Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2017

Lexington Avenue–63rd Street (63rd Street Lines) needs a revision now the Second Avenue Subway is open

I was just quickly reading this article and realized that it needs a thorough revision now that the Second Avenue Subway has opened mostly to clean up tenses as there are sections that still refer to this project as if it were under construction.

Graham1973 (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Richmond and Petersburg Railroad

I would like to ask the attention to Richmond and Petersburg Railroad. The author of this article add excessively big pictures to the article. It is going straight to an edit war now, so I ask the advice of others. The discussion is now at Talk:Richmond and Petersburg Railroad#Excessively big pictures. The Banner talk 17:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons photo challenge in January

FYI, please take a look at commons:Commons:Photo_challenge#2017_.E2.80.93_January_.E2.80.93_rail_transport. It would be nice to have some "technical" picture too and also an expert eye is more than welcome to improve categorizations and descriptions. Some of the uploaders are newbies or they are simple photographers, they don't know a lot of details. I hope you can find something useful to reuse as well.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Are stations automatically notable?

I ran across Udyog Nagar metro stationpart of the Green Line (Delhi Metro) being used to promote a person, and then found that a number of metro stations on the line have articles. These consiste mainly of when they were open and the buildings around them. Why would they be notable? Doug Weller talk 08:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Subject to WP:V by WP:RS, railway stations are held to be inherently notable under WP:NGEO. Mjroots (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

We have as a rule held metro stations to be notable; station buildings tend to be notable as well. Station stops continue to lack consensus. Mangoe (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

So a full professor at a good university may not be notable, but a run of the mill train stop is. Something's wrong here. But NGEO makes it clear that WP:GNG still applies, so how can metro stations be automatically notable? Doug Weller talk 17:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Railway stations almost inevitably generate an enormous amount of independent documentation from planning, construction, service changes, etc. Take for example River Works (MBTA station), an article that I've put quite a bit of work into. That station consists of nothing but asphalt strips and a bus shelter, and yet it has received substantial independent press coverage that passes the GNG with flying colors. Metro stations and mainline rail stations can generally be assumed notable - even if it hasn't been added to the article yet, the information is definitely available - and the rare times when this is not true can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. As Mangoe said, stops (particularly tram stops) have a mixed record, as it's often more difficult to find substantial coverage. Whether they pass notability often depends on whether someone has put in the effort. Notability is also intentionally higher for living people than most other subjects, as a way of discouraging self-promotion and so on. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a full professor might fail WP:PROF. There are many reasons why someone might be promoted to full professor which have little to do with that person's wider importance. Heaven help us if the vagaries of promotion and tenure review are ever incorporated into a notability guideline. The availability of independent sourcing tends to be a problem. As far as train stations go (metro and intercity) it's simply a question of common outcomes at AfD. Mackensen (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Doing random-article patrol, I found Kojōhama Station. The structure looks pretty small and unimpressive, and the article has been tagged as unreferenced for a long time. I could not reliable third-party references with significant coverage of it, as needed to satisfy GNG. Rather than just sending it to AFD, I thought i would check in here and see if anyone could provide the number and quality of references to show it is notable. "We have as a rule held metro stations to be notable" is not enough. Some of the types of reference mentioned above, "independent documentation from planning, construction, service changes, etc." might not be adequate to satisfy GNG. Edison (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Japanese-language sources are always going to be harder to find. Mackensen (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

An inability to find sources doesn't protect an article from being deleted. And I agree that the independent documentation mentioned doesn't cut the mustard. Nor do common outcomes make anything automatically notable. GNG gets ignored too often. And forgot professors, how about primary schools? They generate at least as much documentation, but they aren't automatically notable. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You brought professors up; I'm not sure why we're now forgetting them so quickly. Anyway, this being the Trains project, I'm unfamiliar with what happens to primary schools at AfD; I would check in with Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. As I'm sure you realize deletion discussions often turn on whether sources are believed to exist, not whether they can be found at this exact moment. It would be difficult to counter systemic bias otherwise. Attempts in the past to purge articles whose sources would be in a foreign language were strongly resisted by the community. Mackensen (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about vehicles is updated - Skysmith (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

West Somerset Mineral Railway

A group of editors have been working on getting West Somerset Mineral Railway up to GA standard. I think we are nearly there but it has been pointed out that some of the references lack page numbers. Many of these are available through my local library and I should be able to get those within the next week or two, but does anyone have a copy of Carter, E. (1959). An Historical Geography of the Railways of the British Isles. Cassell. ASIN B000WSRHU6. and could check page numbers for us? Any other edits to the article would, of course, be welcome.— Rod ^talk 19:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox German railway vehicle

There is a discussion about how best to improve this template to make it work with {{Infobox}}. Would be wonderful to get some people from the taskforce to chime in. The discussion is at: Template_talk:Infobox_German_railway_vehicle#Multiple_issues. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Gauge changing without bogie changing

[2] claims that a the Strizh (train) can run with both Russian and European gauge. Would be nice with more details on this. --Ysangkok (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I did hear of a railway where the gauge of the passenger carriages could be altered by sliding the wheels along the axles, the axles had some means of stopping the wheels from sliding out of gauge. Can't remember when, where or which. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It is possible to run stock on both Spanish and Portuguese broad gauge tracks if a special wheel profile is used to account for the 4mm difference in gauges. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The one I saw wasn't millimetres, but several inches. Maybe from 3'6" to 4'8½", or maybe from 4'8½" to 5'6" - that's the sort of scale here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

(ec)I did hear of a railway where ... Sure. Google Hendaye/Irun (happened there since 1960s). Check Spanish high speed lines doing this. Not "4 mm", but 233 mm. (1,668 mm (5 ft 5+21⁄32 in) Iberian gauge – 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in)). Billions of gauge changes undisturbed and without accidents. -DePiep (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Montrose Railway

The redirect Montrose Railway has been nominated at RfD. I have found that there are three historical railways with Montrose in their name we have articles about, two in Scotland (Montrose and Bervie Railway and North British, Arbroath and Montrose Railway), and one in California (Glendale and Montrose Railway). Were any of these ever known just as the "Montrose Railway"? If you know one way or the other, or have other views on this redirect, please comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 21#Montrose Railway. Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia. Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas: Editors See submissions through external academic peer review Format accepted articles Promote the journal Authors Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review) Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Potential mass move of railway articles could hinge on discussion at one article

Editors here may wish to be aware that, in early January, an editor working on hyphenation moved a large number of articles from "Narrow gauge railways in Foo" to "Narrow-gauge railways in Foo". Under WP:BRD I have reverted many of them. However, the only ongoing discussion is at Narrow gauge railways in Saxony. The point at issue seems to be whether we follow a grammatical guideline or the sources. Both variants are widespread, but the hyphenated version appears to be (about three times) more prevalent in the US than elsewhere. The International Union of Railways glossary doesn't hyphenate the phrase and, clearly, since most if not all articles and their categories were unhyphenated before, that appears to have been the consistent convention for these articles hitherto. I'm personally not against editors hyphenating the words; but feel we should be free to adopt either and not forced to use one particular, quite strongly regional, variant. The grammatical view is that the hyphen aids clarity; others would say in this case it doesn't and that we should be free to follow the sources. The reason I raise this here is that there is now a proposal that the outcome of the discussion on this one article should decide the policy for all of them (and presumably the associated categories). Whether that happens remains to be seen, but I felt I ought to flag the debate up. Now that the issue looks like spreading, I won't move any more articles until it's decided and trust other editors will play fair too. To see all viewpoints go to Talk:Narrow gauge railways in Saxony and Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#"Narrow gauge" hyphen dispute --Bermicourt (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• The primary article on this subject use a hyphen. (i.e.Narrow-gauge railway), and the alternative Narrow gauge railway is a re-direct. Does that answer the question? Morphenniel (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

On a related note, see this discussion (also buried on an individual talk page)—subsequently moved here—about hyphenation in railway article titles. Useddenim (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: Let me guess - were the moves made by Dicklyon (talk · contribs)? If so, you might like to look through their user talk page, also several threads on WT:UKRAIL, and this discussion at ANI. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

We have a winner! Useddenim (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Level crossing accident, wrong-side failure

Normally, level crossing collisions that do not cause the train to derail or any deaths/serious injuries are non-notable. However, there was a recent level crossing collision involving a semi-truck (articulated lorry) in Utah, USA. The BBC source is sketchy on details, although the video clearly shows that the crossing barriers remained up and the lights were off when the train hit the semi-truck - i.e. a wrong-side failure. Should this accident be included in the relevant list of rail accidents. Subject to better sourcing, is it worthy of an article? Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The report I saw suggested that the barriers had frozen in the “up” position, but after viewing and re-viewing the video on the DVR, it was clear to me that it was definitely an equipment failure. Useddenim (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Even if the barriers had frozen, the lights should have been flashing. They did not start flashing until after the train had completely passed over the crossing. Interested in seeing other sources please. Mjroots (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It may belong in a list of incidents under the Utah Transit Authority or FrontRunner articles. SounderBruce 02:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I've added it to the List of rail accidents (2010–present) and it's already in the FrontRunner article. Should it be added to the wrong-side failure article? Mjroots (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Grand Trunk Railway Station and related issues

