This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Exeter railway station currently links to an article about a minor railway station in Australia. As I pointed out on the talk page there are a number of possible stations this could refer to, so it should really be turned into a disambiguation page, probably with that page being moved to Exeter Railway Station, Australia or something, but I've had no reply. I don't have the powers to move pages around. What does anyone else think? G-13114 (talk) 03:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Making Exeter railway station a disambiguation page seems a bit of a no-brainer to me. With at least 3 or 4 stations in Exeter, Devon it would be justified even if there were no other Exeters in the world but with 3 in Australia, 1 in Canada and 13 in the US listed here, the need seems more justified. NtheP (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
It should be moved back to Exeter, New South Wales for clarity. Likelife (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
@G-13114 - I don't see why you are unable to move pages, since you are an autoconfirmed user - in the normal course of things, registered users get this permission after 4 days and 10 edits, but you now have 7 months and 520 edits, so passed the threshold months ago - on 8 September 2010 by my calc. Assuming that you're using the default Vector skin, have a look at the row of tabs at the top. In between "View history" and the search box there will be a star, and to the right of that there should be a downward-pointing triangle. Hover your mouse over the triangle and it should produce a short menu, containing a "Move" option. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes you were right I can move pages. So I've done it, as no-one disagreed. G-13114 (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The St Pancras International debate starts again...
I would just like to point out that the famous International debate has been opened again, this time by a non-user. If you remember from the last two I am for the name change, but your opinions are need! Likelife (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Infobox conversion tables
Recently I've done a fair few of these, is anyone else willing to add/improve them for the many articles lacking them? Lukeno94 (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Minimum Gauge Railways have Heywood's entire book devoted to them and their definition. They are the smallest gauge of railway (usually taken as fifteen or eighteen inch gauge) taken as being a useful "working" railway, originally for estate use. Miniature railways are rather different from this - they are miniaturised representations of some aspect of full size practice. Although some minimum gauge railways (most of the RH&DR, most contemporary features of the R&ER) are an overlap. Heywood's original Eaton Hall railway, and today's Perrygrove Railway, are not miniature railways. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Fifteen inch gauge railways are just that: no more, no less. Also can we please dump the ludicrous WikiNeologism of calling them "1 foot 3" gauge.
Minimum Gauge Railways are per-Heywood, as defined over a hundred years ago by a very good authority on such. It is not our place to WP:RS:messwiththis.
Miniature railways are, 'railways in miniature'. The precise scope is vague, as it's such a potentially all-encompassing term, but it certainly includes the work of Bassett-Lowke & Greenly. Some of this overlaps with the two categories above, but much doesn't. As we must also look to the scope of "railways", I would suggest that this include passenger-carrying lines of any size, with some degree of permanence; i.e. 7¼" is in, but 3½ and 5" probably not - model engineer's display tracks not, unless they're also a "feature" of some park or gardens. 15" is in when it's trying to look like a "miniature railway", not if it's just Murthwaite granite crusher. 2½, Gauge 1 and LGB would definitely be out.Andy Dingley (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Categorising by gauge alone is not helpful. Function needs to be taken into consideration. Anything of (say) 15" gauge and above that runs between two separate locations should be classed as a "narrow gauge railway". For those railways of 15" gauge and under, they may be a narrow gauge railway, or a miniature railway. If a railway under 15" gauge runs from one location to another, then it is not a miniature railway - Isle of Mull Railway, Wells and Walsingham Light Railway, Wells Harbour Railway (all 10¼" gauge). If a railway just runs around a park, then it is a miniature railway - Eaton Hall Railway, Lakeside Miniature Railway and Rhyl Miniature Railway (all 15" gauge). At an absolute lower limit, I'd say that 3½" gauge should be the lowest we go. Mjroots (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like you're looking to delete minimum gauge railways altogether, despite them being one of the few terms that has a clear definition and a definitive, ordinal use. "Miniature railways" is always going to be a bit fluffy, but MGR isn't.
I'd point out that there's also a related debate on at Commons at present. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. Minimum gauge railway is well defined (under 2ft gauge). Categories are under discussion here, not articles. Mjroots (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I would just like to point out model railways are often referred to as miniature railways. Simply south......trying to improve for 5 years 20:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Are they? 'often'? I don't remember ever seeing that in the UK, except as journalese (they are certainly railways, and they are certainly miniature. Think of the magazine titles: Railway Modeller, Model Rail, Model Railway Constructor, British Railway Modelling...) -- EdJogg (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Isn't this a misleading category name? I had no idea that this referred to 15-inch gauge railways. How many 15" gauge railways are only nominally 15" gauge, as is implied by the (lack of) precision? 381mm suggests a gauge tolerance of less than 0.5mm. Shouldn't we be using the common name for the category? -- EdJogg (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Noisy argument already taking place here. – iridescent 23:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
[ec] Thank you. Bit behind on my watchlist work today. Useful to link from this project too. -- EdJogg (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I put forward a change to the {{railgauge}} template (admins only, or I'd have just done it) that fifteen inch gauge should be fifteen inch and not "1 foot 3", only to be slapped down with a couple of crappy web refs to a Tripod website (Tripod FFS!) and a book on Indian diesels, explaining how it didn't cover them anyway. So despite gauges being complete chaos at the moment, fifteen inch gauge probably isn't the best place to start arguing for sanity. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Assuming good faith and not making any allegations etc etc, but those with long memories may recall that the reason that template's protected in the first place is that we went through exactly the same thing four years ago. That time, it ended in an all-out cage match between the sockpuppets of User:Lucy-marie in the metric corner and User:Canterberry in the imperial corner, resulting in both of them winding up blocked. – iridescent 00:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
There's currently a discussion at WT:TWP about these metric categories. I've made a proposal to rename the categories. Once there is broad consensus at WP level, then renaming should be done via WP:CFD to give uninvolved editors the opportunity to comment. Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
It turned out that TC was a sockpuppet of a banned user. Therefore I've closed the original discussion. His edits may be reverted on sight. However, some good ideas were put forward at TWP about categorization. I've therefore put forward a new proposal for a category tree for rail gauges. Input from members of this WP is welcome over at WT:TWP#Track gauge categories, part 2. Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Updating Project
As you may or may not be aware, WP UK Railways will soon be interviewed by The Signpost for and article about the project. With this in mind, would anybody object to me working on the project to make it look more organised and professional? Thomas888b (Say Hi) 09:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Organised? Professional? . You don't need permission to make good faith attempts to improve things! Mjroots (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, Thanks, Thought I better Check first. Thomas888b (Say Hi) 10:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Page Update
Hi guys, Just a note, I'll finish updating the project page Friday - Sunday. -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 14:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Update Finished Updating member list (took at least 5 hours). Will post later when finishing touches completed. -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 17:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Are you going to do all the days of people joining or should I? Simply south......trying to improve for 5 years 19:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I only put in the ones on the old list. doing everyone would be a mammoth task, I will send round a note asking people to complete missing info. -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 19:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Project template
I would like people's thoughts about creating a new project template that is just for WP UK Railways? -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 08:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I've idly wondered a few times why we don't have our own project template, so I say go for it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
[ec] The {{WikiProject Trains}} template is very comprehensive and includes UK railways as a task-force, allowing easy identification of articles. It has all the mechanisms for article quality management in place already.
Creating a new template will inevitably lead to duplication with the Trains template on every UK article, and many pages are starting to suffer from having too many project templates -- multiple templates will end up being 'stacked' so it will not significantly increase project visibility.
There is also the consideration that time taken to create, apply and maintain a separate template will divert editing time from article improvement (which is much more important).
I'm interested to know what benefits you see in having a separate template? It may be that the existing one already meets these needs.
Well as I understand it there wouldn't be two templates, the WikiProject Trains one would be replaced by the WikiProject UK Railways one. The replacement wouldn't take editorial time as it would be a one-time bot run requested of and done by an existing bot. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
If the intention is to improve visibility of the project, this could be achieved through the {{WikiProject Trains}} template. In cases where the UK option is turned on and all the other geographical options are turned off, it could be redesigned to look more like a UK-project template. Having said that, I'm happy with things as they are, and I don't see much benefit in changing anything. -- Dr Greg talk 13:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
There's no problem in creating a new template of WP:UKRail. As this WP is a child of TWP, it would just mean replacing the TWP template with a UKRail template. Easy job for a bot. Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
While I have no strong opinions against a separate banner for UK railway pages, I would strongly suggest not to replace the TWP banner but add a banner, as the majority of articles within this project's scope are also within the scope of TWP. For one thing, removing the TWP banner would mean that, as lead editor of the Trains portal, I wouldn't have as many articles in one place from which to choose the selected article or "Did you know..." items, which I've maintained on a daily basis for the last six years.
