.g. Cycloped, Folwer's Ghost), (b) just a number (e.g. British Rail 10100), or (c) a combination (e.g. GWR 111 The Great Bear, LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado, although I'd argue the latter should be at Tornado (locomotive)). With those known by a name including the class this should be formatted the same as the general class. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

You raise helpful points, and it may well be necessary to create separate conventions on a regional basis. I agree that the manufacturer standard doesn't make sense for British equipment. Regarding current British rolling stock, I'm curious why "British Rail Class" is all capitalized, given that British Rail went defunct almost twenty years ago. Given the example of British Rail Class 801, would Class 801 Super Express or Class 801 (United Kingdom) be more accurate?

The manufacturer is fairly unimportant in both the UK and the USA. What matters is thedesigner. In the US, this is typically the same as the builder (and appears in the common name); in the UK (steam era) it was more usually the operating company, who might build them itself or outsource others. There are also well-known designs like the Hunslet Austerity, often built by RSH and others instead, yet still known as Hunslets. Since the diesel era, UK designs were outsourced to the builders and so we see the naming follow US practice and refer to the builder / designer. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

For individual locomotives, if it has a common name/proper name that would obviously take precedence. Mackensen (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the standard British Rail Class XYZ was continued as frankly it seemed easiest to have consistency. The capitalisation of C is probably irrelevant so long as it's consistent. I'd certainly oppose Class 801 (United Kingdom) as that's extremely unclear, and could frankly refer to a school class just as easily. Class 801 Super Express is a bit better, but I think it needs the prefix to make clear this is a train.

Mackensen, regarding your proposal, I think you need to be clear on number format for individual locomotives - you seem to alternate between XYZ No. 123 and XYZ 123. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Meant to move the No. everywhere and didn't. It's too significant a change.

Regarding British Rail Class, it's convenient for editors but it also gives the wrong impression of a proper name, which is why the capitalization matters. "British rail class 801" means something very different from "British Rail Class 801". This seems to be a complete Wikipedia-ism; sources refer simply to "Class 801". I'm not interested in dying on this particular hill, but it's going to be a major sticking point for any effort at standardization. Mackensen (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Mackensen: British Rail Class ... is capitalised because of consensus from several years ago (and a few years before that). The main reason was a combination of (a) the classification system used was (and is) still British Rail's, even though it's no longer administered by them, and (b) consistency between pre- and post-privatisation rolling stock (it's all a single continuum with rolling stock from both eras operating side-by-side in the same franchise even today). The C is capitalised because it's almost always capitalised in reliable sources. I'm opposed to changing either as those reasons are still applicable, and "Class 801" is the term used in reliable sources - things like "Super Express" are rarely used outside promotional press releases. A "(United Kingdom)" disambiguator would be incorrect as Northern Ireland Railways uses a different and overlapping system - NIR Class 450 and British Rail Class 450 are completely different trains. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Your comment "it's going to be a major sticking point for any effort at standardization" is why I think a single international standard is probably not going to be possible - there is just too much variation between countries. You are correct that sources don't use "British Rail" but that is because they don't need to disambiguate things that aren't British locos or multiple units. Just using "Class 801" is going to result in a whole host of different disambiguators based on what each number is ambiguous with - just look at the Class 10 disambiguation page for example where South Maitland Railways 10 Class has a possibly equal claim to Class 10 (Great Britain). Class 101 (Ireland) could refer to 2 or 3 different trains; Class 20 (Great Britain) and Class 20 (South Africa) would both be ambiguous. Common usage in Australia seems to be "n class" rather than "Class n" and unique only within each state's system (which can sometimes cross state borders). Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Chicago Express Loop

I tagged this project on the talk page for Chicago Express Loop. I am not sure if it actually belongs because I am not sure if this counts as a train or rail transport. Feel free to change the categories in the article and its prose.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Las Vegas Monorail station articles

I opened a discussion here about whether there should be separate articles for each of the stations of the Las Vegas Monorail, that could use some input. Toohool (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

ATP claim

The lede of the Advanced Passenger Train article currently includes this statement:

with the British Rail Class 221, built by Bombardier Transportation. Its tilting system was originally licensed from the APT. Other features pioneered on APT, such as the hydrokinetic braking used to stop the train within existing separations, have not been adopted.

Bomber has its own active tilt system, originally developed for the LRC (train) starting in the 1960s and beginning hardware development in 1972. This system continues to be used on the Acela Express and a number of other designs.

So, does anyone know for sure what system the 221 uses? The ATP's system is currently owned by Fiat, and it seems unlikely that Bomber would license from Fiat when they have their own.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

RFC

A Request for Comment on the use of chains in articles on railway lines and railway stations has been opened at WT:UKT#Chains RFC. Mjroots (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Cable transport, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Use of start date and age template

I am having a disagreement with Avman89 about use of {{start date and age}} in the infoboxes of rapid transit line articles - see L Taraval for an example. It is used on a number of such articles, but use is inconsistent and I don't believe there is a broad consensus. I find the template utterly obnoxious except for ongoing events - it takes up space and clutters the infobox, while adding information that's not particularly relevant or useful. I also feel that it's confusing - the format of the template, where the 'x years ago' is separated by a semicolon, implies a list rather than a connection to a date. I feel that a line or station opened 87 years ago is vastly less important than that it opened in 1931 - if the age is important, it will be discussed in the text. Obviously there is disagreement with this - for example, Avman89 said The casual reader often is interested in how long a service has been in operation. Having to do the math every time to figure out the age (2018 - minus start year, then comparing months, is a lot of work). I would appreciate some other opinions and perhaps we can find a consensus to consistently apply. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that adding "x years ago" is needless. Other than with a person's age, this "How long today?" is not primary info (and it can be derived anyway). -DePiep (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

More categories for creation

Again, I draw the following to this project's attention - Category:2′C3′ locomotives‏‎, Category:(1Bo)+(Bo1) locomotives‏‎ and Category:(C1′)+(1′C) locomotives‏‎. Le Deluge (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Railways

Good evening, This project's name seems incorrect to me, and should be in my opinion renamed Wikiproject Railways. Indeed, this project takes action to a wider domain, than trains themselves, which, in addition of being informal, are restrictive to the rolling stock and may not include railway infrastructure. Do you oppose this request?
Yours sincerely,
Les Yeux Noirs (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Les Yeux Noirs: It's railways in the UK, railroads in the U.S. The term "trains" is a compromise that we settled on many years ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer and good evening to you. --Les Yeux Noirs (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

BR compartment coaches

Can anyone suggest a reliable source for why / when BR got rid of them? Many thanks in advance to all who can help! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean non-corridor or corridor? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Non-corridor, I think Redrose64? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 05:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The last non-corridor coaches would have been the 4-EPB's on the southern. The compartment coaches always had a red line at cantrail level to identify them. They were withdrawn after a murder in the late 1980's. Morphenniel (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeees...I've heard all that too. But you know what they say: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources," which I why I asked for good sources. And I think that if an entire class of coaching stock was withdrawn on the strength of one event, that's a pretty extraordinary claim, which requires, etc :) Thanks though! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

There was a murder involving compartment stock. This led to the introduction of a red stripe on compartment stock (previously denoted buffet facilities in non-compartment stock, but these had been withdrawn by then) and pressure for the removal on compartment stock from service. Believe there had also been a number of sexual assaults reported which added to the pressure. Mjroots (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately our personal suggestions will not fare me well at the RSN will it  :) surely this story—not the murder, but subsequent actions taken by BR—must be discussed somewhere? I mean, I'm sure you're right, but, WP:VNT and all that! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The relevant murder may be of Debbie Linsley. A semi-reliable source states that compartments were scrapped after her murder but doesn't explicitly state a causal relationship. Certes (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