I have three related issues to do with the former Grand Trunk Railway and subsidiary lines:

1. The Grand Trunk Railway Station page is a bit of an outlier, and I think it needs some attention more than would be garnered by posting just on its talk page. Right now it's somewhere halfway between a list and a disambig page; it neither is a complete list of former Grand Trunk Railway stations (best served by a category anyway), nor a list of still-extant stations (as a few have been demolished), nor a disambiguation page (as most of the articles have never had "Grand Trunk Station" as an official name). I believe it should be one of the latter two, but I'm not sure which, and I only have the expertise to do the last.
2. The template {{St. Lawrence and Atlantic line map}} links to many of those stations. That template was originally created by Secondarywaltz as a compromise to a now-inactive user who refused to understand the use of categories, and who wanted every one of his articles to link to each other. However, I think it would be better to use it as a normal RDT for the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railroad, either as the modern freight route or showing all passenger stations which were historically used (many of which don't have articles).
3. Additionally, some of the former Grand Trunk station articles are in the form Grand Trunk Station (City), which doesn't follow WP:USSTATION whatsoever, as (except for major terminals) stations were known only by the city name. The articles for Lewiston, Yarmouth, and Lansing might belong at their NRHP names, but I'd like to move the other US stations to the normal names suggested by USSTATION.

Thoughts, objections, hatemail? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for paying attention to this. Creating editors fought my attempts the change the article tiles to "Name station". Most of the Canadian stations are already in the "Name railway station" format used there. I am not very active, so be bold and correctly rename the US ones. They have been used by many other companies since Grand Trunk built them. Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The current naming convention is the problem here. Just because some of the old Grand Trunk Stations were reused since GT gave up passenger service doesn't mean they all were. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not even remotely relevant to the issue at hand. Please stop posting nonsense complaints on every thread about article renaming. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You the one who brought up your intention to mangle the naming conventions. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Please read my original post again. The stations are currently in a naming convention that has never been commonly used on Wikipedia. Not by you, not by anybody, only this one briefly-active user. Every naming convention has always led with the station name (regardless of suffix); these articles are currently led with the company name. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I heartily endorse this event or product. I'd leave Grand Trunk Railway Station alone until the individual articles are in better places. Mackensen (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata property proposals

may be of interest: d:Wikidata:Property proposal/number of island platforms. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 11:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed page move

(Discuss) – New Haven–Springfield Line → New Haven–Springfield line – Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, no need to capitalize Line here.

• Proposed by Dicklyon (talk)
• Originally posted at WP:UKT

Useddenim (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Ancient history. It was posted at WT:UKT (not where you said); at your request. This project reacted to it a week ago already; of course if it's not closed yet they might want to react some more, and try to justify why this particular corner of WP should be ignoring WP:NCCAPS so much. Dicklyon (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC on hyphen in "narrow-gauge railway" titles

At Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Hyphen in titles of articles on railways of a narrow gauge I have started an RFC. The question reads: Should articles with "Narrow gauge railways" and such in their titles include a hyphen as "Narrow-gauge railways"? And is there any tweak needed to the guidelines at WP:HYPHEN to be more helpful in deciding such things? Participation is welcome. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It needs help to flesh out the cases for and against. Please help or comment if you are interested. Dicklyon (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

After you and SMcCandlish finish bludgeoning everyone over this and L/line, do you plan on downcasing every rail J/junction? Useddenim (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Taking Weaver Junction as an example, it seems that from books it could hardly be considered anything but a proper name. Not like Gap junction and such. We could look at them, but I don't think there's any reason for you to fear that we would violate WP:NCCAPS just to spite you. Dicklyon (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Given your tag team's behaviour so far, that is exactly what I would expect you to do, just so that you can "win". Of course you want to show supporting evidence of how iron-clad your naming styleguide is, so when you find that the major rail hub of Gap junction isn't capitalised, then you leap on it and quote it as your precedent to follow for everything. Except that gap junction has nothing to do with railways, does it? So why even cite it here? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Bay platforms

a b c

How are bay platforms counted; i.e. what is "one bay platform"? (For Wikidata purposes; see above.)

Assuming all platform faces adjacent to tracks are in use, are single track insets (a) and a pair of tracks (b) counted as one bay platform or two; and is a bay opposite a through platform (c) counted as an island platform, a bay platform and a side platform, half a bay platform and a side platform, or something else? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 10:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

They're terminus platforms that are distinct from other platforms at a stations. A large city terminus may still have bays, but only if they're somehow distinct from the others - usually by being shorter and used for parcels etc., rather than passengers.

They're counted by how many services can use them, not by the number of sides facing a platform. So A is 1, B is 2 and C is a bay and a through platform. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Thanks! Would C be considered a side platform or an island? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 14:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

An "island" platform isn't about the railway use of it so much as the access to it. Your drawing could be either. If there is road and pedestrian access from the top left, then it's not an island. If these are part of some larger station and the platform is isolated, so that there's only pedestrian access via a bridge or other rail crossing, then it's an island. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Cross Country Route

It's not really clear what the scope of this is. See Talk:Cross Country Route#Requested move 15 February 2017, where the discussion includes questions about notability, and where exactly this route begins and ends. Hoping for more input from British rail enthusiasts. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Chicago and Northwestern Bi-Levels

Who built all of Chicago and North Western Railway's double-decker cars, and were they ever used outside of the Metropolitan Chicago Area? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

There seem to be quite a few pictures of these relics, and I hope some are being preserved.

@DanTD: I need to check my Passenger Car Annual, but I believe Pullman built most of them (see Pullman Gallery Car). Budd and St. Louis Car built some as well. CNW's were used in intercity services, though still tied to Chicago. I don't think Amtrak ever ran them much beyond Indiana, but I could be wrong. Mackensen (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Defining timetable cruft

WP:TRAINS is probably more active than WP:STATIONS, so I'd like to draw some of your attention to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations#Timetable fluff or not. Thanks! --HyperGaruda (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Killingworth locomotive Blucher/Blutcher

User:DeWiSm posted an interesting suggestion about the reason for Stephenson naming his 1814 Blucher or Blutcher on the Killingworth locomotives page. I moved it to Talk:Killingworth locomotives and have checked up on the sources mentioned. Given Geordie's well known strong regional accent and upbringing it certainly seems possible, can other editors please examine the suggestion and comment appropriately? Thanks, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice about adminship to participants at this project

Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Extraneous "Rail Rangers" information

Could someone else check out the contributions of this IP? They are repeatedly adding extraneous information about the APRHF Rail Rangers program - including advertising books and programs, which I classify as spam - to several Amtrak routes and to stations totally unrelated to the program. This has included mass-reverting me. Based on timing and heavily overlapping edits, they are very likely logged-out Rtabern (talk · contribs) who has a very obvious COI. (Pinging @24.123.82.98: You should be aware of this discussion.)

While the group is a nonprofit, these editors' edits have included advertising their books and other products. They also give undue weight to the program - having one or several lengthy paragraphs about it in otherwise short articles. The group itself may not pass GNG; at most it deserves a sentence or two in the articles about the trains they offer programs on, and certainly not about stations that it has no relation to. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Obvious COI, and a likely sock. Take it to WP:COIN with your concerns. They're pretty good at getting to the bottom of stuff. oknazevad (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing at ALCO 241 and ALCO 244

Some time ago I created these articles; earlier this year SSW9389 (talk · contribs) expanded them ([3], [4]) with the addition of considerable content lacking in-line citations. I requested that they add references within the article, and after some time of no reply I reverted the additions back to the previous version. SSW9389 subsequently re-added their content, and after some discussion I'd like to get other opinions about the sourcing, because we don't seem to be agreeing. Thanks in advance, The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The Wicked Twisted Road is removing content from these articles that is from the very source he is citing. If I was younger and could figure out how to use all those little number things I'd get it done for sure. The Wicked Twisted Road left out too many of the developmental details of each of these Alco engines. I filled them in from the same source and from Preston Cook's writings. The Wicked Twisted Road deleted Preston Cook too!--SSW9389 03:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I dunno. It looks to me that SSW9389 has been doing an at-least minimally-acceptable job of citation. And if I recall correctly, didn’t Trains magazine also do a two-part article about the 244? Useddenim (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I would certainly prefer The Wicked Twisted Road's version of both articles. This isn't a sustainable version of the article. I don't doubt that all the assertions are from sources, but they need to be linked together. There's a similar issue with GE U28C; this is a good expansion, but the minute someone edits the "Development" section with anything that's not from the Diesel Era article we've got a big WP:INTEGRITY problem. I'd be happy to work with SSW9389 on how to use shortened footnotes and citation templates. Mackensen (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC) Thank you Mackensen, real busy with work right now, but should be able to get the page numbers from Steinbrenner's book from my notes this weekend. The U28C article needed serious work as those units represent the transition of the GE Uboats from generators to alternators with the two phases. Good U28 info is scarce and much of it appears to conflict.--SSW9389 14:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on the California Zephyr Template talk page that has wider implications for WP Trains

Template talk:California Zephyr#Former stations Dave (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox needs fixing

Could someone fix the {{Infobox station}} at Aurora station (Ohio)? I don't know when I last saw an infobox that was so wide, and since this embeds another infobox, I suppose that it's some coding error. Nyttend (talk) 06:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Nyttend, the |embedded= parameter had been omitted prior to the NRHP infobox. Easy peezy. It would be simpler if the template folks would develop a standard vocabulary. The same parameter in infobox school is labelled "module". John from Idegon (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Railroad names - and or ampersand?