That being said, there are examples of multiple banners such as is being discussed here. For a while, WikiProject Trains in Japan had a separate banner which was applied to articles within that project's scope. That banner wasn't connected to any of the TWP quality categories (or any quality categories of their own, for that matter), so I had a harder time finding appropriate selections from that project to use in the portal. When the {{TIJ}} banner was finally made a redirect to the TWP banner, I was able to easily make selections from that huge group of articles for the portal. Two other examples of separate banners are used by WikiProject Transport in Scotland and WikiProject London Transport. Articles within the scope of those projects show multiple banners, including the TWP banner, which helps simplify my work on the portal as noted above. On articles that already have the separate projects' banners, I don't add the project parameters to the TWP call (like we see on Talk:Carmyle railway station), but if an article falls into another project's scope and doesn't already have the other project's banner, I will use the TWP parameter to denote the scope and reduce the number of banners that are eventually used on the talk page (like we see on Talk:Aberdeen Waterloo railway station). As a side note, when I see a talk page that has four banners, I will now almost always use {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} as well to reduce the display space used by all the banners.
So, if you want to create a separate banner, great. Just don't remove the TWP banner from articles that still fall within TWP's scope. Slambo(Speak) 11:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
A side-issue of that discussion was the improvement of [[Great Western Railway]], which is now a Good Article, and the SR and LMS articles, considerably expanded, although the LNER/BR articles are not much improved.
If we do use that template, how about a picture of an HST in original blue/yellow colouring, or better, a historic loco, such as Mallard or Rocket?
Hmmm, Rocket is the iconic British steam locomotive I suppose. Picture quality needs to be taken into account. This would be a good image to use. Mjroots (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Here are another couple of thoughts I had late last night about this discussion. How many articles are within the scope of WP UK Railways that are not also within the scope of WP Trains? In the two examples that I mentioned above, the Scotland and London transport projects include a large number of articles about bus, river and taxi transportation that are not within the scope of WP Trains; that makes a separate banner for those articles a necessity. But by their very nature, railways within the UK are railways of the world, so I would think that all UK Railways articles are within WP Trains scope, correct? In other words (and I don't want this read the wrong way, but I can't convey tone of voice with this question), what is the problem that needs to be solved by having a separate UK Railways project banner? I am not averse to a separate banner, just wondering if it is necessary. Slambo(Speak) 11:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
London Underground lines
I was just wondering, given that our standard for national rail lines is that Line should be capitalised (West Coast Main Line, Hertford Loop Line, etc), who do we not capitalise LU stuff like Circle line, Piccadilly line, etc? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I think because LU always write it that way. For example they write: Victoria line not Victoria Line. While you always see Network Rail write with a capital for Line for example: West Coast Main Line not West Coast Main line. Likelife (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Lifelike has it covered. The official names use lower-case 'line' however much it offends our British sensibilities! (This has been discussed on numerous occasions at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject London Transport.) -- EdJogg (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Categories in need of population
Category:Standard gauge railways in the United Kingdom has been created per the discussion at TWP. It is further split by country, these sub-categories need categorisation. Note that some lines may fall in more than one category. Please help by adding the appropriate category to articles covering individual railway lines. It may be that we need to sub-divide by county, but that can be addressed at a later date. Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm adding this cat to articles while i'm adding additional info to info boxes. Likelife (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Does this category apply to National Rail and metro lines in the UK? Simply south......trying to improve for 5 years 13:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
London Underground lines are already in the category, make of that what you will. Likelife (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it applies to all railways that run from one place to another - i.e. excluding steam centres, museums etc on one site. Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
And heritage railways that are not e.g. RHD. Simply south......trying to improve for 5 years 21:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
But the RHDR is a 15in gauge line so wouldn't be in that cat anyway...
The cat includes National Rail, Underground, light rail, closed and heritage railways. -- EdJogg (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, there seems to be a misunderstanding. Simply south......trying to improve for 5 years 23:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Per consensus at TWP, it looks like we will be using numerical gauge categories rather than word gauge categories. A sock of a banned editor recently created lots of metric categories, such as Category:381 mm track gauge to replace worded categories such as Category:Fifteen inch gauge railways. These will become Category:15 inch gauge railways, the metric cat can be deleted when empty, the word cat can be turned into a redirect. Mjroots (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't meaning to make the matter more complicated. I was meaning the "and heritage railways that are not e.g. RHD" after "i.e. excluding steam centres, museums etc on one site". Simply south......trying to improve for 5 years 08:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The categories for narrow and broad gauge railways have been created. For now, they are mostly not split by country. This can be done should it prove desirable. All categories are now at numbered rather than word names, such as Category:3ft gauge railways. The scope of each category is given, any particular "gauge" covers roughly a 3" span with a couple of minor exceptions immediately above and below standard gauge. A number on mm gauge categories were created by a sock of a banned editor. Once these have been emptied, they can be tagged with{{db-g6|rationale=Created by sock of banned [[User:Tobias Conradi]]}}. Note that legitimate metric categories (usually ending on 00 or 50 mm, plus Category:760 mm gauge railways) have been kept, these were not created by the sock of the banned editor. Mjroots (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Infobox informational on NR lines
I've been adding infoboxes and more information on our rail lines for a while now, but don't know all info. If you could help by adding information in info boxes on railway lines it would be appreciated. Likelife (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Level crossing icons in RDTs
We now have two significantly different icons for level crossings - the traditional (BUE) and also (UKLC) which was created relatively recently. Do we want to prefer the use of one over the other; permit the use of both for different situations; or permit the use of both interchangeably? Please see Template talk:South Wales Main Line#LCs. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Hm, interesting, though I'd say the latter one looks more like the traffic lights are on the line rather than the road. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Ugly thing, if you ask me. I wouldn't feature level crossings in the diagram at all, unless they are notable (Ufton Nervet, say, or Sheringham where the crossing forms the boundary between two different railways). Britmax (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Britmax, and also note that neither of these symbols show a road, so there should be some other significance in using them. Without checking all the possible legends, I'd say that it should be clear where a road crosses the railway if it is an overbridge, underbridge or a level crossing, and there are still many level crossings on A-roads. Tim PF (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Can't say I like the UKLC one. The other one could be improved (possibly as a separate icon) by the addition of a road. Possibly several different icons with different colours for different classes of road. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Britmax, unless the LC is notable then they should be left off diagrams. NtheP (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
There's a difference between there being a (large) number of LCs on a line and them being notable. On a short section of line like the K&ES I'm not that bothered, my fear is that there is a degree of "rivet counting" occurs and every bridge/LC/occupation crossing/culvert starts to be inserted into diagrams like {{East Coast Main Line}}. To me it's a matter of determining the appropriate level of detail and unless they really are notable e.g. Lincoln High Street, Wadebridge Molesworth Street - where they are known for the level of disruption caused to road traffic, then to me they're a feature too far. NtheP (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Mission creep personified. And look at the width! I try to make diagrams no more than half the page wide at 150% size on my screen. At 150% this one takes over the article! And the BR symbols? Don't get me started (too late, I know...!) Britmax (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject UK Railways in the Signpost
WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject UK Railways for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I have a quick question. I've been working on the Severn Beach Line station articles, and have a small issue. Some stations on the line legitimately have disused rail services in the sboxes, for instance Severn Beach used to not be a terminus, so a disused insert is useful there. Similarly, Sea Mills can have a disused box for continuation to Hotwells. But should the stations in between, where the current service mirrors the old service, also have disused sboxes? -mattbuck (Talk) 14:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Try using a Historic box rather than a Disused box. It also helps if this is in the History section rather than Services. This gets around the "line open but station closed" problem. Take a look at Truro to see what I mean. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Do we have any infoboxes for old railway companies? The GWR one is a custom template, and the category for infoboxes doesn't appear to have anything useful. I've been working on Bristol Port Railway and Pier and figure an infobox would be useful.