You are, of course, right again: this sandbox. Perhaps I should've been a litle cleaer from the start...That's got a lot of info in it, thanks for pointing it out. But, The Sun :o Ritichie333 will go mad  :) I was hoping for something like that, but perhaps in a BR history or somthing. Cheers though! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Certes: sorry, previous ping failed. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: yet another broke ping! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• David Jenkinson's book History of British Railway Carriages should cover some of the early shift from corridors and compartments to saloons. The Southern Region commuter stock kept compartments for longer, as the numerous doors allowed for faster offloading. However these were replaced by automatic door stock, partly when disabled access began to become mandatory, and because the doors also closed automatically, making the turnaround faster. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks for that Andy Dingley, I'll check it out; it sounds like it will have some useful background, especially as it's clear that the withdrawal began years before the murder. I still wish I could find an RS that actually linked the two though! Take care, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  Jenkinson is somewhere in the bookpiles in my study. I'll see if I can find it. It's a good book, and surprisingly interesting (good for the early railcars too). His per-railway carriage books do get a bit "hyper-focussed". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  @Andy Dingley: If you could—I see it's not phenomenally over-priced [8], so may indulge. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  Found it! Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  IIRC, Jenkinson mainly covers loco-hauled stock. The last loco-hauled non-corridor coaches were used on the suburban services from Kings Cross prior to electrification, and final withdrawals were in October 1977.

  For non-corridor EMUs, the red stripe above the windows was a comparatively late addition, and it did indeed come about as a consequence of passenger safety concerns - once they had been added, people travelling alone were cautioned to avoid the coaches with the red stripe. The stripe was much deeper than that used on buffet cars (which continued to have a red stripe for many more years, well into the privatisation era) but since the routes which retained compartment stock at this period (south London and the LT&S line out of Fenchurch Street) had long since lost all on-train refreshment facilities (if they ever had them at all), it wasn't seen as a potential source of confusion.

  More to follow. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: That's really great, this is all gold dust, cheers! If can use this kind of thing, it's an even bigger WP:CCS than just being a re-opened murder case (sorry—that sounds callous, but you know, for the article). If you can *ahem* loose-shunt some sources my way, I can do the chasing up  :) (sorry if i sound like the stuck record by now!). Thanks again, everyone who's commmented, it's all useful. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at The Times archives - 2 hits for "Debbie Linsley" and 5 for "Deborah Linsley". At least we have a firm date - 23 March 1988. Suggest that issues of Rail from that date onwards might prove a fruitful hunting ground. Mjroots (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Mjroots: Sorry to ressurect this thread, but I think I missed the import of what you said here. Are you saying that you have access to articles in The Times archives? Or Rail magazine, for that matter?! No worries if not, but, as they say about not leaving stones unturned, etc. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Serial Number 54129: - I have access to The Times. Rail is likely to have covered the story, but I don't have the back copies myself. Mjroots (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I don't suppose you'd be able to dig them out for me again? I'm using my week's trial on newspapers.com for the Grauniad, Observer etc.—and I've already discovered the money shot, with a small piece that quotes BR as directly linking the4EPB withdrawal with the murder. Brilliant! On the other hand, I can't for the life of me find an online artive for Rail, which is odd... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I've added what I can to the Murder of Deborah Linsley article. Mjroots (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mjroots: That's really great, thaks very much. Lots of additional detail, especially about the inquest. "Just one more thing"—coud you double-check this reference, as it's currently dated...1847  :) Thanks for all your help! I've emailed Rail to ask about their archives, so hopefully they can advise. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Oops, must've had a brainfart. Now corrected. Mjroots (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Captain Cornwall may be able to help, having added the information to another article. Certes (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

There is mention of this incident, but no source, in British_Rail_Class_415. The same paragraph also relates the murder to a review of compartment stock by Network SouthEast. Morphenniel (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I've heard it enough times to believe it, but unfortunately the editor who added that text hasn't contributed since 2006. Certes (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

This might be useable. Mjroots (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The link works for me and is also archived. Again, it says Following the murder which sounds to me like journalese for "I want to imply causation but can't prove it". Certes (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

This link to the NSE Railway Society also has details on the murder and subsequent actions taken. Ultimately, I suspect the only viable source will be found in the NSE Book. Morphenniel (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

We're certainly getting places  :) {reply|Morphenniel}} Do you think, since Chris Green is the soc's Hon. President, that might be a RS? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Re-pinging Morphenniel, previous one faulted. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes and no. Yes, because I think this is more than just a "fan" web page, and is a serious organization. Therefore, I think the information on this site is credible and reliable. No, because I think we can probably find a reference in the book "The NSE Story". My copy is somewhere in the basement ... so if I get time over the weekend, I'll try and fish it out. Morphenniel (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Morphenniel: cheers. Well; I popped into the library and had a look at TNSES, and couldn't see it mentioned anywhere—including the chronology section at the back. I guess it might've soiled the book's "feel-good" factor, as it does rather sing the praises of...one Chris Green! :D Perhaps you'l notice somthing something I didn't, if you get the chance. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Scenic railroad

Scenic railroad and scenic railway redirect to roller coaster. I created Draft:Scenic railroad with a short intro and a start of a list of scenic railroads and scenic railways. Any help would be most welcome and a move into mainspace would be great. I have an editing restriction that precludes me from creating an article in mainspace but I think the current redirect setup is pretty messed up. I included a link to the roller coaster usage at the top of the draft. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I see now there is also a heritage railway article. This terminology seems less common to me in the U.S. Is it the same thing? Should the U.S. terminology be included? FloridaArmy (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you need to consider all the following definitions (there may be more, other editors please add if appropriate):

1. Scenic railway - an early (19thC) fairground/amusement park ride.
2. Roller coaster or gravity railway or big dipper - development of the above where the scenery is dispensed with in favour of an exaggerated rise and fall of the track.
3. Scenic railway - a development of #1 above with artificial scenery but a less undulating track.
4. Scenic railway - a (non-fairground) railway whose principle attraction is the natural scenery through which it passes.
5. Heritage railway - a railway which preserves an older style of operation, a museum line.