FYI, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#& type railroad names. This concerns article titles, i.e. whether titles like Baltimore and Ohio Railroad or titles like Baltimore & Ohio Railroad are preferred. Discuss there please. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I generally prefer "and" but I can accept ampersands as redirects. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@DanTD: Discuss there please, per WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Undiscussed move

Any others have a problem with Passenger car (rail) to Passenger wagon (railroad)‎ ?

I would consider (railroad) to be a narrow usage (definitely not universal), and car and rail to be less confined in usage across the differences in terminology between parts of the world. Not sure where the move comes from as I cannot find any signs of discussion. JarrahTree 08:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Definitely prefer "(rail)" to "(railroad)" as Jarrah says. "Wagon" is problematical for two reasons: (1) the article refers throughout (including in the opening sentance) to cars, and (2) it a very US-centric term. I would suggest "vehicle" as a compromise, unless you think that some people might assume "Passenger vehicle (rail)" referred to road transport. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted both that and the move of railroad car to Wagon (railroad vehicle). Nothing wrong with a bold move per se, but moves like that need to go through a WP:RM discussion. Mackensen (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

‘Car’ is not as US-centric as suggested, when transit (metro, light rail, etc.) usage is included. Useddenim (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, "wagon" is rarely used to refer to railcars in the US. That's a much more British usage. The construct "passenger wagon (railroad)" is so mixed up that it's useless, as US English didn't use "wagon" like that, and UK English doesn't really use "railroad" at all. Though I do wonder if railroad car shouldn't be moved to "railcar" per WP:COMMONNALITY (unless there's some specific British usage I don't know of.) Never mind, forgot that it's used for self-propelled vehicles in Britain. oknazevad (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"Wagon" is used for goods vehicles in the UK, but I've not heard it used for coaching stock. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It isn't used for passenger cars in the US, either. Looking at the move summaries, it's obvious that the user doesn't speak English as a first language, and maybe doesn't really speak much English at all. I would certainly think they shouldn't be moving any articles. oknazevad (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

In the UK, passenger-carrying rail vehicles hauled by locomotives are either "carriages" or "coaches" - different railways favoured one or the other, although the Railway Clearing House used "coach". Passenger-carrying rail vehicles that are part of multiple-units may be coaches, but a significant number of sources use the term "car". London's electrified Underground railways mainly use the term "car" (after 1933, no other term seems to have been used), this is due to the influence of Charles Tyson Yerkes (an American) who invested in most of them, with the notable exception of the Metropolitan Railway, which used the term "coach". Wagons carry goods. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Does anywhere (outside the Third Reich) move passengers in wagons? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Wow, straight to Godwin's Law. Just kidding. Regardless, I think there's a pretty strong unanimous consensus that these moves were wrong on many levels, mangling English varieties. They've already been reverted, so I think we can let this discussion end. oknazevad (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    • See early film of preserved lines. Very little H&S so passengers got to ride in whatever rolling stock was available :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think there was a single preserved line moving passengers in wagons (1960s-1970s), although this was commonly done within depots and for informal runs during restoration work, but these wouldn't have been "passengers" in such a case. Even Light Railway Orders didn't permit it, and there was some inspection, even in the early days (I was active from the mid '70s). This was one reason why GWR Toad brakevans were so popular, compared to other types, as brake vans were considered acceptable for passengers and a Toad's large veranda gave more space, with a rail around it. The Bristol Harbour Railway has passengers riding in wagons today, but these are converted and fitted with seats (although I don't think they have continuous brakes).

The most famous railway for doing it would probably be the Ratty on Bank Holidays, but that was in the 1930s. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

(OT) When we were working on Widcombe Locks on the K&A back in the early '70s we had some lengths of industrial line (2'6" ?) and tipper trucks that were run across beams over the lock chambers. The official purpose was for transporting spoil from the far side to the towpath side of the canal, and to that end they were inclined. It was a bit of a dare to get into the truck and freewheel across the drained lock chamber. Very naughty! :-))) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Category talk:Derailments#Only original derailments

Proposal that can be discussed on that talk page. Also there: Category:Train collisions is a creation by me without askingbeing bold, I am populating it. --Mopskatze (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Train and subway fires

Shall train fires resulting from derailments, collisions, level crossing accidents etc. be put into Category:Train and subway fires? Either way, the category should have text to say that. E.g. 1979 Mississauga train derailment is in fires and derailments. --Mopskatze (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hm, any people reading this? But a have another one: --Mopskatze (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

IMO only when the fire is a significant component of the overall incident - 1979 Mississauga train derailment and Viareggio train derailment are examples of such incidents. The Ladbroke Grove rail crash involved a serious fire, but it was not significant to the overall incident so it shouldn't be included in train fire categories. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Terrorist incidents involving trains

Should terrorist incidents that involve trains be added to the relevant "(year) railway accidents" templates, and by extension the template added to the article, or not? Mjroots (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

As a matter of definition, deliberate actions by terrorists are not accidents. Where a genuine accident occurs the causes can be studied and the rule book revised to enhance future safety. Apart from observing that a couple of pounds of Semtex damages a carriage and kills people, what is there to learn? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

In some cases, how the train structure and internal fittings stood up to the blast (or didn't) is useful to be studied, but not in most cases as it is simply accepted that making trains capable of withstanding a blast (a very infrequent event) would be so significantly costly and impact so significantly on space and weight that it is just not practical. As a general rule I think that if a terrorist incident is investigated by a rail accident investigation body (RAIB, NTSB, etc), and there is meaningful prose about this in the article then its worth discussing adding it to the template. If those criteria are not met then they should not appear on the template. I wouldn't object to a template/category for terrorist incidents on railways though. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: - a template for terrorist incidents involving railways is a very good suggestion. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks & Resorts featured list

Greetings. I am attempting to get the Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts article upgraded to featured list status here: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts/archive1. If you are a member of this task force, your input will be valuable. Jackdude101 (Talk) 22:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

"Railfan editnotice"

I've started a discussion at WT:NYCPT about railfan-cruft, including a draft editnotice. Your comment is appreciated. Thanks, – Train2104 (t • c) 02:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:West Santa Ana Branch

James Allison has removed the route diagram {{West Santa Ana Branch}} from the article with the claim that it is “Unsourced, inaccurate, and speculative”. However, as far as I can tell, this is the correct diagram for the article. Useddenim (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand why you opened a discussion here instead of on the article's talk page. The short answer is that there is no correct route for this article. It is a historical right-of-way owned by two separate public agencies who are planning two separate projects using different parts of the ROW. The diagram proposed is simply a list of cities the ROW passes through, not actual or planned stations. Both projects are still early enough in the planning stages that creating a route diagram would be unduly speculative at this point. James (^talk/_contribs) 17:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@James Allison: I assumed that this page would have more watchers than Talk:West Santa Ana Branch. And if I understand you correctly, then this diagram should be more accurately titled Pacific Electric Santa Ana Line (or similar), and the LA Metro information removed to be correct. Useddenim (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

As long as the existence of the historical stations and route is cited, I believe that would be more accurate. James (^talk/_contribs) 02:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Useddenim: Indeed, Talk:West Santa Ana Branch has only 8 watchers (this page has 364). But it is permissible, without violating WP:MULTI or WP:CANVAS, to start a thread at Talk:West Santa Ana Branch, and add a neutrally-worded pointer to that thread from here (see for example any of the preceding three threads, titled "AfD", "Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks & Resorts featured list", and '"Railfan editnotice"'. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Some eyes on Special:Contributions/66.87.81.219's edits