As a sidenote, does ANYONE know when the company folded and became a part of the GWR/MR? It seems to have been subsumed at some point but I haven't found a source that can tell me when yet. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Yep.
Awdry, Christopher (1990). Encyclopaedia of British Railway Companies. London: Guild Publishing. p. 208. CN 8983.
MacDermot, E.T. (1931). History of the Great Western Railway, vol. II: 1863-1921. Paddington: Great Western Railway. pp. 94–95, 338–9, 630, 631. OCLC55853736.
The Bristol Port, Railway & Pier Co. was incorporated 17 July 1862, opened Clifton (Hotwells)-Avonmouth 6 March 1865. The company didn't fold as such - it was purchased jointly by GWR/MR under Act of 25 July 1890 and essentially merged into the Clifton Extension Railway wef 1 September 1890.
The Clifton Extension Rly, which was GWR/MR joint right from the start, was auth. 15 August 1867, opd. 1 Oct 1874 between Bristol and Clifton Down; extended to Sneyd Park Junction (BPR&P) 24 Feb 1877 initially for goods; passenger services extended from Clifton Down to Avonmouth 1 Sep 1885 provided by GWR from Temple Meads and by MR from St. Philip's. MR pass service withdrawn 1886.
At the western end, a 55-chain connection to the GWR at Gloucester Road Jc opd 5 Feb 1900; and a 26-chain conn to GWR at St Andrews Jc opd 9 May 1910. MR share became LMS share at grouping, so the co was joint until the end of 1947. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I've just noticed File:Railway halt.jpg, currently gracing the main train station article, and described on its file description page as just "A (very remote) railway halt somewhere in Scotland". This looks dubious to me—the platform is completely unsignposted, but it's clearly very narrow gauge. AFAIK the only narrow-gauge lines still operational in Scotland are the Almond Valley Light Railway, the Alford Valley Railway and the Leadhills and Wanlockhead Railway; this doesn't look like either of the former. It could be part of the L&W, but it would be a great stretch to describe that (off the M74 a little way south of Glasgow) as "very remote", and I don't think they have any "rural halt" type stations.
Anyone have any thoughts? – iridescent 10:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
It's clearly an unmarked platform on a narrow gauge line with what looks like lower-quadrant signalling at one end. It looks like it's a single line on a formation wide enough for double line (or possibly single line of standard gauge?), and it's on the side of a wooded valley. It was taken on 8 June 2007 according to the exif, and the other photographs he has uploaded with similar exif dates [1], [2] (both 5 June 2007) are labelled as being on the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man Railway is narrow gauge, but it isn't a railway with which I am familiar. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I've travelled on the IOMSR, and it don't look like any station there that I know of. Track looks to be less than 3' gauge, and probably nearer 2' gauge. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it's Llangower on the Bala Lake Railway (see photo on this page, though taken from the other direction). If others agree with me, I can add it to that article, which needs a photo. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 18:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a good match to me. Well spotted. NtheP (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Llangower station, with train arriving - geograph.org.uk - 1326558.jpgAnd to prove it, here's another one... -- Dr Greg talk 18:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes indeed - but there are slight differences: the white splodges on the platform ramp match for images 1 & 2, but not image 3. Curiously, image 2 shows a second spectacle on the main post, just below the bracket signal's arm, which is not visible on either images 1 or 3. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Two more mystery stations from Commons. No clues this time. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Station 1
Station 2
I've got a distinct Crewe vibe about no. 1, which definitely has four tracks flanked by a Platform 6 - this is Crewe platform 5, which is the one on the other side of those four tracks. The platform canopy style looks the same to me. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Platform 6 at Crewe looks about right to me too for Station 1. Station 2 looks like it may be Wolverhampton, and the photo's file name includes "WOV". If the "120602" means 12 June 2002, this would be before the new through platform 4 was built. Having said that, it could be almost anywhere; does the "1H39" headcode in the filename help? Tim PF (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
1H39 has apparently been the 15:20 London Euston to Manchester Piccadilly service for a number of years, although that doesn't (these days at least) call at Wolverhampton (Euston-Milton Keynes-Stoke on Trent-Stockport-Manchester Piccadilly). It's also an Aberdeen to Inverness service but that's unit operated. This Flikr photo is an almost exact match for the location and is clearly labelled as being at Wolverhampton. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed that it matches the Flickr photo almost exactly. I did consider Wolverhampton earlier: but discounted it on the grounds that the platform numbers in the photo are 1b and 4, whereas my Quail/Trackmaps gives platform numbers at that position as 1b and 6 (6 being the north-end bay used for Shrewsbury services, whereas 4 is the up slow on the far side of the station). --Redrose64 (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - both now updated with location info. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Describing services from stations
Hello all. I'm working on improving the articles on stations in the West Midlands in particular. I'm trying to establish how best to present the information on services from a station. An unscientific survey of articles suggests there is no real consensus on how to do this, so I guess I'm hoping we can establish one?
There are currently a number of different ways I've seen this done.
As prose:
"The station is currently served by two trains per hour in each direction. There are two trains per hour to Cardiff Central via Bristol Temple Meads. There is one train per hour to Reading, and one train per hour to Nottingham."
By platform:
"Platform 1: two trains per hour to Cardiff Central. Platform 2: one train per hour to Reading and one train per hour to Nottingham."
It was suggested to me on the talk page for Birmingham New Street that the WikiProject ought to come up with a consensus on this issue to ensure consistency across all stations as and when they're edited - and I'm hopefully going to be going through pretty much all the stations in the West Mids soon, so it'd be good if we could all have a think about this.
I personally favour the idea of a list, because it's scalable to larger stations, such as indeed New Street.
As a second issue I've found problems when there is a complex service pattern - e.g. some trains terminate short, some trains run fast and some run slow, some share a route for some distance before going off different ways, etc. I've just edited the Birmingham New Street article's list of services as it was slightly inaccurate anyway. I've dealt with a few of these problems here - specifically by using an indented sub-bullet to show when trains run together, with some terminating at A and others continuing past A to B. Where there are fast and slow trains to a certain station, I've listed them as separate bullets. I'm not sure how well either of these work, in terms of clarity. I'd be grateful if other members of the WikiProject would take a look at give suggestions.
So I guess the question, ultimately, is this: do we agree with using lists to show services, and how do we think we should deal with complicated service patterns?
Many thanks all jdan (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it depends on the station. I've been working on some Severn Beach Line stations, and prose makes sense there, as it allows for a fair amount of description, which given the dearth of other useful info about the station is quite nice for bulking up the article. But I can see that at New Street prose would be impenetrable. By platform generally won't work as trains can often switch platforms at larger stations. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I would agree prose may be unworkable on busy stations, the way I prefer it is to list the average morning peak with their destinations and via's, you then avoid having to account for reduced offpeak/weekend services, fluctuations or unique services that may only occur once per day or week, these can be listed elsewhere if notable. WatcherZero (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
What about historical services? Article should cover all train services from the station since opening. Are the current services any more notable than those of the past? If a service is hourly now, was it half-hourly in the past (or vice versa) and does this indicate increase/decrease in passenger usage...
This kind of info strays close to 'travel brochure' territory (although I can understand the need to provide an indication of the busy-ness of a station) and can make for very boring reading, whatever form it takes. If you apply it to one station, you should apply it to all...what about a major London terminus or such as Clapham Junction?? Could go on for pages! (Sorry, not really 'angry' about this, just a quick response with a differing viewpoint.) -- EdJogg (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Nobody has to read such info if they don't want to. I think it's important - I've sometimes read articles on stations and thought "wow, I didn't realise there was a direct train to there from here!". I think current services must surely be more important than historical services, by virtue of the fact they're the most relevant to the person reading the article in the present. There's no harm at all in having a history section which details such things, in fact I'd positively encourage it, but I think you'd confuse people if you tried to include historical information in the 'services' section.
I think it seems fair that the format used might vary depending on how busy the station is, like Mattbuck says. I guess really I'm looking for guidance on how to lay out complex service patterns - do people approve of what I've done on Birmingham New Street or would you suggest a better way to do it? jdan (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Clapham Junctiondoes go on for pages! And that's before you start looking at the services summary box. I like to see a paragraph (or perhaps two) describing the general pattern Southern operate services through Clapham Junction between London Victoria and an area bounded by the south coast between Southampton and Hastings), the fastest trains running non-stop to East Croydon... with a summary box reduced as much as possible that just shows the next station along each line that is served by each operator (Battersea Park; Wandsworth Common). It's do-able, but can be a stimulating exercise in succinct prose and lateral thinking. Definitely don't list every minor variation in calling patterns and frequencies!