Types 1, 2 and 3 are clearly all related, indeed as fairground rides they might not even be considered real railways. Similarly items 4 and 5 have considerable overlap. Before moving to mainspace I suggest that you work on one or more pages which would guide the reader to the appropriate type. I would suggest generating a WP:disambiguation page for scenic railway rather than a list. You might want to create a page "List of scenic railways" if you are just doing a list. Failing that you could consider extending heritage railways to include non-museum lines worked for their scenic route and link it from the DAB. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Whilst not decrying certain names for these things, the most common use of the term Scenic Railway in Britain would make most people think of the Settle and Carlisle Railway, the West Highland Railway and the Esk Valley Railway. These are not heritage railways but do attract special and regular railtours over them because of the outstanding beauty of the scenery that they run through. The list I have given is not exhaustive but these three regularly appear in lists detailing the best train rides in Britain. Regards.The joy of all things (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Def 4 for those three. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: "Scenic railway lines" for the likes of The joy of all things examples and "Scenic railway rides" for the fairground type? The use "Scenic railway" as a DAB page. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Gets my vote. Word.The joy of all things (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to be picky, but that Merriam Webster dictionary definition is so wide of the mark it is akin to The Dirty Hungarian Phrasebook sketch from Monty Python. It's recent usage is even from someone writing about an American Scenic Railway. Scenic railway means something completely different in Britain. I am my mobile at the moment (or cell phone) I'll fire up my computer and throw in some possible cites. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I would disagree that the most common use of the term Scenic Railway in Britain is the railway with scenery, rather than the archaic fairground ride. Yes, this use is both archaic and obscure - but then so's the term. We have railways which are regarded as especially scenic, but no-one applies that term to them. The fairground though - as much as anyone ever discusses Edwardian fairgrounds - does use it, largely because it's sign-written on the side of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The European Railway Timetable is a source for scenic routes. This lists scenic routes by country. - Morphenniel (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for all the input. Accordingly, scenic railway/ railroad will be a disambig page for the various usages and I will do the list article format for the scenic mostly U.S. usage. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

State railroad templates

I'd like to propose some standardization on state railroad templates. Looking just at New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway, there are three styles:

• New York: Common carriers only, indicated as current, AAR abbreviations instead of full names
• New Jersey: Common carriers only, presumably current, full names instead of AAR abbreviations
• Pennsylvania: Common carriers, a mix of transit and heritage passenger railroads, some private railroads, and selected former railroads. AAR abbreviations instead of full names

I went through Category:Railroads by U.S. state navigational boxes and did some tallies. There are 52 templates in that category: all 50 states plus DC and Puerto Rico. 47 templates use AAR codes instead of full names. 17 break out passenger carriers (plenty of states which do have multiple such carriers beyond Amtrak do not include them; it appears to be random). 29 list selected former railroads. One, Florida, lists stations. Michigan (and this is something I did ages ago) is more of a general "rail transport in x" template and lists individual passenger services and related articles. 11 list and/or distinguish non-common carrier private railroads.

I have a couple thoughts:

• AAR codes are obvious shorthand for railfans but utterly cryptic for general readers. You have to click through to find out what the article is about. I'm not going to quote the manual of style (yet) but I think we should probably avoid these in a navigational template.
• Former railroads is sticky. I saw one template listing both the Pennsylvania Railroad and Penn Central. What's the limiting principle here? There are over 150 articles in Category:Defunct Michigan railroads. Could these be better served by a category link on each state template?
• Is the scope common carrier railroads, heavy rail, or rail transport in general? List of New York railroads includes the familiar common carrier/private/passenger/former breakdown, but the template lists only common carriers.
• If the scope is broad enough to include passenger carriers, should templates distinguish between intercity (Amtrak, Brightline), commuter (Metro-North, TRAXX), light rail, and subway? Does someone need to navigate between a heavy freight railroad and a light rail system?

Looking forward to hearing from others on this. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely agree on AAR codes - we should use the actual railroad names for convenience to readers. Former railroads are almost definitely better served by a category link; even the smallest states are likely to have a dozen or more, many of which are redlinks at the present.

I think the scope should be mainline railroads (heavy rail) only - light rail and subway systems are very separate. My preferred division would simply be freight/passenger, with perhaps a subsection of freight for private operators. Probably also worthwhile having a subsection or separate section for operating historic/museum railroads - I would argue they belong here, but shouldn't be mixed in with regular scheduled passenger operators. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Pi echos my thoughts exactly. The use of the reporting marks, which are obscure to all except railfans and industry insiders, is particularly unhelpful to readers new to the subject. oknazevad (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Completely agree with this proposal. –Daybeers (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Based on the above, I suggest the following:

• Navigation templates should be titled "Railroads of X" and link to the list of railroads for that political entity
• Sub-sections of each template should be limited to the following:
  • Common carriers
  • Passenger carriers (restricted to heavy rail)
  • Private carriers
  • Heritage railroads (encompassing museum and tourist railroads)
  • See also (links to the former railroad category, history article if any, and such)
• The bottom of the template should include the somewhat standard "List of United States railroads by political division" link
• The template should not include any images, including state flags.

-- Mackensen (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Sandbox giveaway

I have an announcement for the members of TWP;

Anyone who wants to work on the following projects for future articles;

• User:DanTD/Sandbox/Atlantic Avenue Rapid Transit
• User:DanTD/Sandbox/Template:Bronx streetcar lines
• User:DanTD/Sandbox/Electrification of the Pennsylvania Railroad
• User:DanTD/Sandbox/Future Elmhurst (LIRR station) Infobox
• User:DanTD/Sandbox/E&BV Subdivision
• User:DanTD/Sandbox/List of Long Island Rail Road precursors
• User:DanTD/Sandbox/List of streetcar lines in Westchester County, New York
• User:DanTD/Sandbox/Template:Manhattan streetcar lines
• User:DanTD/Sandbox/Template:Third Avenue Railway streetcar lines

Take them now. Some of them I'm stumped upon, and others I just don't feel like working on anymore. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• If no one else is interested, I'll put a marker down for User:DanTD/Sandbox/Electrification of the Pennsylvania Railroad. It's not an immediate priority, but I'm likely to tackle the subject at some point. Mackensen (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Northern Pacific Railway stations in Washington (state) has been nominated for discussion

Category:Northern Pacific Railway stations in Washington (state), which is within the scope of this wikiproject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mackensen (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Goat Canyon Trestle#Inaccuracies

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Goat Canyon Trestle#Inaccuracies. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page

Victorian Goldfields Railway links to the DAB page Victorian Railways W type carriage. The problem was first spotted in April 2017. Can any expert help solve it? (Search for "disam" in read mode or for "{{dn" in edit mode to find it.) Narky Blert (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Probably a Victorian Railways Short W type carriage. Both articles state that the railway has carriages of this type, such as 42BU. Of course, it's possible that Victorian Railways Long W type carriages are or were used too. Certes (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

MISSFILE members

Hello. Yesterday, eight articles about railway stations suddenly appeared in Category:Articles with missing files. I can see no obvious reasons, e.g. any files having been deleted on Commons, but their commonality is that they transclude {{Caledonian Railway (Carstairs to Carlisle) RDT}}. That template has not been edited for two weeks, so I don't know why the eight articles show up in MISSFILE now. The template seems to have an error, but my lack of experience with {{routemap}} suggests this matter is more efficiently handled by you who have.

A few more train articles, new in MISSFILE today, where I fail to see what is wrong:

• 6 (New York City Subway service) - something to do with {{6 (New York City Subway service)}}?
• Bay Area Rapid Transit - {{BART Lines}}?
• Builth Road railway station - {{Builth Road & Builth Wells}}?