As Seen on STiki! They have been making rapid edits to train station articles with the ES "box" and I don't know whether they are legit or not. Thanks d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 00:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit will gernally look like this:

| name={{SEPTA RR infobox header|title=Stadium (Ithan Avenue) {{color box|#{{SEPTA color|NHSL}}}}}}|style=SEPTA d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 00:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The IP was switching the Norristown High Speed Line station articles to use the SEPTA Regional Rail style, which is just incorrect. The NHSL follows the other rapid transit lines in using white on the line color. I've reverted all of the IP's edits. oknazevad (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on it! d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 02:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Help converting a route diagram from de:Yunnan-Bahn

Would anybody be willing to copy the route diagram from de:Yunnan-Bahn to Kunming–Hai Phong Railway? The German page uses de:Template:BS-table and other "heritage" templates (de:Wikipedia:Formatvorlage_Bahnstrecke), while the templates used now on en.wiki (Wikipedia:Route diagram template) are slightly different; so some conversion work is required. Hopefully not too difficult if you've done that kind of stuff before. Thanks any volunteers in advance! -- Vmenkov (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Vmenkov: Created as {{Yunnan–Vietnam Railway RDT}}. I've translated some of the labels, hope this helps. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Thanks a lot! From this point, I think, I can take over, converting place names, links, references etc. --Vmenkov (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2017/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Trains.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Trains, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal of Lanchester Valley Railway Path

Hello all. I have forwarded a proposal that Lanchester Valley Railway Path be merged with Lanchester Valley Railway. Discussion is here. The page is in the scope of this project. Regards.The joy of all things (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

AfD

The 2017 Adendro train derailment article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to all those who contribute to the discussion. The article was kept. Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Importance?

Hi,

As a person who just stumbled upon an article but doesn't really care that much, as most articles are biased anyway, I wanted to know what the method is for determining whether an article is of low/medium/high importance? Factually it'd only be a matter of opinion, so I found it quite funny that there's a project that actually enforced it, but I suppose it's a part of your Saturday afternoon "dip the biscuit in the tea" enjoyments.

I'd wish, however, that you'd actually source anything like that, rather than just categorise it based on where your "raging clue" is pointing at the moment, as articles make less sense when you and like-minded people have been editing them.

Ta-ta and best luck regarding your future edits.2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:0:902F (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The "importance" you refer to isn't importance in any absolute sense, it is importance to the project, an indication to editors within that project of what priority to be given to maintaining the article. An article can be maintained by more than one project, and different projects may assign different project-importance levels to the same article. An article that's not maintained by any project won't have a project-importance level at all. Project-importance levels appear only on talk pages; they're not visible within the article itself.-- Dr Greg  talk  08:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Railway stations - naming conventions

Should railway stations be capitalized (i.e. Railway Stations). I've just noticed that an editor User:Price Zero has been going through and capitalizing the name of every railway station article in Sri Lanka (ie. Kandy railway station -> Kandy Railway Station) - what is the correct naming convention? I always thought that the name of the station should be in capitals however the rest should be lower case (i.e. Kandy railway station). Happy to stand corrected, which is why I've come here before reverting any changes. Dan arndt (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Dan arndt: This often comes up, see archived threads of this page, also WT:STATIONS. There is no general naming convention, but there are several that are specific to one country (such as WP:NCUKSTATIONS), or to one railway company. I know of none that are specific to Sri Lanka. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

In the absence of any specific convention for stations in Sri Lanka, I'd suggest following the general standard which is to capitalise words that are part of the proper noun used as the name of the station, but use lowercase words for anything that is just descriptive. e.g. if the station is called "Kandy" then the article should likely be at "Kandy railway station" but if the proper name is "Kandy Railway Station" then all three words should be in capitals. I have not looked to see which is the case, or even if there is consistency across the country. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Germane to this thread, OblivionWingTech has been moving railway station articles to the capitalized version. I don't know whether or not most of the moves are against the naming convention, apart from the move of Penshurst railway station, which I have moved back to its original title. UK stations generally take the lower case form. Not sure that {{rws}} works with the upper case version either. Mjroots (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

{{Stnlnk}}/{{rws}} does work with either case (with optional parameters). There is also the short-form {{RWS}} that assumes "Railway Station". Useddenim (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

UK station disambiguation RM

I've started a discussion on UK station disambiguation here to try and find consensus for making disambiguation methods more consistent. The input of knowledgeable editors would be valuable. Thanks,--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Unidentified railroad thing

What is this?

Does anyone have any idea what this thing is called? Kaldari (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It is called a Draisine or a Speeder. SV1XV (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Frederick E. Toy

Frederick E. Toy was a U.S. soldier in the 19th and 20th centuries. According to his wife's death notice, he later worked for the "local (Niagara area?) police detail" of the New York Central railroad. If there's a reference to verify that, I'd appreciate a pointer. There are some weird side issues; Toy retired as an ordnance sergeant, but his grave marker reads "Capt." and his wife's death notice reads "major" (she predeceased him). Thanks. --Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph about day of line closure

I have noticed this paragraph turning up in various articles, such as Aintree Central railway station:

"The official day of a closure is given as the Monday following the date of the last train to run. As this is almost always a Saturday, if 7 January 1952 (Monday) is given as the date of closure, this means the last day of service was Saturday, 5 January 1952. This can be shown by last day tickets bearing the 5 January date"

This is in my opinion a strange way of putting things. What happens is that the closure day is given (usually a Monday) and that is the first day on which the line is closed. The reason there is no service on the day before is that this means that the day before is usually a Sunday, and typically lines slated for closure had no Sunday services for years, if ever. The line was legally open but no trains ran, leaving the last day with a service as the Saturday, the day before. The paragraph used does not make this clear. It's as if the date is set because the last train has run, rather than the other way round. Britmax (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I also have seen this opinion piece in articles concerning railway stations on the old CLC route between Liverpool and Southport, and have been meaning to do something about it for several years. Anyway, there are two conventions for the closure date: briefly, they are "last day of service" and "first day without service". Of these, the first is unambiguous, but the second assumes that the reader is familiar with the hitherto-normal timetable for the station (were there Sunday trains, or not? Maybe there were no Saturday trains either - or perhaps the service was once a week). This is discussed in depth in the essay entitled "Some Thoughts on Day of Closure" that is included in the lower left corner of most editions of Douglas Rose's The London Underground: A Diagrammatic History. Rose cuts right through such problems and goes for the "last day of service" convention; Butt seems to use "first day without service". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Herbert_H._Harwood,_Jr.

An article on this railroad author is being considered for deletion [5] Morphenniel (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Mike Schafer

I recently created an article about this well respected author, Mike Schafer (author), and it has been Prod-ed for deletion. I'd appreciate some extra information, that would help to show that he meets the requirements for WP:NAUTHOR. Morphenniel (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Morphenniel: I have replied to you on the article's talk page to try and explain more in depth what is needed to prove notability. To prove that someone is well respected, as he may well be, there needs to be sources with independent in-depth coverage of his contribution to the field. Simply being a published author is not enough. Book reviews would help or any article that covers this person. Domdeparis (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Based on what you have written, I could easily PROD dozens of existing articles on other authors. As I said on my talk page, it's for the Community to decide ... not just you. Being a "Policeman" for new pages on Wikipedia is a fine hobby, but I recommend expansion into reviewing existing articles, to get a more balanced view of what is already on Wikipedia. I also recommend that you -re-read WP:DEL#PROCESSES. You went straight for deletion, but could have suggested to improve the referencing, or even just started a discussion on the talk page. Out of the pair of us, I think you need further education. For what its worth, when it comes to Wikipedia I'm firmly in the creationist camp, rather than the deletionist camp. Morphenniel (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I see no need for a prolonged discussion here; it could be considered canvassing. Mackensen (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It's been prod-ed for speedy deletion [6] Morphenniel (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Morphenniel: You can't "prod for speedy deletion". Prod and speedy deletion are two different processes. In this case, the article was prodded in this edit; de-prodded in this edit; you attempted to prod a second time in this edit which was quite correctly refused in this edit - any given article may be prodded only once. Speedy deletion was requested in this edit and denied in this edit. If you really want it deleted, your best course of action is WP:AFD, but be prepared to put up a strong case. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Help with book page numbers on Bristol and Exeter Railway & Chard branch line

Another editor has added tags saying "page needed" for several books used as references on Bristol and Exeter Railway & Chard branch line. I found these as I am trying to reduce the number of articles with tags shown on the WP Somerset cleanup list. They are:

• On Bristol and Exeter Railway:
  • Awdry, Christopher (1990). Encyclopaedia of British Railway Companies. Wellingborough: Patrick Stephens Limited. ISBN 1-85260-049-7.
  • Biddle, Gordon; Nock, O.S. (1983). The Railway Heritage of Britain. London: Michael Joseph Limited. ISBN 07181-2355-7.
  • MacDermot, E.T. (1927). History of the Great Western Railway. Vol. Vol I. London: Great Western Railway. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
    • One remains here: ref in the lead, the one for "The B&ER was financially successful but amalgamated with the GWR in 1876, the combined company being called the Great Western Railway."
  • MacDermot, E.T. (1931). History of the Great Western Railway. Vol. Vol II. London: Great Western Railway. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
    • One remains here: ref in the lead, the one for "The B&ER was financially successful but amalgamated with the GWR in 1876, the combined company being called the Great Western Railway."
  • Maggs, Colin (1982). The Bath to Weymouth Line. Usk: Oakwood Press. ISBN 0-85361-289-7.
  • Nicholas, John; Reeve, George (2008). The Okehampton Line. Clophill: Irwell Press Ltd. ISBN 978-1-903266-13-7.
  • Owen, John (1985). The Exe Valley Railway including the Tiverton Branch. Southampton: Kingfisher Railway Productions. ISBN 0-946184-15-1.
  • Sekon, G.A. (2012) [1895]. A History of the Great Western Railway being the Story of the Broad Gauge. Forgotten Books. ASIN B008KCLHMK.
  • Semmens, P.W.B. (1990). The Heyday of GWR Train Services. Newton Abbot: David and Charles Publishers plc. ISBN 0-7153-9109-7.
  • Sheppard, Geof (2008). Broad Gauge Locomotives. Southampton: Noodle Books. ISBN 978-1-906419-09-7.
• On Chard branch line:
  • Phillips, Derek; Eaton-Lacey, R (1991). Working the Chard Branch. Yeovil: Fox & Co. ISBN 1-870872-05-3.
  • Phillips, Derek (2000). From Salisbury to Exeter: The Branch Lines. Shepperton: Oxford Publishing Company. ISBN 0-86093-546-9.
  • William, R. A. (1969). The London & South Western Railway. Vol. Vol. 1: The Formative Years. Newton Abbot: David & Charles. ISBN 0-7153-4188-X. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
  • Carter, E. F. (1959). An Historical Geography of the Railways of the British Isles. London: Cassell.
  • Phillips, Derek; Pryer, George (1997). The Salisbury to Exeter Line. Sparkford: Oxford Publishing Company. ISBN 0-86093-525-6.
  • Awdry, Christopher (1990). Encyclopaedia of British Railway Companies. Frome: Patrick Stephens. ISBN 1-85260-049-7.
  • MacDermot, E. T. (1931). History of the Great Western Railway. London: Great Western Railway.
  • Cobb, Col. M. H. (2003). The Railways of Great Britain, A Historical Atlas. Shepperton: Ian Allan Publishing. ISBN 0-7110-3002-2.
  • Cooke, RA (1979). Track Layout Diagrams of the GWR and BR WR, Section 16: West Somerset. Harwell: RA Cooke.

If anyone can help to add the page numbers for any of them that would be great.— Rod ^talk 16:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Geof Sheppard (talk · contribs) should be able to help with at least one of these books. Probably more. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I have struck through the ones that have been done.— Rod ^talk 06:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move discussion at Template talk:New South Wales Railway Stations

I'm proposing a name change to Template:New South Wales Railway Stations, and decided to discuss it first, since this change would mean changes to hundreds of articles that use the navbox. This is an open invitation to pop in to voice your opinion on the matter. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 06:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

DRB Class 03.10

• DRB Class 03.10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP recently made three changes at the above (diff). That involved changing the input unit from kW to m² (which should be m2 for convert). The three items are in a box where one is power and the other two are area, so it is likely that two of the changes are more correct than what was there before. The only source I can see is a dead link. If anyone has magic powers, now would be the time to try them out. By the way, the third convert is showing an error because the pipe character (|) was replaced with some weird Unicode look-alike. Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I patched the article despite an inability to check the source. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Photo question

Could an uncredited 1932 photo of a railway stop be used on Wikipedia? (full question) – Editør (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC on sources for train articles

There's a RfC on sources for train-related articles at Template talk:Locomotives and rolling stock of the Victorian Railways, predecessors and successors#Reliability of sources in rolling stock articles (social media etc). More community input would be helpful. Huon (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Croxley Green Rail Link

There is an argument going on between myself and Briantist over this article and its diagram. I would seek the opinion on those on the project as to the form of article and diagram that would illustrate the article to the best effect. Britmax (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

All this WP:EW is bad. The proposed version should be constructed at Template:Croxley Rail Link RDT/sandbox, its merits need to be discussed at Template talk:Croxley Rail Link RDT and agreement reached, before copying it live. More at WP:BRD and WP:TESTCASES. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason to change the diagram which illustrated the under construction railway, wiith some context, awaiting the day when it opens and the status of each station changes as appropriate. I do not see the benefits of Briantist's changes here. Britmax (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Britmax on this. Useddenim (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Britmax and Useddenim: Per WP:MULTI, please keep discussion in one place; Template talk:Croxley Rail Link RDT#Reversion by Britmax was started before this one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

OK. Britmax (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

More undiscussed renames from Dicklyon.

It still continues. Renaming the Köping–Uttersberg–Riddarhyttan Railway to Köping–Uttersberg–Riddarhyttan railway.

There is a long history of these, and there is not blanket support for such renames. At the very least, they need to be flagged before moving and other editors given a chance to discuss or oppose them. This is now well into topic ban territory. What do others think?

In this case, this is a proper noun phrase, thus warranting the capitalisation. It's not merely a route description. The Swedish company name is sv:Köping–Uttersberg–Riddarhyttans Järnväg, this is a literal translation of it.

@Dicklyon: - Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Support topic ban. This is getting old (and also very annoying and time-consuming). Useddenim (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Support topic ban; page moves like these (especially page moves en masse) should be discussed first. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 12:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Support One Week Block; This is disruptive editing, plain and simple. A short block is required to send the message that this is behavior is not tolerated. 18:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphenniel (talk • contribs)

Support topic ban Multiple warnings and numerous reverted moves have done nothing to dissuade this user from their clear lack of interest in finding consensus. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This looks more like a discussion for AN/I. A community wide discussion can prevent drawn out appeals about locally issued blocks or topic bans. The Banner talk 19:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this should be discussed at ANI, as it's an issue of non-collaborative behavior despite the numerous objections. In the meantime, I have reverted the move. Any attempt to move it back now that theobjection has been raised and acted upon is clear move-warring and utterly inappropriate. oknazevad (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting it. My impression from the article was that it was a route description, but I can see that as a literal translation of a name it's OK with caps. Dicklyon (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

And I'm sorry to see that several of you seem to harbor so much animosity about things you didn't like many moons ago. Nothing I've done recently was time-consuming, en masse, disruptive, or involving numerous reverted moves, and speculating about possible future move-warring and utterly inappropriate behavior is itself utterly inappropriate. When was the last time anyone reverted or questioned one of my moves? February? So chill, y'all, and if I get one wrong, just let me know. Dicklyon (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: It's your habit of proposing page moves on little-watched talk pages—when mentioned in advance at all—that many of us find—to be polite—annoying. Useddenim (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I stopped doing that a long time ago, as it was just as annoying for me to have such proposals ignored. Dicklyon (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

And what is going on at Talk:Zittau–Oybin–Jonsdorfer railway? Especially where you use WP:RM/TR to request a mere "technical" page move, despite it clearly being contentious at the talk page? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

What's going on there is called a discussion. I think we got to a good place, but more input is always welcome. Dicklyon (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: It only became a discussion after you got caught. Useddenim (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Have you heard of WP:BRD? Didn't get reverted in this case, though after a bit of discussion I did attempt to get a revert of a previous undiscussed move along with my own. Found a better way. Is there a problem? You seem to think my technical request was out of order? What would you have done there? Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Locomotive naming conventions

Hi everyone, I went on a bit of a spree tonight to rid US locomotive articles of abbreviated railway names per WP:NCA, which is pretty clear on this point (I don't think anyone would argue that a layperson would recognize what "PRR" or "GN" mean). However, I'm still not quite happy with it.

• For one, it's not at all clear what Pere Marquette 1225, Soo Line 1003, or especially United States Army 101 are if one comes up in a search bar. I would personally prefer <railroad> locomotive no. <number>, or at least <railroad> no. <number>, but I'd be interested in seeing previous discussions on the topic.
• For two, I used "Pennsylvania Railroad" in moving all of the "PRR" articles because Pennsylvania alone is easily confused with the state. I hope that's alright.
• For three, a lot of non-US articles are still using abbreviations. Is there a bot that can address them? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The resultant names are over-verbose, against COMMONNAME and I would claim even against the WP:NCA that was used to justify them. In particular, a bulk change like this should be discussed beforehand.