Historic services should be in the History section. But do try to be balanced and not just say "last timetable there was one more train each day", instead try to relate it back 10, 50 or 100 years so that you show different routes and closed stations. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I would also avoid listing every station on the route as some pages do, mainly for the above mentioned 'Travel Brochure' concern. Just keep it simple with destination, via and exceptional services e.g. 'only four services a day to x destination call at y intermediate station' should be kept out of list of services itself and possibly described elsewhere on the page, either as 'issues and criticisms' or 'Historical services'. WatcherZero (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Commons categorisation by unit
A discussion about potentially adding extra categorisation of Commons images by unit number is (for some reason) taking place on my en.wp talkpage. Train pictures are currently (in the process of being) categorised by class, then operator, line and livery. Please feel free to weigh in, especially if you have an opinion about the potential category names. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
National Railway Museum event starts in JUNE
Wikimedia UK is trying to find wikipedians who could assist the National Railway Museum with the creation of articles. Their staff would like to initially create articles on railway related art, but Wikimedia are looking for a person to be the lead contact wuith this important museum. This could be an interesting opportunity and travelling expenses are likely. Victuallers (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I started looking at some key paintings that probably satisfy notability criteria, but I got side tracked into a couple of GA pushes and forgot about it. If the NRM was able to release some good quality copies of paintings and other objects in their collection that might be the impetus to get going on this area. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
That is brilliant news. Two experienced editors is exactly what we wanted. If anyone wants to discuss more then please look at my talk page. This will be I believe the most important wiki event in next few months outside London. We see the NRM as a key partner in helping wikipedia so this should be interesting. Victuallers (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I think I may have some time on my hands over the next three months, and am about 90 minutes from York. I'd be happy, at least, to enter into talks with them to find out what sort of assistence they want and work out whether I can help. --Tagishsimon(talk) 12:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Brilliant news. Any late arrivals to this subject should apply ay my talk page. There will be more news on an event at the NRM VERY soon. Victuallers (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
TagishSimon is "the lead" for this event and project at the NRM. Its starting NOW! If you want to be involved then do contact Simon. We would like to make sure the leading UK Railways project know they are very welcome. Victuallers (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Railway line coordinates
A bot has today tagged many articles about railway lines as needing coordinates. The guidance on what coordinates to use for linear features is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Linear and basically gives a list of options to consider. The draft [their emphasis] for railways is to use the midpoint as the "main coordinates" and the endpoints as "further recommended" coordinates.
It would make sense to standardise on one scheme for all UK railway lines, and the midpoint/endpoints looks like a good scheme to use. Any thoughts? Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. Some lines are hundreds of miles long, and may span many more than one degree of latitude or longitude. For example, the ECML runs from 51.5309°N to at least 55.952°N, and the GWML runs from 0.1774°W to 5.53223°W, so a greater accuracy than a whole degree risks being overprecise. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
To work out a midpoint, one needs to know the length of the line, then divide by 2, then find where that place is on the line. All of which smacks of WP:OR to me. Coords are fine for something in a fixed position, like a station, but not for railway lines. Suggest the bot is reverted. Mjroots (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I really cannot see any point in specifying a midpoint for any linear feature, unless it is straight and fairly short, such as most bridges. If both endpoints are specified, then a link can then easily be made to generate a map that is correctly scaled to show the feature, or at least the approximate route. This of course would also be of benefit to all but the shortest bridges and tunnels. There are a few linear features for which 2 endpoints would not suffice, such as the Alps, the River Severn or the Irish border, in which case, one or more midpoints could be chosen to give an idea of its wiggle. The same system should work for most railways, except, perhaps, the Circle Line. Does WP:IAR apply here? Tim PF (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The problem with specifying more than one coordinate is that (at present) only one can be displayed in the header. To have more than one requires having them as in-line links, which appear as a string of apparently meaningless digits which (in my opinion) detracts from the readability of the article.—Optimist on the run (the admin formerly known as Tivedshambo) (ask me why) 21:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
THere is no way a single grid reference can accurately represent the location of a railway line. If you look at some articles, take the Far North Line for example, a list of places served and their grid references are provided. In addition, those with route maps have links to the individual stations, each of which does have (or should have) the relevant geodata. --Stewart(talk | edits) 11:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we should have coordinates - for something like a railway line it just makes no sense. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, as long as features on lines e.g. stations have co-ordinates that is enough. Even endpoints for lines make little sense as they don't tell you anything about how a line wanders between those endpoints. NtheP (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
If we must use coordinates, let's use the main terminal, eg mostly the London ones. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Which is why I go for not bothering, it's going to look ridiculous on some articles; and as I've already stated as long as station articles carry their co-ords I really don't see the point. It smacks to me of another of these "whizzy things we can do to an article" that don't add to the article. NtheP (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I too can see no reason for adding coordinates. Now, if they wanted a decent map showing where it was in the country... Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Presumably the reason for adding coordinates is so that the article is detected by and linked from online maps and similar resources. That makes sense for a point location, such as a station, but not for a linear feature like a railway. You would really need to 'draw' the railway on the map in some way and attach that line to the article, such that the article could be accessed anywhere along the line. If this is the reason for wanting to add coords, then it is rather useless in its current implementation. Incidentally, (one of) the first links in the station article should be to the railway line, so there's no point an online map linking to the line if the station article is already identified. This seems like a waste of time when there's much more important information missing from so many articles. -- EdJogg (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
In terms of "drawing the railway on the map", I presume that Open Street Map have already done this. The most efficient thing to do would seem to be for them to associate the linear feature in their data with a Wikipedia article; or for us to associate our article with a specific linear feature in the OSM dataset. I have no idea how OSM stores it's data, so I don't know how workable this is. It would seem logical for the OSM data to have efficient handling of multiple coordinates though. I also have no idea whether OSM's licensing would allow bits to be extracted for use as an overlay on a proprietary map like Google's. Thryduulf (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Offa's Dyke has a map reference which (in Google Maps) points to a pub. This seems to me to be a neat way of solving the dilemma; arrange the co-ordinates to point to a pub next to the line, and then ask the landlord for free beer in return for the advertising. Ning-ning (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
But Offa's Dyke uses the {{GeoGroupTemplate}}, so by clicking on the Map of all coordinates from ... link, you can get a map with the two end points and the pub in the middle. If the Far North Line used geographic coordinates (rather than OSG), adding the template should show a similar plot of stations. If Wikipedia itself can only show one coordinate, then in most cases, it makes sense to start with the major terminus (or Edinburgh Waverley for the Fife Circle Line), for other lines, the start may have to be arbitrary. Tim PF (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this all day event is being organized by the NRM and the intention is to have equivalent numbers of Wikimedians and museum professionals in the York and nearby areas to workshop through what has worked well for our type of engagement with "e-volunteers" at editathons and behind-the-scenes events such as those at the British Library and Derby Museum to reach some commitments for future events for Wikipedians and Wikimedians to enjoy around York and in particular the NRM.