Please ping me, there's usually something to learn from these situations. Sam Sailor 08:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks like a missing icon file, possibly BSicon o.svg, but that's mainly inspired guesswork. As well as Category:Articles with missing files look at Category:Templates with missing files where you'll see the common factor for the pages. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

this version of the template shows the effect that was being aimed for, apart from the broken line immediately below the station. Might be of use in redrawing the diagram to overcome the issue. Mjroots (talk) 10:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mjroots, Martin of Sheffield, and Sam Sailor: Sorry about that; this was an error in Module:Routemap that was inserted when I was converting it to use TemplateStyles. I fixed it on 27 July. Jc86035 (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Naming conventions proposal for Taiwan stations

Hi. I am proposing a naming conventions for Taiwan stations for better consistency. Feedback welcomed at User talk:Szqecs/Naming conventions (Taiwan stations). Thanks. Szqecs (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

MAX Blue Line

Truflip99 has asked for feedback on the MAX Blue Line article, before a possible Good article nomination, if any WikiProject Trains members are willing to take a look and leave feedback on the article's talk page. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Ahmedabad Monorail for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ahmedabad Monorail is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmedabad Monorail until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nizil (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Low quality of wikipedia articles related to current technology

Hi all, I have started work for a railway company not so long ago and as I used wikipedia to answer specific doubts and just to learn more about current technology, I realised the quality of content for modern technology is pretty poor. I assume this is because this is a very opaque sector that people outside the sector do not understand very well. I was pretty surprised by the low quality of the ETCS article, absence of digital interlocing and EULZNX, etc. Has anyone else had the same impression? Would this merit creating a task force for this? Cheers! Botatao (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Links to theairdb website

A bunch of rail-station and airport articles have links to theairdb.com website, which apparently is some database with a page of details for each station. They are often listed as an IATA entry in the "Station code" section of the infobox, but sometimes in External links. The site is now dead and domain-squatted. Does anyone know a similar resource to use instead, or should these links all just be removed? As an added annoyance, it's all hand-coded in each page, not a central template to fix:( DMacks (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe www.gcmap.com? Anyway, it would be useful to template-ify this sort of thing (or even better have the infobox generate the extlink automatically) rather than hand-entering a link in each article? There are currently about 70 links to airdb.com from en.wp, but that site appears to be fairly comprehensive. DMacks (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Which country does this affect? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

By spot-checking Special:LinkSearch/*.theairdb.com, I see China, Kenya, UK, US, Canada, Australia. DMacks (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Those for UK stations outside Northern Ireland can probably be removed. These stations use either {{infobox GB station}} or {{infobox London station}}, each of which has a parameter (|code= and |railcode= respectively) which if filled in (as with all stations open at the present time) adds some official links to the infobox that show station information - location, facilities, train times, etc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Informal RFC for opening sentence format

I opened up this discussion at WP:USSTATION a few months ago, but consensus was never reached. I'd like to revisit this issue with a larger audience. The first question is: in station articles, what should be bolded in the opening sentence: just the station name, or the station name and the word "station"? For example, "Hastings-on-Hudson station is a Metro-North Railroad station in Hastings-on-Hudson, New York." vs. "Hastings-on-Hudson is a Metro-North Railroad station in Hastings-on-Hudson, New York." The second question is that some station articles, particularly Metro-North Railroad ones, start with the word "The" and describe what it serves, ex. "The Yankees–East 153rd Street Metro-North Railroad station serves Yankee Stadium and Highbridge, the surrounding area in the New York City borough of The Bronx." I believe there should be consensus and standardization on this.

I realize the first issue may be too widespread for a discussion in just one WikiProject: it may need a true RFC, as wouldn't this pertain to all other articles that repeat what they are in the bolded text and again when describing what it is in the opening sentence, such as on articles about high schools? Please refer to the linked discussion for the arguments that have already been stated, and add your thoughts and comments below. Thank you! –Daybeers (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Getting concenus will not be easy, but that does not mean that discussion is useless. For articles in general, having the first words of the first sentance as the non-bracketed parts of the title in bold is best. Where this does not work, it is often an indication that the page title should be changed. The most common exception to this rule is when 'the' is placed before. Whilst for some structures such as bridges adding 'the' is the norm, IMHO this is not the case for stations.Johnkn63 (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This was already the subject of an RfC here. That RfC found consensus for keeping the name in the lead sentence the same as the article. That shouldn't be changed without a new consensus in another formal RfC, preferable back at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the sentence structure should be changed then, ex. "Hastings-on-Hudson is a stop on the Metro-North Railroad Hudson Line in Hastings-on-Hudson, New York." or "xxx is a terminus..." –Daybeers (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

If "Station" is part of the name of the station then it should be bolded, if it's just there for natural disambiguation/consistency with other articles then it should not be. Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Train crash Oss 20-9-2018

Today the Dutch city of Oss was struck by the severe train accident with a stint bicylce, which killed four children (4,4,6,8) and two more people very badly wounded in the hospital. Can someone explain me why this tragic events had turned into an article on Wikipedia? Oss_train_crash

It is very rude and irrelevant to do this. Can this page be removed?

--Bigknor (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@The joy of all things: Cards84664 (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bigknor: All major crashes are listed on Wikipedia. What is your reasoning for an exception to be made?Cards84664 (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I explained this above. Why list accidents? People are mourning their deaths. Everyone is in despair. Dutch newspapers already cover this very detailled. What is the purpose of writing articles on Wikipedia on local accidents in other countries?

For the second time, please remove this article which is ethical unjust.

--Bigknor (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bigknor: These articles are created to retain railroad history. Without compiling this research, we wouldn't have informative articles, like this train crash from 1876. Cards84664 (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The timing is terrible. History is always written much time later. Hopefully you will respect this as the feeling of The Netherlands right now. Thank you.

--Bigknor (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Cards84664 (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully, you're addressing the wrong audience. WikiProject Trains doesn't have the ability to simply delete an article. The author of the article, The joy of all things (talk · contribs), isn't a regular participant here and probably does not know that this issue has been raised. The proper place to discuss this matter would be at Talk:Oss train crash. That said, Wikipedia is not censored. Events such as these tend to be covered; Wikipedia is summarizing an event already covered in major newspapers. In that regard, it is treated no differently from mass shootings, terrorist attacks, airline accidents, or other man-made catastrophes. Wikipedia's role in these events, such as it is, is to summarize existing information in a neutral fashion for the benefit of those who wish to learn more. Best, Mackensen (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I disagree. Wikipedia is no newspaper. That's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigknor (talk • contribs) 23:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bigknor: You have left similar notes on other pages, such as User talk:Cards84664 and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Netherlands#Train crash Oss on English Wikipedia. This goes against WP:MULTI, and any case these are all the wrong venues. To discuss article content with a view to amending it, please do so at its own dedicated talk page, which is Talk:Oss train crash; but if you believe that the article should be deleted outright, the various avenues that are available are described at WP:Deletion policy. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bigknor: Like other editors, I must disagree with your view. I would in fact offer a counter view, that more reporting and more publicity of accidents like these is needed. Reason? Often times, public opinion is powerful, and can often get things done that would not otherwise happen. Improved safety only comes about when the public is made aware of the issues, else they tend to get swept under the carpet by the authorities. I am very sympathetic to the families that lost loved ones in this tragic accident. Remember that good things can come about from bad accidents. If this leads to safety improvements elsewhere that save lives, then I will always take a positive outcome that results from a negative incident. - Morphenniel (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear Morphenniel,

Safety improvements do not come by Wikipedian publications, they are created by the country itself, by the companies like NS, ProRail etcetera.