Also (and a style I've never liked, personally) Sentence case has been applied to "Fooian Class 99" into "Fooian class 99". As noted, I'd support this myself, but this capitalisation has been staunchly defended in the past for UK articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I'll start with capitalization, which we'd agree with (I think). The Class 99s in the UK are literally known as Class 99. In the US, they're just the K-4 (etc). That's a justifiable difference between the two article names, in my opinion! :-) On your other points, you haven't given enough detail for me to reply. Why are they against WP:COMMONNAME and NCA? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose The articles are generally on subjects that only people who are familiar with would search for. PRR is as familiar as CSX, NS, CP, CN, BNSF etc. This move should have been discussed. Morphenniel (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

"The articles are generally on subjects that only people who are familiar with would search for." That doesn't factor into article naming conventions. :-) We're here to provide useful articles for readers, not to unnecessarily confuse them—no matter who's searching for them. I would be very surprised if a layperson could recognize "PRR," "GN," "USATC," "D&RGW," and the others I fixed last night! I've asked MoS editors to weigh in here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem is verbosity. USATC S160 is so much shorter than United States Army Transportation Corps class S160 that I've only ever seen it named in the short form, thus COMMONNAME. Rather than the acronym being obscure, I'd have to sit and think as to what it expanded to. I see NCA as going along with this: it's the short form that's the widely used one. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather have a long title than confuse a reader. No person who isn't steeped in railroad or military knowledge is going to know what USATC is. I'm totally on board with a shorter title if it's not that acronym. Just "transportation corps"? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

COMMONNAME is policy, self-explaining titles aren't. This is why we have hyperlinks.

USATC meets COMMONNAME (certainly in the UK). USATC S160 is recognisable (if not expandable) by "the average trainspotter on the Clapham suburban line", United States Army Transportation Corps isn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Au contraire. The average Canadian would most definitely know and understand what CN/CNR, CP/CPR, etc. stood for. Also, there is no need for an unnecessary locomotive no./Nº—and especially not—# to precede roster numbers. Useddenim (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

And what about the average American? British? Indian? ;-) I'm not against an alternative naming system, but why is it unnecessary? There's nothing in the title to indicate that United States Army 101 is a steam locomotive. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@The ed17: Context. All the incoming links to US Army 101 – with the exception of Portal:Trains/Did you know/November 2008 – are from other railroad pages. Useddenim (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Special:Search... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support avoiding obscure insider acronyms per the MOS advice and RECOGNIZABILITY. This in no way hinders those who will search by acronyms; redirects handle that. And yes, Andy, we do still use sentence case, not title case, for article titles; no need to do this corner of the project differently. Dicklyon (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

So if we did use sentence case (which I'd support), then why British Rail Class 37 et al.? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The same reason we don't write "Ford mustang". "Class 37" is the model name, even if it's uncreative, and names of makes and models of vehicles are capitalized as proper nouns, regardless of how many of them have been built. oknazevad (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Class 37 isn't the model name. English Electric Type 3 is. "Class 37" is no more than the "37" code from TOPS (introduced years after the locos), annotated to indicate that it's the class number. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that should be lowercase if it's not the actual model name but just some categorizing label. My turntable has an elliptical stylus not an "Elliptical Stylus", even if the manufacturer likes to capitalize that in marketing materials.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support using plain English, per policies and guidelines already cited. WP really doesn't care what short forms trainspotters and transit engineers use amongst themselves for expediency (other than of course include mention of them in the lead as alternative names). This is not Railway Digest, it's an encyclopedia for everyone. The abbreviated names are not recognizable to anyone but specialists. This basically comes down to the same reasoning as why we have an article at Jaguar and a redirect to it from Panthera onca, not the other way around. Some acronyms are more recognizable than their expansions, of course, like NASA and 3M, but this is not the usual case, and I see no evidence it applies to a single example here. I've lived annoyingly close to trains my entire life, and do not know what a single one of these stand for without looking it up. Just seeing the article titles, I would have no idea these were trains, or conveyances of any kind, in most cases.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support avoiding acronyms that are unlikely to be known by the majority of potential readers. Wikipedia is not just for north American readers. Almost nobody (as a percentage of potential users moderately competent or better at reading English) will have a clue what those acronyms mean. By all means use them for redirects, so that a search will find the correct article, and use them in the lead sentence, but not as the article name.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Miles and chains

A request at Template talk:Convert#Miles and chains asks for a new output unit (mich = miles and chains) so the following would work:

• {{convert|55.3|km|mich}} → 55.3 kilometres (34 mi 30 ch)

Currently, the best convert can do is to produce 34.4 mi.

Would this be useful? Would it be used in articles? Should any other combinations be added? For example, would an output in miles/chains/yards ever be needed? I'll see any comments here, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know whether it would be widely used, but I can certainly see it being used on occasion. I don't think miles, chains and yards is likely to be required as I can't think of any situation where we would need precision as fine as a yard with distances as long as 1 mile. Going the other way the situation might occur in accident reports, but again I'm unsure of that we'd need that level of precision. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty simple to add mich so your support makes me think I'll do that. However, it is irritating that the people asking for the unit cannot provide an example of the proposed usage in an article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The only cases I can think of are where a route is partially surveyed in miles and chains, and partially in kilometres; such as the Heathrow service from Paddington. Heathrow Tunnel Junction (which is just north of the tunnel portal) is described in

• Yonge, John; Padgett, David (August 2010) [1989]. Bridge, Mike (ed.). Railway Track Diagrams 3: Western (5th ed.). Bradford on Avon: Trackmaps. map 2B. ISBN 978-0-9549866-6-7.

as "12m 27ch/19.846 km (Miles/Km changeover)" - these figures don't convert exactly: {{convert|12|mi|27|chain|km|3}} → 12 miles 27 chains (19.855 km) so there is a nine-metre discrepancy, which is just under half a chain (10.058 m), so is within tolerance when only whole-chain measures are available. So where we have only a metric measure, but an article primarily uses miles and chains, it may be useful to allow a conversion to miles and chains. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, the new unit will be live in a few weeks when convert is next updated. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, found one. See this edit: the source that I used gives two distances for Dunbar station - 29 miles 5 chains from Edinburgh Waverley, 585.950 km from London Kings Cross. Unless I make a manual conversion, I can't format the two distances in the same way. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Naming and layouts for Baltimore Light Rail

Camden Station
Station layout

Two issues need attention with Baltimore Light Rail station articles. There has already been some discussion here, but I believe a wider discussion with the issues laid out here is more appropriate. (@Scott218 and Cuchullain: pinging you to let you know I've started this discussion.)

First, there are several stations for which official sources disagree on the name. The recent BaltimoreLink project was a wholesale reconfiguration of bus service in the city, including new branding. It is unclear whether the stations have been formally renamed, or just given different names on some maps. BaltimoreLink system maps use the possible new names; station and parking info and the GTFS file (the formatted information that is supplied for use in third-party applications like Google Maps) use the older names. It appears that we may have to make an editorial call as to which names are "correct"; I don't have a personal preference, but would like to have a consensus so there won't be repeated moves. The stations in question are:

• Existing name University Center / Baltimore Street, possible new name Baltimore Arena (University Center) station
• Existing name Centre Street, possible new name Mt. Vernon / UM Midtown Medical Center (Centre Street)
• Existing name Cultural Center, possible new name Cultural Center / State Center
• Existing name Mt. Royal (University of Baltimore/MICA), possible new name Mt. Royal / MICA

Second, there is the issue of station layout diagrams. These have become very common on US station articles, although I recall some previous discussions concluding that they weren't useful for simple stations (1 track with one platform, 2 tracks with 1 or 2 platforms, etc). Generally, the layout of such simple stations can be communicated effectively with the infobox and/or one sentence of prose; a layout diagram just takes up space without adding new information to the article. The majority of Baltimore Light Rail stations are this simple; only North Avenue (3 tracks / 2 islands) and Camden Station (cross-platform transfer to MARC) have more complex layouts. Additionally, the current layouts (see here for a typical example) are misleading and inaccurate. They attempt to show the different services, but they do not show the northbound direction of the yellow-colored service nor the southbound direction of the red-colored service.

For these reasons, I have been removing the layouts from the Baltimore Light Rail articles; however, this has been contested by Scott218, who originally added them. I believe that the layouts serve no useful purpose and should be removed from the Baltimore Light Rail articles (and most other US station articles outside BART and NYCS, to be honest); I am looking for consensus to confirm or oppose this. Due to the complexity of Camden Station, I think an RDT-style template (which has been successful on other articles) would be useful to complement the prose. I've attached a draft of that here, and would welcome help. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Boiler diameters misdescribed

See Template talk:Infobox locomotive#Diameterinside. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Some issues with templates

Hey there, for some reason, the service tab on this page: Avenida (Lisbon Metro) has a rather unusual mistake in it. Basically the template makes the Santa Apolónia RAIL STATION as the preset terminus of the line instead of the Santa Apolónia METRO STATION (which page I already created), this for the Blue Line of the Lisbon Metro. As for the Green Line the mistake is similiar, showing the Cais do Sodré RAIL STATION isntead of the METRO STATION as terminus. Could someone more savy on this kind of stuff give me some help? Thanks Ligaanet (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Your edits to the navbox template {{Lisbon Metro navbox}} here look like they should have fixed that.