The registration page is at wmuk:National Railway Museum or you can drop me an email or note to discuss your interest further if you would like to join the event or could lead part of the workshop. Cheers Fæ (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
We need a discussion about the level of detail acceptable on these templates. I think that some of us are forgetting that they exist to serve the articles not the other way around. Look at this {{West Wales Line RDT}} appalling mess. I know I put a level crossing on a "B" road on West Somerset Mineral Railway but I did that because it is the only way of finding the top of the now dismantled incline. Does the use of the icon add anything to the West Wales diagram? What is the idea of all the BR signs and the "train" logo at Swansea? Do we not realise that it's a railway station otherwise? The line is a BS4 - or 5-2 at the most, why is it in BS 8-2? At 150% on my screen it dwarfs the article text. Why? Britmax (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Er, perhaps you'd better see the message I put on the perp's talk page back in February. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I don't want this kind of thing to spread, though. It's easier to stop it than undo it afterward. Britmax (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The level of detail depends on the line in question. With the smaller lines, such as {{Kent and East Sussex Railway}}, we can afford to get fairly detailed, although not to the extent of culverts and minor occupation crossings, although these may possibly be includable depending on circumstances, as in {{Hawkhurst Branch Line RDT}}. On the other hand, {{East Coast Main Line}} is horribly lacking in detail. For very long diagrams, it is possible to collapse sections of the diagram, as has been done at {{River Medway map}}. Mjroots (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree it doesn't help too much, this one looks ugly, but I think there is a case for detailed RDTs, just in collapsed form by default. Or maybe a link at the bottom of the RDT saying "full detailed version". -mattbuck (Talk) 15:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I think we should have a guideline for maximum length of the template (e.g. number of lines of template per mile of railway). If we want more detail than that then put it in a "route of the X Line" or something page that is linked from the main article but not transcluded in there. Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that that suggestion would work. Sometimes, several junctions in a relatively short space mean lots of lines on a diagram, whereas several miles of plain track get represented by a single line. The suggestion of a separate page for a detailed diagram is good. I've used it myself at Template:Medway watermills diagram due to size issues. Mjroots (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll go do a new diagram for that line. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
It's a bit longer that the one you're using but width is more important IMO particularly in a long article like ECML. It's BS5 and should cut and paste into your diagram, just ask if you have a problem. Try not to use the "one cell" icon, they are too small to see without a magnifying glass. Britmax (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Another dusty corner of Wikipedia discovered. Let's get the diagram drawn first, then we can sort out minor technical details such as where to house it. The Medway watermills diagram is quite happy where it is, and has been for a while. It is linked from the main page that it relates to. Mjroots (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, got as far as Darlington, but have come up against a problem. What is the route of the ECML north of Darlington to Newcastle upon Tyne? Mjroots (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
In what sense? It takes the left-most line out of Darlington and heads to Durham without an intermediate station (that I know of). There's a right side branch leading to a cement works somewhere along the route ... the route crosses the A1 three times ... what sort of info do you need? Coordinates? Features? --Tagishsimon(talk) 19:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Is it Darlington - Shildon - Bishop Aukland - Durham - Chester le Street, Darlington - Ferry Hill - Leamside - Washington, or some other route. Am using Jowett's to get all the branches etc. Mjroots (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
This might help for the first section. I'm using an online map & personal knowledge. It's not Shildon nor Bishop Auckland ... that's the left hand line out of Darlington.
Thanks, I should be able to work it out from that. Will do more tomorrow, unless anyone else with a copy of Jowett's wants to carry on. Use small junction icons for now, we can polish the diagram later. Mjroots (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I've continued it to Newcastle, fwiw. Have fun. Looking at this, I can see there are more lifted lines than was evident to me from a contemporary map. --Tagishsimon(talk) 19:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, Diagram drawn. Now, do we replace the existing diagram with this one, or handle it some other way? Mjroots (talk) 10:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The diagram has been linked from the ECML template. Mjroots (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
At Kings Cross, Brown (maybe I should create a template on his book) shows that the line through York Road station was southbound only, with tracks later splitting to go both east (York Road Curve) and west (Maiden Lane Curve), yet it is only the route that comes from the Widened Lines (Hotel Curve, incidentally on a flat crossing with Maiden Lane Curve) that surves an abandoned platform at Kings Cross mainline. Should this be added, or be separate? Simply south......unintentionally misspelling fr 5 years 20:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
where on p.22 I see no indication of a westbound curve from York Road. I do see a curve shown in dashed black at approximately that position; but that is the connection between the Piccadilly Line and the Northern Line for stock movements. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Look at page 54. I have the second edition, 2009 as well as the first edition. Simply south......unintentionally misspelling fr 5 years 12:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The north-to-west curve (named "Maiden Lane Curve") seems to be dated 1863-1865 so its closure precedes the opening of the Widened Lines proper (1868). Being in use for no more than three years, I think that its inclusion on a diagram focusing on the ECML would be unnecessary detail, and possibly misleading too. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
West Coast Main Line RDT
Back in January, I picked up that there was an orphaned attempt to expand the {{West Coast Main Line}} at {{WCML}}. I did a bit of work on it, including adding the main loops / diversionary routes, but gave up when I realised it was getting rather long and wide (an not collapsible), and I still had quite a few old routes to check. But, since Mjroots is working on the ECML RDT, I thought I'd mention this WCML RDT at {{Tim PF/WCML}} in case anyone thought it could still be used for those who want the additional detail. Tim PF (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
If we are going to show this much detail I think there may be a case for dividing these line articles a la London to Penzance Line. Britmax (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
What's wrong with detailed diagrams? Mjroots (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Detailed diagrams can take up too much space on an article page, but giving a link from a simplified diagram can give the best of both worlds, which, I suppose, answers my original question. Tim PF (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Subpages in general
Why are some of these on article sub-pages instead of the template namespace where they should be? Simply south......unintentionally misspelling fr 5 years 16:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Speaking for the ECML detailed diagram, it's because that's where I created it. WP:SP is only a guideline in any case, so it does not have to be followed, per WP:IAR. As I stated above, the Medway watermills diagram has happily sat on a subpage for quite a while now. The ECML detailed diagram is linked from the p... very poor template for those who wish to have a comprehensive overview of the line. Mjroots (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Since the subpage feature is turned off in article space, East Coast Main Line/Diagram is a base page in its own right, with the "/" character being treated as if it were a regular character like a-z etc. Whilst Talk:East Coast Main Line/Diagram is a subpage - you can spot this because just below the title it shows
Clang! Ah, the penny drops. OK, what about moving the /Diagram page to East Coast Main Line Diagram? Would that work? Mjroots (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I would still argue that is a subpage unless it counts as a joint title e.g. HIStory/Ghosts, hopefully not moving into STICK territory. Simply south......unintentionally misspelling fr 5 years 21:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
While it might be a subpage in terms of content and the intent of the naming, subpages are not technically possible in the main namespace, although they are enabled in most other namespace. This leads to the confusion noted above by Redrose. Regardless of the intention of the present naming, Wikipedia does not use subpages or subpage naming for articles, see Wikipedia:Subpages#Articles do not have sub-pages (main namespace). As for the name of this particular page, East Coast Main Line diagram (note lowercase d) or Diagram of the East Cost Main Line would be appropriate titles. Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Erm, they wouldn't be articles either even though they are in the article namespace. Simply south......unintentionally misspelling fr 5 years 22:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Well ideally they should have a couple of sentences or so of prose introduction, but they're basically lists, just presented graphically rather than textually. Thryduulf (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Remember that someone could arrive via the 'random article' link, so at the very least there should be a paragraph explaining what the page is and summarising what the ECML is.
Regarding title: how should the page appear in search results? under 'East Coast...' or under 'Diagram...' ?