--Bigknor (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Bigknor, frequently the reports in the news media often have incorrect facts or sensualist reporting. Hopefully Wikipedia can contribute in some tiny way by collating the known facts with a neutral-point of view, and giving the direct citations back to those sources and the findings of the Police/ProRail/NS/Stint. Facts facilite discussion, which helps accurate reporting, and helps people to inform themselves; and being able to make a difference that benefits the wider population in the long run. As you note the safety improvements will require people and organisation to work together. Please make suggestions for improvements on the Talk:Oss rail accident page. —Sladen (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Bigknor, I created the article and it in no way is dissimilar from any news report albeit that Wikipedia does not sensationalise the facts if done properly and is cited. The story is tragic and harrowing and if you feel that it should be deleted, then make your case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion where it can be decided by other editors than myself. Morphenniel, Mackensen and Cards84664 have all postulated sound reasons why the article should be kept (thank you to all) and is no way different to the articles created after the 2017 Westminster attack or the Ponte Morandi viaduct collapse. I wish you well. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Bigknor - I appreciate that this accident has hit the good folk of the Netherlands hard. I have been following the coverage on NL Times and in De Telegraaf myself. I sincerely hope that your objection is not because you are closely connected with any of the victims. One purpose of such an article here on en-Wiki is to help spread information about the accident, and any safety improvements that come from it. English is much more widely spoken worldwide than Dutch is. Sterkte. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

No it is not. I am not personally involved. I object because of the bad timing and on the other hand because I do want to protect the rest about this theme. In The Netherlands everyone is in shock by this and all media are on this. They better wait until there is more rest as is with historiography.

--Bigknor (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Templates help required

I have started on adding and improving articles on railway stations in China but have had difficulty getting the s-line template to work properly, see for exaample Tianyang railway station. Any advice or help would be much appreciated.Johnkn63 (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Johnkn63: As the redlink suggests, you need to create a simple new template Template:S-line/CRH left/Nanning–Kunming high-speed railway with the code of the station at the "left" end of the railway. Sometimes you need to use a code defined in Template:CRH stations but here we can just use the simple default of providing the station name without the text " railway station" (which {{CRH stations}} adds). So the new template should just contain the text "Nanning". Similarly, we need Template:S-line/CRH right/Nanning–Kunming high-speed railway with the text "Kunming South". Then everything should work. Certes (talk)

@Certes:Thank you for your help. I was unsure about what to write in the template. Working fine now.Johnkn63 (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Johnkn63: While I may be biased because I wrote a lot of the code for this, CRH also works with {{Adjacent stations}} (e.g. at Shenzhen railway station), and the data is all at Module:Adjacent stations/China Railway High-speed. Jc86035 (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Merging infobox templates

Templates in Category:Rail transport infobox templates have many common or similar parameters. For consistency and easier maintenance, they should be merged, at least some of them.

• {{Infobox rail}}
  • {{Infobox rail}}
    • {{Infobox rail}}
    • {{Infobox rail company}}
    • {{Infobox rail network}}
    • {{Infobox rail franchise}}
  • {{Infobox rail line}}
    • {{Infobox rail line}}
    • {{Infobox rail service}}
  • {{Infobox station}}

Szqecs (talk) 08:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• That's been suggested before. The primary issue is that a company (rail) is not a piece of physical infrastructure (line), nor a service over that piece of physical infrastructure (service). None of them is a building (station). Service was specifically split out from line because people confused the two concepts. A merge is possible, but I'm unconvinced in this case that there would be any real benefit. Mackensen (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
• Have to agree with Mackensen here. There are a lot of infoboxes that pertain to this project, but they all serve different purposes. –Daybeers (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with Mackensen as well. While there is a bit of overlap in some of them, they are actually all used for different things and trying to combine them is more likely going to make things more complicated and less consistent as things get confused. If any merging happens it will be upwards - rail company with company; station with building; rail line with infrastructure; etc. Thryduulf (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Charles de Gaulle–Étoile

Should European and South American subway/metro stations be broadly renamed to have "station" in their titles, replacing the status quo of using the system name as a disambiguator (which was removed in this station's case)? I would file RMs for this but I don't have time right now (page names can be collected with PetScan; searching subcategories is often useful). Another issue is the discrepancy between use of "Gare de" and "railway station" in France, which I personally think would be solved by having all stations except for the Paris railway terminals use "railway station". Jc86035 (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jc86035: I think there needs to be a centralised discussion somewhere about the naming of French stations. There is a requested move currently at Talk:Gare de Magenta (an RER station, proposed to be moved to Magenta (Paris RER)). I discovered that there are no fewer than 6 different ways the RER stations are named, but "railway station" is not one of them. I think a naming convention covering more than one country is going to be very difficult to get consensus for though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: If I were to do it I would create multiple (possibly concurrent) RMs, each dealing with no more than a few hundred articles. I think that format was quite effective for the groups of articles for Asian rapid transit systems; I agree that it would probably be a waste of time to propose another naming conventions guideline before the title styles are established as convention. Jc86035's alternate account (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

RMs are not a good way to establish a style guideline - it will just end in no consensus for anything. Multiple concurrent RMs even more so. For e.g. French stations, start a discussion with a proposal and ping this project, the stations projected, WikiProject France and any other you know is relevant. When you have agreement about a convention then get it confirmed by an RfC (c.f. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Taiwan stations)). Once the convention is established, then comes the time for RMs to get articles to the titles that match the convention. Then repeat the process for the next country. This is a lot of work but it's the quickest it can be done - starting with an RM will just mean you have to start again. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Use of default in station lists

To answer a help-me request, I added a station to {{NSW TrainLink intercity stations}}. That template has a blank default. I noticed that {{Template:Sydney Trains stations}} has a default that is not blank, even if the station is misspelled or does not exist. I think this latter approach is less mysterious to most users, but there may be philosophical reasons why someone might prefer to only select from a list of names rather than allow a red link to show up. I'm coming from the direction of someone who was mystified by a blank. I suspect only a fraction of our editors would know how the scheme works overall, but if adding a station was generally no more complicated than adding an article on the station, I think everyone's life would be easier. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for raising that issue. I think the link for the second template should be {{Sydney Trains stations}} I had not realised the difference between the two templates and had incorrectly assumed that the Trainlink template would create a default link like the Sydney Trains template, especially as I was trying to fix a post by another editor some six months earlier. Hence I support any move to standardise this area between the two templates concerned.Fleet Lists (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I have been going through a learning curve on this as I had not previously known about these templates. It appears that {{Sydney Trains stations}} is creating the wrong suffix as the code indicates it creates a New South Wales suffix instead of a Sydney suffix. But what I do not understand is that places like Punchbowl railway station and Yagoona railway station create links to Bankstown railway station without any suffix, without any of these stations being defined in the template. I must be missing something.Fleet Lists (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The stations lists are not creating links, the default code looks for whether an article exists with the given suffix. In the cases I examined, there is a redirect with the looked-for suffix, but the article name itself is unadorned. This treatment would allow for situations where railway stations in different parts of the world have the same base name, but need to be distinguished by the trains templates. I didn't examine enough cases to find an example like this. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

For example, the existence of the redirect at Clyde railway station, New South Wales means that Clyde should be found by the template default expression without it needing to be added to the list at {{Sydney Trains stations}}. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I made {{NSW TrainLink intercity stations}} work a bit more like Frietjes's model at {{Sydney Trains stations}} including a tracking category Category:Pages using NSW TrainLink intercity stations with a default link for instances where the default is used. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that. There are two other similar templates which I wont name at this stage, both of which have the default options but I believe that also have bugs in them. From what I have learned from this, I believe I may be able to fix them. I will try and do one of them later today. I will keep you advised of developments.Fleet Lists (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I have made a change to template {{NSW_Country_lines_stations}} which was incorrectly creating links for stations without a suffix, adding a suffix depending on which other stations names it did find. This has now been fixed but I am left with one new problem in that if there are any stations which correctly have a ,Sydney suffix it will not handle them correctly, other than Sydney Central which I have added as an individual item. Is there any way of finding out whether there are any other such stations which may need to be added, possibly by adding some tracking mechanism? And also see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_South_Wales/To-do there are possibly hundreds of railway stations listed for action. As a result of the two changes made so far, most of those stations which are redirects, no longer have any links to them and can potentially be removed.(does not necessarily apply to rail lines which may need to be investigated separately.)Fleet Lists (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I have also made a small change to {{Closed Lines stations}} which should remove any links to Fassifern railway station, Sydney in the action list. (This was a third template so one more to go but I will await an answer to the previous post before I do that one).Fleet Lists (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Have made a similar change to {{NSW_Country_lines_lines}} again swapping the default options which will fix the problem with most if not all railway lines in the action list.Fleet Lists (talk) 03:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Station layouts