SO I presume this is a caching issue. Go to the page that uses this template and make a null or whitespace edit to it. That should make the update visible immediately. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

That part is fixed yeah but the problem is in this part of the code:

{{s-start}}
{{s-rail|title=Lisbon Metro}}
{{s-line|system=Lisbon Metro|line=Blue |previous=Marquês de Pombal|next=Restauradores }}
{{s-end}}

This shows a small table with the previous and next stations and also the terminus of each direction. On the next station it says

Restauradores
towards Santa Apolónia

(but here it has the link to the rail station) Ligaanet (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Essentially the problem here is that {{Lisbon Metro stations|station=Santa Apolónia}} yields a link to Santa Apolónia railway station and not to Santa Apolónia (Lisbon Metro). The specific line which does that is

 | Santa Apolónia = [[Santa Apolónia railway station|Santa Apolónia]]

which was added at 21:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC) by Sw2nd (talk · contribs) in this edit. I think that if you remove that line, your problem will be fixed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much, it's fixed now. I was getting crazy trying to find the error and it was so simple...I don't really know how most of these templates work so it's like putting a monkey on a hadron collider control room. Ligaanet (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ligaanet: It shouldn't be necessary to add all the stations separately - the |#default= line handles the basic pattern of [[X (Lisbon Metro)|X]], you just need to code for the variations such as linking [[Aeroporto (Lisbon Metro)|Aeroporto]] when somebody puts "Airport". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, if it's not asking too much, do you know how i could put the diagram on this page on the left side instead of the right side? I tried the proper "align" commands but it doesn't work: Template:Lisbon Metro/Green Line Ligaanet (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

What proper "align" commands? Where did you do this? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

For what I've read on wikipedia you should put """style = "float: left;""" inside the routemap template (like Useddenim did for me just now - thanks Useddenim!) but when this is done the "shadow" around the table disappears. When the table is on the right you can see a clear border all around it, with a pale shadow around so you can see the difference between the background and the table itself. When the table is on the left that border disappears for some reason, even when using the proper commands. Maybe it's something by default on the enwiki?Ligaanet (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, if you compare the ptwiki and enwiki versions you can cleary see that in the enwiki version you can't put text next to the template and the shaddow disappear and in the ptwiki you can do that, using for what i've seen the exact same formatting:

Green Line (Lisbon Metro)

pt:Linha Verde (Metropolitano de Lisboa)

I even ended up copying the ptwiki template to the enwiki page and still for some reason it showed on the right hand side (when on the pwwiki it always shows on the left without any need for further formatting.Ligaanet (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, finally the formatting for this one is aokay, thanks for all your help! :) Ligaanet (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ligaanet I've removed the float left and moved the route maps further down the pages where it's been used. Having two infoboxes at the head of the page squeezed the lede text to just a little strip between the two boxes which looked, uh, peculiar. Cabayi (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Cabayi but doesnst that make it useless? the route map goes to the far bottom of the page so no one even sees it. Ligaanet (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ligaanet: If you were to translate the content of pt:Linha Verde (Metropolitano de Lisboa) into English and add it to the article, it wouldn't matter. Useddenim (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ligaanet No, on two counts. It would only be useless if the reader were incapable of scrolling down the page - in which case 90% of the web would be out-of-sight and useless. Secondly, as Useddenim points out, once the article has some more content the route map sits nicely in the article, as it does on Cais do Sodré (Lisbon Metro).

I'd also point you at Piccadilly line for comparison. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Paris Métro Line 5 has a layout you may find more appealing while also being user-friendly. Cabayi (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You guys actually have a point there...I'll look it into, thanks :) Ligaanet (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Amtrak

I've reverted a major change to the "Accidents" section of the Amtrak article. Reasons were given in the edit summary. I've also started a discussion at talk:Amtrak#Accidents which members of this WkikProject are welcome to contribute to. Mjroots (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm the reverted, and I too welcome comments. The original change is relatively new and was major in itself. It might be more accurate to say that there's a discussion about the breadth of coverage for accidents, major and otherwise, in Amtrak. Mackensen (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Apologies if the original post came across as less than neutral, as it was not my intention. For the record, I recently added the section to the article. Am happy to discuss this fully at article talk page. Mjroots (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

!vote for sortable table. Useddenim (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Useddenim - the discussion is at talk:Amtrak#Accidents. Comments there please. Mjroots (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Emptying of Category:Locomotives by wheel arrangement

An editor, Andre Kritzinger (talk · contribs) has been busy emptying the category Category:Locomotives by wheel arrangement of its members for the Whyte category wheel arrangement pages, e.g. 4-2-4T. They have created Category:Whyte notation, but there are no pages in this, only sub-categories.

Today I noticed that they're also removing tank engine wheel arrangement from the category Category:Tank locomotives.

I have no problem with sub-categorising "wheel arrangements" to "Whyte notation", but that hasn't been happening. I have no problem with "Tank locomotives by wheel arrangement" either, but again, that isn't what has been happening (and should have been a bulk rename anyway - there's nothing in Tank locomotives other than wheel arrangements.

This did come up at my talk: page a month ago, but I don't see what has happened since as being what was promised then.

Per WP:EPONYMOUS, 2-4-2 is the lead article for Category:2-4-2 locomotives. Both should be categorized under Whyte notation, not just the category.

Raising here, rather than at their user page, because in all past discussions I've found this editor to be "inflexible" in their views. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit to 4-2-4T, that was an unnecessary late-night error.

No, I (we) am (are) not emptying the Category:Locomotives by wheel arrangement of its members for the Whyte category wheel arrangement pages. As it is now, Category:Locomotives by wheel arrangement contains a potpourri of Whyte, UIC, AAR and Commonwealth wheel arrangement classification sub-categories without distinction as to which belongs under which classification system. What I’ve (we’ve) done was to create sub-categories for Category:Whyte notation, Category:UIC classification, Category:AAR arrangement and Category:Commonwealth classification to eventually create some order. These sub-categories are now gradually being populated by editing the South African loco-articles I (we) work on. When I'm (we're) done - nearly there - I'll (we'll) work through what remains in the main Category:Locomotives by wheel arrangement to move those to the respective sub-categories.

As to WP:EPONYMOUS in respect of 2-4-2 and Category:2-4-2 locomotives and others I (we) have been editing, I (we) fail to see a problem:

• "The article itself should be a member of the eponymous category and should be sorted with a space to appear at the start of the listing." It already is.
• "The article should be listed as the main article of the category using the {{cat main}} template." It already is.
• "Articles with an eponymous category may be categorized in the broader categories that would be present if there were no eponymous category" They already are. - André Kritzinger (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

4-4-0 is no longer in either Category:Whyte notation or Category:Locomotives by wheel arrangement. It was in one of them, it should now be in Whyte (per your 3rd point from EPONYMOUS). You are continuing to make these removals, even when I'm trying to discuss this problem here. This is what I've always experienced, and why I described you as "inflexible".

4-4-0 et al needs to be in Category:Whyte notation.

4-4-0 et al need to be put into Category:Whyte notation at the same time they're removed from Locomotives by wheel arrangement. They should not be bulk-removed, then maybe some of them get re-added later. This is a lot of categories, it is nigh-on impossible to recover them all afterwards, and certainly a waste of other peoples' editing effort to make us do it that way. It is far easier to move from one category to its sub-categories (you're managing to move them into the less relevant UIC category at this time). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Andy, seems you still ignore WP:AGF as far as I'm concerned, and then you wonder why I'm "inflexible" as far as you're concerned. You seem to be in such a hurry to accuse me that you don't seem to be bothered with facts.

• 4-4-0 has been in Category:4-4-0 locomotives since before 10 May 2013 (entry 100 of its first history page) and it was recategorised from Category:Locomotives by wheel arrangement to Category:Whyte notation on 16 June 2017 in one edit.
• 4-4-0 was recategorised from Category:Locomotives by wheel arrangement to Category:2B locomotives in one edit less than two hours ago. Category:2B locomotives has been in Category:UIC classification since it was created on 16 June 2017.
• Category:Whyte notation and Category:UIC classification have both been sub-categories of Category:Locomotives by wheel arrangement since they were created on 13 June 2017.