Good points. I've a slight preference for it appearing under 'East Coast...' but which ever we choose a redirect from the other can easily be created. There appear to be no relevant pages starting with 'Diagram of...', but that may be because other than this and the watermills diagram noted on this page, there may be no other pages? Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The diagram has been moved, and a short lede with a link to the main article added. As ever, feel free to improve the diagram. Distances from KX in miles and chains (km), length of tunnels, etc could be added. Mjroots (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Just a suggestion, but as others may wish to link to the diagram would it be better saved as a template and East Coast Main Line diagram consist of the text and a template link? NtheP (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
What would the practical difference be? Unless we're planning on having the diagram on more than one page? Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
That's my point, someone may wish to use the diagram on another page. NtheP (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
In general yes, that's why they're templates. But this is a diagram that exists only because it is too large to be on the main page? Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
What other page would it be used on? Templates don't work across wiki's, do they? Mjroots (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
No, templates don't work across wikis. There is support for enabling interwiki transclusion, but (a) it seems likely that this will work like images (i.e. transclude locally or from Commons only) and (b) it needs some code changes doing first. See bugzilla:4547. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
That bug says in Indonesian "There is currently no text in this page. You can search for this page title in other pages, look for logs related to, or edit this page." Is that a misprint? Mjroots (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
That's me getting the interwiki prefixes wrong, sorry! I've now fixed the link. Thryduulf (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
What other pages. Who knows, someone might decide to stick both the ECML & the WCML diagrams into the article on the Race to the North to show the two routes. Many RDT are only used in one article but that doesn't stop them being saved as templates, so why be exceptional here? NtheP (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, we'll need a detailed WCML diagram too. I've no objection to the diagram being converted to a template, but I just wasn't sure that there would be a need for it. The idea of the RDTs being housed on Commons, thus enabling their use across all Wikis, is a good one. Not sure what the proper venue would be to raise this though. Mjroots (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The diagrams yes would work well, but would all the English labelling, etc? As for where to raise it, probably WT:TRAINS, but I'd wait until the feature is available (don't hold your breath!) first. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Midland Main Line RDT
The Template:Midland Main Line appears to have grown recently to the point that it has prevented the Midland Main Line article from loading properly, so I've stopped it transcluding (now a regular wikilink). Should the article transclude a simpler template as we now have for the East Coast Main Line? Tim PF (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
That one was fairly detailed, I'd offer to do one but I've never been entirely sure quite what the Midland Main Line is - according to the diagram it's almost all the bits between the East and West Coast Mains, but never quite got a handle on what exactly. It could certainly do with a simpler one. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
At one time it ran all the way to Carlisle (via Settle) and to Manchester (via Matlock), as well as other odd places. Bits have been hacked off every few years, and nowadays it's essentially three routes from St Pancras: (i) to Sheffield via Derby; (ii) to Nottingham; (iii) to Corby. There are the usual peak-time variations and extensions, such as Sheffield to Leeds and Corby to Melton Mowbray, but there's nowhere near as many as there used to be. See Table 53. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
That's more the TOC route map, not the line route map. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
In which case, it's the portions of the old Midland Railway system which are still open, less the Derby-Bristol route and the bits north of Leeds. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Nottingham to Lincoln is still open (although not to St Marks), and I'm not sure if the line to Corby is part of the MML either. I note that the current template only goes as far as Leeds (with a closed gap north of Swinton), but doesn't really include the Manchester bit. I would have done it as London - Leicester - Sheffield - Leeds, with the branches or loops for Nottingham, Derby and Manchester. Tim PF (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I belive that Corby now has a direct service to London. So on that basis it could probably be considered part of the MML. The line through Corby used to be part of an alternative route to Nottingham, via Melton Mowbray and a line from Melton Mowbray to Nottingham, part of which is now a test track.
Are we talking about making a map the modern day MML or the historic version? There seems to be some confusion. If the former then we should cut out Carlisle, Manchester, Leeds and the Corby/Melton Mowbray/Nottingham route. I think everyone can agree that the 'core' of the MML today is the line from London to Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield, with the branch to Corby. I'm not sure that Leeds should be included any more than Edinburgh should be considered part of the WCML. G-13114 (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Corby is Grand Central, whatever it's called now. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Manchester Metrolink street stops
Concerning Manchester Metrolink stops which are not on a segregated line but situated in a street or other thoroughfare: does such a stop deserve its own article, or should it be covered in an article primarily concerning the street concerned? This decision affects the name of the article; so please comment initially at Talk:St Peter's Square Metrolink station#Scope. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Currently, we have a number of articles named "British Rail Class foo" where the particular class came into service after the privatisation of British Rail. British Rail Class 70 (diesel) being one such example. I'd like to propose a mass renaming of these to "TOPS Class foo". Such renaming would not apply to any class introduced before the privatisation of British Rail. These articles would remain at "British Rail Class foo" titles. Opening for discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC) See also comment on Category_talk:British_Rail_diesel_locomotives—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.96.138 (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2011
Support as proposer. These classes are numbered under the TOPS system, and therefore the proposed name is valid. Mjroots (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - other places have used TOPS, so just using it for British articles would be rather an overreach. The way I see it, British Rail Class X can mean "British Rail" the corporation, but could also just be British Rail as in the railways of Britain. Possibly the R should be decapitalised, but I generally think the current system is fine. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, TOPS is not an exclusive system to Britain and so is ambiguous. The numbers are allocated by the National Rolling Stock Library (NRSL), but that is a name that is far from being in common usage and so inappropriate. The "British Rail Class foo" name is not actually incorrect either because the NRSL has continued to use the British Rail classification system since privatisation. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Something need doing, as it is plain silly to mislead people into thinking British Rail has anything at all to do with things like the Class 70. "British Rail Class 70 (diesel)" is not used outside Wikipedia, factually inaccurate and very misleading. I think the number of people who would incorrectly think a Freightliner Class 70 belongs to a US (or whatever) railroad because it has a TOPS number would be fewer than the number of people who might incorrectly think something labeled as British Rail is something to do with British Rail. I'm not sure what the best answer is, though. Wheeltapper (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The problem with using "TOPS Class foo" titles is that there are potentially many completely different types of train that are allocated Class 70 in a TOPS-based classification system, we'd then need disambiguation pages and parenthetically disambiguated titles which should generally be avoided if there is an equally or more appropriate alternative. As I said previously, labelling something as "British Rail Class foo" is not misleading when it uses the British Rail classification system. There is also benefit to consistency of having all present day trains at the same title - we should not expect people readers to know that while the Class 59s were introduced under British Rail, the similar Class 66s were not. What about the Class 57s - which post-date BR but use BR-era bodyshells? I'm not opposed in principle to a renaming, but the new name must be better than what we have currently, but "TOPS Class foo" isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
That could be worked around should it prove necessary, either by hatnotes or disambigation "TOPS Class foo (UK)". Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - I'm not completely happy with all British train articles having 'British Rail' in the title, let alone adding TOPS. TOPS is not just in the UK so this makes no difference, because it will at the end of the day still have 'Class XXX' in the title. Likelife (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Like Lifelike, I see "British Rail" as somewhat problematic, but TOPS would be far worse. Not many people have any idea of TOPS existence, let alone the implications of it as a name. "British Rail" might be anachronistic in some cases, but its meaning is clear to pretty much all readers and will be interpreted in a usefulk manner, even if it's pedantically speaking wrong for some of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
COMMENT Usually people explain why they are proposing something, as this hasn't been done I will. I moved British Rail Class 70 (diesel) to Powerhaul (locomotive) to prevent the title being slightly misleading since the scope of the article had expanded (the locomotives are now also to be used by TCDD). I though this was a non controversial move eg Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Reasons_for_moving_a_pageIt is an article at a descriptive name and the scope of the article has been reduced, extended or otherwise changed. Unfortunately someone decided that it was not acceptable and used their powers to move it back [3] . However this proposal does not solve the current issue at the article which directly results from my move being reverted.Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
To clear up some confusion you are apparently experiencing, I should point out that anyone could have moved the article back, and that I have absolutely no special powers on en.Wikipedia. A move/edit is controversial if it generates controversy, ie disagreement, which yours did. This is how Wikipedia works - be bold, revert, discuss. I am not saying your argument doesn't have merit, I'm simply saying that I think moving it is taking bold a step too far - hence we discuss it. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Discuss it then - all you've done so far is basically block a normal move. It's your revert that has caused the current problem, not my move. I seem to remember you have a habit of reverting obvious move, and then insisting on it being "discussed" yet you haven't made any attempt to discuss, or solve the problem. Ultimately your actions are those of a time waster and a troll. Good luck with that. Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Sf5xeplus: Please be WP:CIVIL. Editors kindly give their time freely.—Sladen (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose it will be a disambiguation nightmare particularly with competing international articles, plus its still British Rails TOPS classification system even if British Rail itself is no longer around, they originally 'authored' it. WatcherZero (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Acutally, British Rail did not "author" TOPS, that honour goes to the Southern Pacific Railroad in the United States. BR were one of a number of railways that bought the system from SP. Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Which was why I put it in quotes, they created the British system that is still in use today and has been heavily modified over the last 50 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatcherZero (talk • contribs) 18:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The choice of classification and allocation of locomotives to numbers and classes was a BR decision. TOPS only provided the constraints.