Hello, can I have the opinion of the TWP members on wether Station layouts should be included in station articles? I know this may have been discussed before but I think it’s time to draw a line for the entire project. WikiProject Singapore have decided to remove station layouts from the Singapore stations articles, and so is the case with Taipei Metro (from when I last checked). Station layouts in my opinion are a violation of WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:TRIVIA, but are still seen on many station articles. Please voice your opinion on this matter so that we can get a consensus on this and set the matter straight. Thanks 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 11:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

That depends what you mean by "station layouts" a brief description of the station layout (e.g. "the station has a single island platform") is perfectly encyclopaedic and should be retained (subject to verifiability of course). A large diagram taking up a substation portion of the page is going to be excessive in most cases but exceptions may exist.

For stations where the layout is unusual or otherwise relevant to its notability, then a description of the layout is often going to be relevant - supplemented by a diagram in some cases. Similarly a description of station buildings will be relevant in some cases, especially if they are listed or otherwise notable. In my opinion Liskeard railway station#Description gets it about right, although perhaps ever so slightly too detailed. Epping railway station, Sydney is a mixed bag - the text seems appropriate but the "platforms and services" section gets too far into the travelguide section for my taste. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes (but as above). Some day we could use a decent article listing the various standard patterns for station layouts. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• Prose should be used to explain physical station layouts as needed. For simple platform arrangements (2-track sides, 2-track island, 1-track side, etc), often only a single sentence is needed. For more complicated layouts, it may be a paragraph or two. This will of course vary depending on the station and the quality of information available. For some stations with good citations available, explaining the location of entrances and how they relate to the station layout may be valuable.

Diagrams should be used only when necessary - i.e, when they can illustrate unusual layouts in a way that supplements the prose. (See for example New London Union Station#Layout and Readville station). Simple stations with intuitive service patterns (example: Chiswick Road station) do not need diagrams; the prose suffices. Diagrams, RDTs, and images should never be used instead of prose - that goes against core principles of accessibility. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I will add this into the TWP MOS if there are no further comments. @Windmemories: 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 06:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Spanish solution?

I've started (well, continued) a discussion at Talk:Spanish solution#Sources. I encourage anybody interested to participate. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Amtrak infobox headers

Cleveland, OH
Lakefront Station

Over the past few days, MrTrains227 and I have been adding the state abbreviations to to Amtrak station articles in a few states. I have picked up feedback from a few editors regarding official titles for the bigger Amtrak station buildings. Amtrak differentiates how certain stations are named, some stations on the official timetable list an alternate name in smaller font (The name of the building itself), while some do not. In regards to the infobox header, how should we define when certain station names are used, when they are on building and platform signage, or just platform signage? (Example: The Amtrak sign for Cleveland says Cleveland, OH. The name of the building is Cleveland Lakefront Station. Doesn't that mean we should default to the platform signage for infobox headers, since the platform name compliments the Amtrak style template we created? If that's the case, the title of the article should be the official building name, while the infobox header should display the name given on Amtrak's official signage.
@Secondarywaltz: @Pi.1415926535: @TomCat4680: @RickyCourtney: @Bigturtle: @Mackensen: Cards84664 (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

There is NO reason that an intermodal transportation center with a proper name should use the geographic destination descriptor used by Amtrak. They are not owned by Amtrak and are utilized by several transportation agencies. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate Cards84664 bringing the discussion here. Per MOS:INFOBOX the name field in an infobox should either be the common name or the full, official name. For Cleveland that would be "Cleveland" or some variation of "Cleveland Lakefront Station". We shouldn't be using postal abbreviations in infobox names unless we're planning to use them in article titles. The purpose of timetables and station signage is geographic orientation; it's not relevant to encyclopedic usage and presentation. Mackensen (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding the state abbreviations to the infoboxes for articles on Amtrak stations, as long at it is understood that this is done only for articles that are primary references to facilities in active use by Amtrak/ The train agency uses state abbreviations not only in platform signs, but on printed and posted schedules and stationary, so when the train station is primarily being used as a train station, using the abbreviations is in line with the customary usage of the entity that is the primary user. Bigturtle (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

{MrTrains227}: Well, i'm back. Anyone agree with my edits? Still fixing this mistake? Well make sure to read the section in Template:Amtrak stations. Wait.... look closely at the sign on the image in the Elyria, OH station article. See?

I agree that if the building isn't owned by Amtrak, its official name should instead be used in the info box. I reverted the change on Durand Union Station because of this. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a timetable nor a travel guide. The kind of inconsistency described above, where sometimes the infobox parrots an Amtrak timetable and sometimes it doesn't, will confuse everyone. We were better off when the infobox drew its name from the article title, which is the common practice with these things. Mackensen (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Adding the state abbreviation may look nice, but I agree this is a question of consistency. We need to come to a consensus on this. I do agree that the common name or full official name should be used. –Daybeers (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Pedestrian strikes in station articles

Briancua and I have been arguing on Endicott station about whether including lists of pedestrian strikes in station articles is reasonable. Pedestrian strikes are sadly common on railroads, especially at stations; I believe that noting them in articles (unless the high frequency is covered in the press, or the person killed was themselves notable) is undue weight and not useful. I would appreciate additional opinions at Talk:Endicott station. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Additional input here would be useful. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that a listing of the strikes would be useful or pertinent (the exceptions noted above notwithstanding). On the other hand, if there was hard data on the rate or quantity of them, that is encyclopedic information. Useddenim (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you record pedestrian strikes on highways? I suspect not. Therefore the answer must be no. - 12:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphenniel (talk • contribs)

@Morphenniel: Pedestrians aren't the primary users of highways. They are, however, the primary users of railroad stations. Useddenim (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Any noting of one unders would require press coverage, probably extensive coverage. I'd further say that suicides are less notable than accidental or externally-caused strikes. There's a hierarchy:

1. Pushed in front of a train - very notable. Murders at a station are likely notable regardless of method.
2. Fell in front of a train - possibly notable. RAIB reports would help here, noteworthy drag incidents would also count.
3. Jumped in front of a train - only notable in exceptional circumstances (eg the person was independently notable)

-mattbuck (Talk) 15:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

2. Fell or stepped in front… There's any number of videos of idiots who weren't paying attention to the second track at level crossings. Useddenim (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Naming of articles about transportation accidents and incidents in the United States

I have started a discussion about the naming of articles about transportation accidents and incidents in the United States, specifically about whether or not to include the name of the state, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Naming of articles about transportation accidents and incidents in the United States. As this proposal includes articles related to incidents relevant to this WikiProject, your comments are invited. Please comment there rather than here to discussion in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed naming convention for Irish stations