Oppose Longer, less predictable and less succinct article titles. I'd probably entertain "British Class XX", but still regard it as less preferable than the current "British Rail Class XX". —Sladen (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Alternative suggestion
I agree that British Rail class xx is misleading, though it seems from the above that TOPS class is an unpopular option. I'd like to suggest "British class xx locomotive", or "British class xxx multiple unit" instead (with the alternatives for the class 70s being British class 70 diesel locomotive and British class 70 electric locomotive). — Tivedshambo (t/c) 21:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Support as nominator — Tivedshambo (t/c) 21:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
suggestion for modern units Why not try using the manufacturers (or users) name if no common name exists for units produced after BR became defunct eg "Hitachi Class 395" [4] "Freightliner Class 70" / "General Electric Class 70". It can be quite suprising how commonly used these terms are (ie try a google search) - AND - in some cases it seems that the only place that the "BR Class xxx" term is used is on wikipedia eg http://www.google.co.uk/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=british+rail+class+70 (note all those links are copies of wikipedia ie someone on amazon publishing wikipedia articles for profitfacebook are just replicating the wiki content becuase they can. To their credit http://www.stevekempsbritishtransportphotos.fotopic.net/c1818813.html has used the term, but it actually seems a rare use - for "Freightliner class 70" uses include [5] the owners, magazines (railway herald, railexpress, railwaygazette) various interest groups (ie forums blogs), and model manufacturers and sellers. In fact nearly everyone but wikipedia.Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC) I assume that nobody has issues with the title of say British Rail Class 37 ? Sf5xeplus (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Support, but only for classes that entered service after the privatisation of Brititsh Rail. There's no need to rename those articles covering classes introduced when British Rail was in existence. Mjroots (talk) 06:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Manufacturers rarely use class numbers themselves, they refer to the name of the family or sub family usually e.g. 'Siemens Desiro' or 'Bombardier Electrostar' (see manufacturers websites) while ROSCOS always use the class/subclass numbers as the primary identifier (see their websites such as Angel Trains or Porterbrook) though admittedly they dont use 'BR Class xxx' my belief that it is needed for international disambiguation stands, e.g. Siemens call one of their German trains simply 'Class 423' while there is also a completely different British Class 423 built by BREL. WatcherZero (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Currently neutral re "British Class XX locomotive", but only if it is applied to all TOPS classes, as I strongly oppose any division in title between rolling stock introduced under BR and rolling stock introduced after privatisation as completely arbitrary (multipple units/locos from both eras casn be coupled together in the same train for example) and we'd need redirects from both titles anyway as we cannot expect users to know the date of introduction of rolling stock.
Strongly oppose using any TOC/FOC name as part of the article title. In addtion to my explanation of why at Talk:British Rail Class 70 (diesel)#Name of the UK freightliner versions, just because currently only one operator uses a certain class of locomotive/multiple unit doesn't mean that that will always be the case (indeed given the typical operational life of rolling stock classes is orders of magnitude longer than the brand name of operators (off the top of my head, of the brands that existed at privatisation only "Chiltern", "c2c" and "Freightliner" are still around), it seems that its virtually guaranteed to not be the case. We wouldn't want to have to rename dozens of articles just because say Căile Ferate Române bought Freightliner and incorporated it into it's "CFR Marfă" bran, this would also be problematic as for example the CFR Class 67 is a broadgauge (1520mm) Co'Co' diesel-electric loco and CFR Class 92 is a diesel-hydraulic railbus. "British Rail"is being used here not as the name of a train operator, but as the name of the author of the classification system (which is not the same as being the author of the software the classification system was designed to run on).
Oppose also manufacturers names because as WatcherZero points out that where these class names even exist they are unique only within that manufacturers product line and even then do not necessarily make the same distinctions the operators do, e.g. AIUI Bombardier do not regard British Rail Class 168, British Rail Class 170, British Rail Class 171 and British Rail Class 172 MUs as anything other than Turbostars fitted with different options, but we obviously need separate articles on each of them and so need some way of disambiguating them. The manufacturer doesn't provide this, but the classification system devised by British Rail and still in use today provides a simple and widely known method of doing so.
Oppose "Class XX diesel locomotive (United Kingdom)" as unnecessarily complicated and inconsistent, as depending what other uses of "Class XX" there were various lengths of disambiguation would be required.
The problem largely comes about because we as an international general purpose encyclopaedia need to disambiguate British locomotives identified as "Class 70" from many other things called class 70 (e.g. Belgian and Australian shunting locomotives, Norwegian EMUs, Northern Irish DMUs, Bavarian steam locomotives, French submarines, etc.) while the organisations that use such classifications there is almost never any need to disambiguate, so they don't provide us with any way of doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose -- my views match Thryduulf on this.
Comment-- Examination of the TOPS article reveals that most of the information relates to the BR implementation -- sufficient for its own article (although that would leave the parent as a stub!!) Hence the solution might be to refer to the British Rail TOPS system in the article lede, to explain the title (whose correct name should probably be British Rail TOPS Class 70) rather than simply TOPS. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - I think Thryduulf has come up with a good list of reasons. I would like to further note that other railway articles have the same format, albeit shortened, for instance the DBAG Class 424. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose to both proposals. We should, where possible, uses the names that are used by sources. This may in some cases yield the names that the proposers suggest, but in the cases where it doesn't, I think it's silly to make up a new name which does not reflect common usage. Wikipedia's job is to document what happens in the outside world, not to create new terms. The importance of having a verifiable and accurate encyclopædia outweighs any benefits (what are they, exactly?) of having similar bits of text in the titles of many different articles. We already have an article naming policy. bobrayner (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - I generally agree with Thryduulf and a few others on this, in that I believe it would be wrong to substitute "British Rail" either by a global "TOPS", or a series of manufacturers or users. With regard to Bobrayner's point about common usage, I suspect that >95% of the time, it's just Class nnwithin the context of the British Railway system. I guess that those outwith WP who use, for example Freightliner Class 70 do so as many here as they regard British Rail as anathema or anachronistic, but like us, have no better solution. The usual WP practice, however, would be to just use the Class nn with a parenthetical tag, which in this case needs to show that it belongs to the railways that run in Britain, which would either mean eg Class 67 (British train) or Class 67 (British rail) (note the small 'r'). I'm not sure if that's any better, but it's probably no worse. Tim PF (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Well it's not a train, it's a locomotive, so I would oppose Tim's first option. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd also note that it's not actually a British locomotive, it's a locomotive used in Britain. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget that we have the problem of non-locomotives too, such as the British Rail Class 390Tim PF (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
While we're picking apart Tim PF's suggestions, Class 67 (British rail) -- with a small 'r' -- would appear to refer to a type of steel, although you could legitimately have "(British railway locomotive)"; and the Class 390 would then be Class 390 (British electric multiple unit), but these are actually closer to common usage than many of the other suggestions made here (including mine). Tim is right in saying that enthusiasts will just refer to a "Class 37" without qualification, so this should probably be the common name for these post-privatisation classes. -- EdJogg (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment FWIW, I've just got the 2011 edition of Platform 5's combined volume (ISBN978-1-902336-83-1). It is titled "British Railways Locomotives & Coaching Stock 2011". Perhaps "British Railways Class xxx" would at least fit in with that? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
That seems reasonable, I think generally the problem we have is that British Rail refers to a company which no longer exists, British Railways would be similarly bad I think, but if we decapitalise the R to British rail or British railways I think it would be fine. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
"British railways" is certainly better than "British rail". "British Railways" was BR's name on nationalisation, and so is no better than "British Rail" - our articles are unclear about the precise relative chronlology of the branding change and introduction of TOPS, but they happened around the same time in the mid 1960s. Whether "British railways" is better than "British Rail" I need to think more on. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The rebranding from "British Railways" to "British Rail" was part of the corporate image, which also brought in the blue livery and the "arrows of indecision", circa 1966.
TOPS classifications were first allotted to locomotives in 1967, although the class list was not published until circa September 1968, just after the end of steam (see my comments here). TOPS classifications were allocated to multiple-units circa 1972. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The Railway Magazine started using the term "British Rail" with its September 1965 issue (p. 495), in which it also mentions the change to the blue livery and passes editorial comment upon the image in general, but there is no actual article describing the change. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't realised that Platform 5 were still using the term "British Railways", although that possibly reflects the nostalgia of many rail-fans. All we need now is another reliable source that uses the term, preferably not for trainspotters.
As for capitalisation; is the capital there merely because it's in the title? Then again British railways Class 67 might be thought an odd capitalisation in itself.
It was far from unintentional. I was suggesting something like Class 67 (British railway locomotive) -- note the important addition of the word 'locomotive', although I used an EMU as my example. The brackets describe precisely what it is, although you could equally use Class 67 (British diesel locomotive) I guess. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The suggestions above look like viable names - uses the common name, and the bracketted disambiguation is readable and not unweildy.Sf5xeplus (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
EdJogg's intentions were precisely that, but they suggested to me "British railway" (eg British railway Class 67 or Class 175 (British railway)) as a standard prefix or suffix for locomotives, multiple units and ships, whether pre-, pan-, or post- the demise of British Rail.
P5 changed the title of their book twenty years ago: the 1991 edition was "Locomotives & Coaching Stock 1991"; the 1992 edition was "British Railways LOCOMOTIVES & COACHING STOCK 1992". Capitalisation of the first two words became "BRITISH RAILWAYS" with the 2000 edition, and has remained unchanged since. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to ask what capitalisation they use in the text (eg the Preface or editorial), as Capitals tend to get overused in titles and on the cover. I think I have a 1991 copy, but 'tis currently in store, so I cannot check it myself. Tim PF (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
On the front cover and main title page the capitalisation is "BRITISH RAILWAYS"; they don't use these two words together within the text. Various blanket terms are used: "Britain's railway system"; "Britain's national railway infrastructure"; "Train Operating Companies"; "Domestic passenger train operators"; "Britain's national railway network"; "National Rail network" and even "Network Rail network". I get the impression that they're trying to avoid using the same term more than about twice. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
And almost all those terms refer to the infrastructure, rather than the rolling-stock which the books always used to be about. :-/ Tim PF (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment Not a direct concern for now, but should the consensus be for a change to the status quo, it should be noted that there are a handful of articles currently named "British Rail Classes XXX and XXX" (see Special:PrefixIndex/British Rail Classes) that a new system will have to determine names for. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Whilst I agree that we should probably rename these as a side effect of any new system introduced, I think we can probably eliminate all of them with merges (or renames) into family articles (eg InterCity 125, Networker (train), BR Second Generation EMU, Blue Pullman (train), and Networker (train), and, if necessary, retain them as redirects (as three already are). Tim PF (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment - as a passerby, I'd tend to the view that the current system is the least worst of the alternatives. In general I'd always go for the WP:COMMONNAME - but in this case it would always be just "Class xx" which causes all sorts of disambiguation problems in an international encylopaedia. One specific thing - I'd suggest that the use of "multiple unit" should be outlawed in titles as the sort of specialist jargon that would never be used as a WP:COMMONNAME by ordinary punters, who would always just say "train" (and MU is not necessarily a railway-exclusive term). So I could live with British Class xx locomotive/train. The one minor problem is that in the absence of an unambiguous name, there's a lot to be said for article titles being utterly predictable even at the price of slight clunkiness, so that for instance you know you can always safely link to King YYYYY of Ruritania without checking because all the royal articles have that format - or at the very least a redirect like Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom. I'd also point to the modification of that system by the ship people, who recognise that we are on the English Wikipedia and so people will be more interested in the ships from anglophone countries. So they generally have articles in the standard format Ruritanian battleship Titanic, but anglophone navies have the more natural USS Titanic and HMS Titanic. I think that kind of flexibility might be appropriate here, so that you don't have to worry too much about disambiguating the Austrian and Portuguese classes. I also wouldn't worry too much about where things were built, it's where the average Wikipedian will see them that matters - it's Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes rather than Geordie battleship Minas Geraes for instance, even though she was built on Tyneside. I don't know how much ambiguity there is between British classes and other anglophone nations, on the assumption that there is some then the format used will have to incorporate some sense of Britishness and of railwayness. British Rail Class xx is probably the most concise way of doing that, I know it may offend some purists but BR still lingers on in the collective consciousness. British Class xx locomotive/train also works for me, but you need to know first whether it's a loco or MU which hinders quick wikilinking per the royalty articles. Le Deluge (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Two digits=loco; three digits=multiple-unit. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose / comment: The "British Rail" in "British Rail Class XX" refers to the classifcation system, not to the owner/operator. It's not a class XX belonging to British Rail, it's British-Rail-Class is XX. Tompw (talk) (review) 17:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose in current form: I'd probably entertain "British Class XX" (capitalised) but the suffixes are just long winded; the article body introduces the details and these don't need to be included in the URL/title. —Sladen (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy to respond over there - seems a different issue to this.Sf5xeplus (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe its partially the same issue reversed, whether BR should be used before it was created as opposed to after it was disestablished as a general catch all and disambiguation, however its further complicated by the fact that its a different class system and that possibly requires its own discussion over there. WatcherZero (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The Germans name their pages after the original operator classes: DR Class E43 rather than DBAG Class 143 so there is a precedent. But in who's system was EB1 allocated? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
LNER, 1945 - same as all of those EB/EF class codes. I'd be interested to know what they'd been calling them for the 20 years beforehand. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Late reply, but I also have thought that British Rail seems inappropriate, especially on many ex-SR EMUs, which although they did indeed enter into BR service and some may have got TOPS classes, are not BR designs and were built a LONG time before BR were founded. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Straw poll
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the poll to establish whether the naming convention should be changed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I hope people don't mind me closing this discussion myself, but it seems fairly evenly split between users who want to change the convention in some way, and those who want to leave it as it is. I think this can be easily summarised as No consensus. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 07:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Rather than getting bogged down with a large number of alternatives, I'd like to simplify this thread by finding out whether most people think things need to change or not. The general argument against the current situation (e.g. British Rail Class 67) is that some of these classes were not built by or for British Rail (i.e. post-privatisation) and therefore the title is misleading. The argument for the current situation is for consistency, and that "British Rail" refers to the railways of Britain, rather than the company. With this in mind, I'm narrowing the choice down to three options:
Retain the current naming convention for all classes,
Retain the current naming convention for classes built by or for British Rail, but devise a new convention for locos and units built post-privatisation,
Devise a new, consistent convention for all classes.
To keep the poll simple, don't add Support to one and Oppose the others, just support whatever is closest to your views. Note that this is not the place to decide what the changes should be, merely to decide whether there should be a change or not. If after (say) a week, there's a clear majority in favour of one option we can then decide how to proceed; if opinions are equally split we can close this thread as "no consensus". — Tivedshambo (t/c) 22:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Retain the current naming convention for all classes
Retain the current naming convention for classes built by or for British Rail, but devise a new convention for locos and units built post-privatisation
Allow editors to choose the best title for the subject using the guidelines set out in WP:TITLE without interference
rationale works pretty well on other articles, and doesn't require editors to use a very poor title just to fit into a convention. (Clearly the naming system works for BR locomotives so keep, but not for post-BR locomotives so don't enforce.Sf5xeplus (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Support. We already have fairly good wikipedia-wide policies on article names, and I doubt that it's worth ignoring that policy for the scant benefit of having the same bit of text in the titles of a hundred different articles. In future cases where a new convention departs from existing policy, that's bound to create extra work without any actual benefit to the project (for example, see all the debate over at AfD on the hundreds of articles on sportspeople who satisfy the GNG but not a sports project's notability guideline, or vice versa). bobrayner (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
What is the point of creating a new convention, other than lining up lots of article titles in a straight line just for the the sake of lining them up? That's the same kind of reasoning which gave us all those silly Railway stations in... articles. We'd be better off spending our time improving the content of articles. bobrayner (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Done I've performed a scan and came up with the following articles that match the request. I've tagged all of them, shown below. If I missed anything, or you need anything else, let me know. Avicennasis @ 18:49, 4 Adar II 5771 / 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the dicussion here seems mostly resolved, so lets give a week for anyone else to become aware by the notification and then tally the votes. WatcherZero (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Is the naming convention debate still open? I think we should keep the existing naming convention for all classes. It isn't perfect but any change would cause huge confusion. Biscuittin (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
No, Tivedshambo closed it as "no consensus" at 07:59, 20 March 2011. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
If the debate is closed, shouldn't the tags be removed from the articles? Biscuittin (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
What tags? I can't find any on articles; but I do notice some (unsigned) posts on talk pages. No need to remove those, although they should possibly have a follow-up line added, with signature. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
. You don't need permission to make good faith attempts to improve things! Mjroots (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
(
(
Done I've performed a scan and came up with the following articles that match the request. I've tagged all of them, shown below. If I missed anything, or you need anything else, let me know. Avicennasis @ 18:49, 4 Adar II 5771 / 10 March 2011 (UTC)
![[1]](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Memorial-tt.JPG){kind=link}
![[2]](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Cemetery-photo.JPG){kind=link}