I've started a proposal for a new guideline for Irish railway stations, WP:IRLSTATION. It's intended to make articles on Irish stations more consistent in titling and disambiguation, as has been done with other station articles. I wrote it to reflect the way most Irish stations are titled anyway with some guidance to increase consistency, and the text is based on the current conventions at WP:UKSTATION, WP:USSTATION, and WP:CANSTATION. Feedback is welcome.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Train schedules

Hi. Before this evolves into an edit war, could I please get some uninvolved input from you on this re-addition of a train schedule? To me it is exactly what WP:NOTTIMETABLE (as an extension of the WP:NOTDIR policy regarding "current schedules") says should not be included in encyclopedic articles, right? --HyperGaruda (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

In particular, WP:NOTTRAVEL. I can only see two reasons for including this information:

1. Wikipedia should include full timetables for all the world's railways
2. This route is so special that its timetable should be included exceptionally

Neither sounds like a credible argument. Certes (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Unless this particular timetable has been the subject of significant commentary in independent reliable sources, and the times of individual trains are crucial to encyclopaedic discussion of that then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia per the above. There was extensive discussion of the May 2018 timetable change in the UK such that it was far more notable than usual, but this is covered at Northern (train operating company)#May 2018 timetable recast without the need to mention any individual trains. At the level of an individual station, Mauldeth Road railway station#2018 timetable recast goes into what is probably too much detail but again without including a timetable. Blackpool–Liverpool line#Service pattern is the greatest level of detail regarding train times that is appropriate in most circumstances. I'm not seeing any reason why Argo Bromo Anggrek should be an exception to the general case. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree; this level of detail is unencyclopedic. Mackensen (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree also, along with phone numbers, hours of operation, and other unencyclopedic info that creeps in all over. MB 15:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I reverted their edits. Cards84664 (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to see I am not alone in this; I'll have a look at related articles over the coming few days. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Standard practice to use abbreviations in locomotive article titles

As I understand it, it is standard practice to use abbreviations in locomotive article titles. Please refer to talk:USATC S160 Class for more discussion with someone who apparently wants to expand all locomotive, and is being rather unhelpful.

Also United States Army Transportation Corps class S100 (which is wrong) --> USATC S100 Class.

Tony May (talk) 10:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• I have move protected both articles for two weeks as Tony May was move warring with The ed17 over the titles. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• @Tony May: As I have pointed out before, there is an established process for discussing article renames. The third bullet is the one that is applicable here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• USATC - where is this discussion actually happening? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No discussion seems to be happening anywhere as far as I can tell. Both users have been advised to use RM if they want a page moved but neither has actually done so. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Merging naming conventions for stations

Currently there are four accepted naming conventions for stations:

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations)
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Canadian stations)
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations in Poland)
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations)

and three proposed:

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian and New Zealand stations)
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Irish stations)
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Taiwan stations)

There has been a failed attempt to unify station titles in all countries (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations)).

Often during discussions on naming stations, users would refer to consensus established in the four accepted pages when they were not written with the rest of the world in mind. Therefore I propose that all station naming conventions be merged into a single page, with a review of consensus for and against each system. That way, titles of stations in other countries can be better thought out. Szqecs (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. There's separate guidelines for separate countries because of two reasons. First, in respect for WP:ENGVAR. The differences in usage between the differing varieties is pretty strong. Indeed, because the technologies developed in parallel during a period where instant communication didn't yet exist, rail topics are one of the most divergent parts of American and British vocabulary. A one-size-fits-all solution would be a poor fit for both. Secondly, somewhat related to the first, is that every country has different regulatory and operating schemes that result in different conventions for stations that should be reflected in our guidelines. Sure there's likely some overlap, but it again goes to the one-size-fits-all approach actually fits none well. oknazevad (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Read carefully. I am proposing the pages be merged, I am not proposing all countries use the same system. Szqecs (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't see the need for that. If they're going to still use separate conventions, then they should be on separate pages for ease of reference and locatability. oknazevad (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Ease how? Szqecs (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
      • By keeping them on separate pages, newer editors are less likely to be confused as to which sections apply to which guideline. It also helps make clear that they are separate guidelines, and not versions of a single guideline, which is not what you're proposing (I apologize for misunderstanding you), but is something that someone is going to misunderstand later and try to "fix" by blending them together, despite clear consensus to have separate guidelines. Keeping them on separate pages instead of crowing together on one page makes them a little more "well-meaning-but-mistaken" editor proof. oknazevad (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) @Oknazevad, as I read it what's being proposed isn't a unified naming convention, but a single page listing the naming conventions for every country. I could grudgingly support that, although there are so many exceptions based on WP:COMMONNAME (why do we have Berlin Ostbahnhof but Berlin Zoologischer Garten railway station?) I'm not sure how much use it would be; "don't change names to be inconsistent with the naming of other articles on that country's stations unless there's an extremely good reason" is probably the most sensible advice. ‑ Iridescent 16:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • A quick reference list of the separate guidelines linking to the individuals pages seems like a simple idea that makes sense. oknazevad (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
    • An index to the various guidelines is something we should have somewhere (we might even have it already), but I agree completely with Oknazevad that merging the guidelines into one, or even having all the guidelines on a single page would not be beneficial and would actually be detrimental. As we get more and more guidelines (eventually I expect there to be approximately the same number of guidelines as there are countries with more than a handful of rail stations). Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: While on the surface this seems like a good idea, I believe it would be very confusing to have all guidelines on one page. What happens if there needs to be a discussion about one of them? If there are multiple discussions going on at once about different countries, which may have vastly different guidelines, it would get very confusing very quickly. Again, I see the organizational benefits, but I don't think those outweigh the downsides. –Daybeers (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose:There are differences of English usage in different countries. Railway stations are one such case therefore having separate pages makes sense. Also clearly eastablished in wikipedia is the articles follow the English usage of the country they relate to. Separate pages in this case help to facilitate good practice.Johnkn63 (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose merging all the guidelines together. I don't see how that could reduce confusion. However, I support creating an index to the various local guidelines, perhaps also with some basic recommendations (ie, articles on stations should generally take the form "Xxx railway station", "Xxx station", "Xxx metro station"; titles should always default to the WP:COMMONNAME if there is one; see the individual pages below for country-specific conventions, etc.).--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: This idea typifies all that is wrong with Wikipedia. The notion of a "one size fits all" approach. The simplistic view that supports the lowest common denominator. Each country is different, and has their own naming convention. There is nothing "wrong" with that. Please get over the need to "standardize" everything in Wikipedia, and the sooner the better. Every country in the world has its own uniqueness and culture. Let's appreciate that, and stop trying to hammer square pegs into round holes. Morphenniel (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Dear WikiProject members, I have proposed that the Seikan Tunnel Tappi Shakō Line page be merged into the Kaikyō Line page. Please participate in the discussion if you would like to give a say. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Railway stations in Pomeranian Voivodeship

If anyone is interested in a geodata challenge, you might want to take a look at

Category:Pomeranian Voivodeship articles missing geocoordinate data,

where there are about 100 railway station articles missing coordinates. -- The Anome (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• @The Anome: I'll give it a look. Mackensen (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• Hm, these articles pose an interesting problem. Osieki Lęborskie railway station and Cewice railway station appear representative. They're mostly stubs created by CCMichalZ (talk · contribs) in 2006, using information from the Ogólnopolska Baza Kolejowa, which may or may not be a reliable source. It does appear that this source, reliable or no, has geodata in at least some cases. I tend to think all railway stations are presumptively notable, but if we're not in a position to write an article a merge might be better, though for many of these the line is also abandoned and there's no suitable merge target. Mackensen (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• This is do-able, but it's obnoxious. Each station has an entry on said website. There's a map tab ("na mapie" -- on the map). That brings on an OpenStreetMap overlay; if you view the page source you can get the raw coordinates used (look for the mapInit function call). If you plug that into Nominatim you get values which you can throw into Google Maps and then get a latitude and longitude suitable for the coord template. Takes a minute or two once you're used to it. There's still the larger issue of source reliability. For as little information as these stubs have a mass soft deletion might be appropriate. I see there's already note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland; I'll update it. Mackensen (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Page moves for Portland, Oregon station articles

Project members are invited to participate in a discussion at Talk:Washington Park station (Portland) re: article titles for TriMet stations in Portland, Oregon. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

comments requested in infobox - "line" being confused with "services"

See Template_talk:Infobox_station#"line"_being_confused_with_"services".

I thought this merited general comment so I am posting here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Need somebody to check some changes

An IP editor has been making a lot of small changes to railroad articles, with no sources or even edit comments to back up the changes. Could somebody familiar with the field please review Special:Contributions/69.118.168.191 and verify if these changes are legitimate or not. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Changes relate to the New York City and New Jersey area, so a local specialist would be particularly welcome. Certes (talk) 11:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Please see this ANI discussion. Part of a multiple-month-long pattern of disruptive edits by this anonymous user. Given the long-term poor quality of their edits and their refusal to use talk pages, reliable sources, or edit summaries, I believe they should be blocked on sight. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Irish stations)

There's an RfC on adopting the proposed guideline for transport stations, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Irish stations), here. Interested editors are asked to weigh in.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: RfC on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Irish stations)

This is a reminder that there's an open RfC on adopting Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Irish stations). Please weigh in here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Irish_stations)#Request for Comment on adopting Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Irish stations).--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Station signage style discussion

I encourage other editors to have a look at this discussion about the application of the MOS to railway station infobox headers. That discussion specifically concerns the MBTA, but may have broader implications to this project. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the MBTA might be a rare exception as an authority in using all capitals for their station names. Morphenniel (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Morphenniel: Please post comments at the discussion, not at the notification about a discussion that is ongoing elsewhere. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Amtrak route diagram template station icons

There appears to be inconsistency with the Amtrak route diagram templates, specifically whether stations are assigned a large icon ( (BHF) or a small icon ( (HST). Does consensus exist regarding the icon size for Amtrak stations, such as the number of passengers, key station features, etc.? If not, let's establish it here. As an example, the threshold between having a large or small icon could be whether the station had 25,000 passengers or more, per the most recent statistics. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 00:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it, it's nothing to do with passenger usage, but with the proportion of trains on the line that call there. If a station is only served by local trains, the ones that call at every station, it gets the small (HST) icon; if the station is served by express/fast trains, the ones that skip the local stations, it gets the large (BHF) icon. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be decided by ridership, as many Amtrak stations are served by just one train daily, or sometimes even less. –Daybeers (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

As a rough guideline, I use BHF for >1,000,000 passengers a year (so generally all metro and heavy-rail rapid transit stations), commuter/regional rail stations with hourly or better service throughout the day, and other stations served by multiple routes. Note that branch line termini are not automatically "major". Useddenim (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Dining Cars of Europe & related images

I have just uploaded to Commons 395 images from a Flickr user called "Dining Car", who travels on and photographs dining cars, and views from them, all over Europe: c:Category:Images by 'Dining Car from Wien'. Please assist me in adding categories and descriptions, and using the images in articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Ankara train collision

Can anyone identify the train involved in the Ankara train collision? The locomotive class has been identified, but not the passenger train. Photos on referenced websites. Mjroots (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I'd say TCDD HT80000. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Brazil–Peru railway and Transcontinental railway Brasil-Peru

The above two pages seems to be similar. If yes, do merge them together! Thanks --Xaiver0510 (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

And then there is the Central Bi-Oceanic railway. This complex article situation is probably one of the things WP:NOTCRYSTAL ought to prevent. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Fleet rosters

I think it would be helpful to discuss the presence of fleet rosters in articles. These can take (usually) three forms:

1. Lists of locomotives or cars manufactured by a given company (such as List of GE locomotives)
2. Lists of companies which bought a particular model of locomotive or car (such as EMD SD40-2#Original owners)
3. Lists of locomotives or cars owned by a particular operator or company (such as List of Amtrak rolling stock)

As far as I know there's never been a general discussion about these lists, save Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2008, 3#Should locomotive rosters be included?, which was perfunctory and also ten years ago. To state the obvious, there's a good deal of interest in the railfan community in locomotive rosters. They're regularly published in magazines like Trains and can also be found in published secondary sources. Railfan websites track these things minutely. Some of this information is verifiable and reliable; some of it isn't. For the purposes of this discussion I'd like to focus on the latter two examples.

I think a starting point is a question of how and to what degree a fleet roster can or cannot be reconciled with WP:SUMMARY, particularly WP:DETAIL. For a locomotive model, a roster can indicate which companies bought a model, and how many. That's useful, though an exhaustive list may overwhelm. Are individual fleet numbers useful to the reader? Are they encyclopedic? How about the inevitable "Notes" column found in EMD SD40-2#Original owners, which has various (unsourced) details on disposition and minor changes in design. Is the detail that some or all Conrail-owned EMD SD40-2s had Flexicoil trucks encyclopedic? Does it belong in a table?

For company rosters, it's relevant at some level what equipment a transport company owns and operates. Again, how far does this go? Are fleet numbers useful? Are the details about which locomotives were renumbered, and when, an example of writing in summary style? Should individual locomotives ever be listed, assuming such information could be reliably referenced? See New York and Atlantic Railway#Equipment for an example of listing individual units, referenced to railfan picture websites. Mackensen (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Assuming the information present in your example articles is verifiable in reliable sources, then I don't see any issue with it at all (anything that isn't verifiable can be removed regardless of what it is, so isn't relevant to this discussion). If lists are overwhelming an article they can be split out into separate articles, e.g. Rolling stock of the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway, List of British Rail Class 91 locomotives. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I find Rolling stock of the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway worrisome; this may be a difference of opinion. It's very detailed; much of the information, including entire sections, is unsourced. If the purpose is to summarize Keighley & Worth Valley locomotives as they were then it's probably gone overboard. I don't know how to reconcile that article with the principle of summary-style writing. Mackensen (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Mackensen: Compare with Rolling stock of the Bluebell Railway and Rolling stock of the Kent & East Sussex Railway (heritage). Mjroots (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

    Part of the problem with that article is that there are a few people (you can find their names in the page history) who will insist on treating Wikipedia as a blog (example). They feel that the article must be kept up to date with all the latest information, such as when repairs take place, when test runs are due, who is borrowing the loco next, all that. When you complain to them about lack of sourcing and the proliferation of utter trivia, their response is along the lines of "I'm a member of the group that is restoring this loco, so I know better than anybody else". WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies here as it does elsewhere. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I would think that one of the most common uses of fleet rosters would be someone trying to find out exactly just what “number 000 of Xyz Railway” is, which is certainly part of what an encyclopedia should do. Also FWIW, I think that there should be some sort of standardized format for fleet lists to keep them consistent. Useddenim (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Page move request

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Boylston Street Subway that would benefit from your input. Please come and help! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  16:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)