It could therefore never have been uncategorised for a single second. Nothing was removed, nothing was bulk-moved, all recategorising was done by editing. Please pour yourself a beer or something and chill some, and stop making a fool of yourself. - André Kritzinger (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

4-4-0 is not in Category:Whyte notation. There are no pages in Category:Whyte notation. Please take a look and confirm this. This is nothing to do with GF, this is a simple fact.

It has never been in Category:Whyte notation, AFAICS, and it ought to be. Do you disagree that it ought to be in there? Andy Dingley (talk)

Quote from Category:Whyte notation: "This category has the following 44 subcategories, out of 44 total." Unquote. It's time you hit refresh or make a dry edit (click edit, then save without changing anything). Then chill and get off my back. - André Kritzinger (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Those are categories, not pages. Category:4-4-0 locomotives is in there, 4-4-0 needs to be too. This is what the 3rd point you cite from EPONYMOUS is about. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

[sigh] Bottom of 4-4-0 page: "Categories: 4-4-0 locomotives 2B locomotives". Open 4-4-0, hit refresh or make a dry edit. - André Kritzinger (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

For illustration, I've now added 4-4-0 to Category:Whyte notation. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

[sigh] Bottom of 4-4-0 page now: "Categories: 4-4-0 locomotives 2B locomotives Whyte notation". I'll undo it in a few minutes. Need to eat first. - André Kritzinger (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• OK, so now you're just edit-warring.

Why are you against the 3rd point of WP:EPONYMOUS, as you cited here, which puts 4-4-0 into Category:Whyte notation? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm neither edit-warring nor opposed to the 3rd point of WP:EPONYMOUS.

• I told you an hour in advance at 15:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC) that I was going to undo your edit of 4-4-0. Undo was only done at 16:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC). The 60 minutes exactly was coincidental. Besides, you said your edit was "For illustration", didn't you?
• The 3rd point of WP:EPONYMOUS says "... may be categorized in the broader categories..." Which it is, at Category:2B locomotives. On the other hand, having it categorised in a category (Category:Whyte notation) as well as that category's subcategory (Category:4-4-0 locomotives) is plain silly and exactly the opposite of the order I'm trying to create in Category:Locomotives by wheel arrangement in spite of your ill-considered "because André is doing something" opposition. - André Kritzinger (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• 4-4-0 is a Whyte notation. It belongs in the overall group of Whyte notations, just as Category:4-4-0 locomotives does. The point of EPONYMOUS #3 is that the lead article belongs in there as well as the category. Why do you think it doesn't?

Membership of Category:2B locomotives is much more tenuous. I'd see a {{cat see also}} as more appropriate there - there's a relationship, but it's a sibling one more than a sub-category. Also 4-4-0 is a more common way to describe these (especially for AAR rather then UIC) whereas Bo'Bo' is a more common description for those locos than anything Whyte would be. So should UICs be subcats of Whyte? Or Whytes be subcats of UIC? Or a random mix of each? A see-also sibling relationship would avoid that too. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:EPONYMOUS no. 3 has three options. In this case, I consider option 2 the most logical, as explained in my previous response.

Where do you see Category:2B locomotives categorised as a sub-category of Category:4-4-0 locomotives? How is the way I've categorised them not a sibling relationship?

Membership of Category:2B locomotives may seem more tenuous in countries where hardly any locomotives were imported and Whyte notation was preferred. In countries that used locomotive builders from all over Europe, the UIC classification as applied to steam locomotives is hardly tenuous since builders lists for Henschel, Berliner and many others do not show Whyte notations at all. Why else would five equivalent classifications be listed in the infobox of all Whyte notation articles? - André Kritzinger (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You've created a category for Category:2B locomotives. This is nominally correct, but it's a neologism. I've never heard of a 2B locomotive. It's an AAR classification, and the USA always (AFAIK) used either "eight wheeler" or 4-4-0 for these steam locos. The lead article for this category is 4-4-0, not 2B, which is further confusing (and don't you even think about renaming it). The members of this category have article titles with "4-4-0" even embedded in their titles. The 2B category is mis-categorized into UIC classifications. It isn't a UIC classification, it's an AAR classification. If it were UIC, it would be Category:2'B locomotives. There are no UIC 2B locomotives, that I have ever heard of. 2'B is probably used in France, but 2B is used nowhere. You're also stalking my edits and randomly, and incorrectly, reverting them, just because you can't bear any disagreement with you - as I said, I have always found you utterly inflexible. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Forest vs. tree time:

• Category:Whyte notation
• Category:UIC classification
• Category:AAR arrangement
• Category:Commonwealth classification should all be sub-cats of Category:Locomotives by wheel arrangement. Useddenim (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

They all are. - André Kritzinger (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they should be and are. This isn't a problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• The contentious issue is this:

from WP:EPONYMOUS:

Articles with an eponymous category may be categorized in the broader categories that would be present if there were no eponymous category (e.g. the article France appears in both Category:France and Category:Western Europe, even though the latter category is the parent of the former category). Editors should decide by consensus which solution makes most sense for a category tree. There are three options:

1. Keep both the eponymous category and the main article in the parent category. This is used in Category:Western Europe to allow that region's country articles to be navigated together.
2. Keep just the child article. This is used in Category:British Islands, to prevent a loop.
3. Keep just the eponymous category. This is used for Category:Farmworkers in Category:People by occupation. Such "X by Y" categories sometimes cover a limited navigational set, not a topic (see #Category tree organization), thus there is no logical article content.

I favour the first of these. 4-4-0 and Category:4-4-0 locomotives are both members of Category:Whyte notation.

Why should they not be? Why does Andre favour #3? I can't see "Such "X by Y" categories sometimes cover a limited navigational set, not a topic (see #Category tree organization), thus there is no logical article content." as relevant here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Look again. I (we) said, "In this case, I consider option 2 the most logical, as explained in my previous response." - André Kritzinger (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

You're not doing #2, you're doing #3. As before, you still seem to be confused between pages and categories.

All I can see is twice, "as explained previously" and one " is plain silly " "It's silly" is an opinion, not a reason.

This approach is given as the first, and default, behaviour for EPONYMOUS. It's recognised that there are exceptions - how does this meet them? "Andre thinks it's silly" is not one of those exceptions. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Again, these are not UIC classifications. 2-Co-2 is a "Commonwealth" classification. Not AAR, not UIC. In UIC it would be 2'Co2' See de:FS E.326

If you are going to disagree with other editors to the point of wilfully ignoring them and continually reverting them, it is incumbent upon you to at least make correct changes. These are not. You won't even stop making these changes whilst the issue is being discussed. Andy Dingley (talk)

Once again, no WP:AGF on your side when I'm concerned. I actually agree with you on this one, but allowed myself to be led by the classification used in the article FS Class E.326 since it's an Italian loco. Thank you for editing that article just now to expand its classifications. - André Kritzinger (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Stalking people's edits to incorrectly revert them is a great way to wear out AGF. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I've been promoted because I use a Watchlist and I'm now an inflexible editstalker... - André Kritzinger (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Without getting into any “who did/said what”, I can’t see any reason why, for instance, the page 4-4-0 should not be in both Category:4-4-0 locomotives and Category:Whyte notation. Useddenim (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• FYI: WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 13#Category:2B locomotives Andy Dingley (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Please would more editors who are interested in this project, comment at the discussion WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 13#Category:2B locomotives? The proposal there, if approved, would delete three dozen locomotive categories. – Fayenatic London 22:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan AuSable Valley Railroad

Ongoing discussion FYI. 7&6=thirteen (☎)

Interesting. This looks like a private miniature railway. I am not sure if this deserves an article, but at least the content should not be destroyed.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

DreamLinker The discussion is still open and additional input by anyone would be appreciated. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Neutral notice of FLC

Hi y'all,

List of Metra stations is currently undergoing an FLC. Feedback of any sort is welcome. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 19:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Wigan Branch Railway and the Preston and Wigan Railway

These were two short-lived companies created in 1830–31 which amalgamated into the North Union Railway in 1834. They are redlinked and I'm here to ask if anyone knows if they exist here as differently-titled articles; or if anyone has them on a "to do" list? Thanks. CravinChillies 10:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I considered creating these. Although they are significant (their routes are still part of the West Coast Main Line; theirs was the very first railway amalgamation in British history), there might not be enough history for separate articles. They are covered in:

• Marshall, John (1969). "Chapter 4: Bolton to Preston". The Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway, volume 1. Newton Abbot: David & Charles. pp. 66–68. ISBN 0-7153-4352-1.
• Reed, M.C. (1996). "Chapter One: The Origins of the System". The London & North Western Railway. Penryn: Atlantic Transport Publishers. pp. 18–21. ISBN 0-906899-66-4.
• Whishaw, Francis (1842). The Railways of Great Britain and Ireland (2nd ed.). London: John Weale. pp. 380–390, 476–7.

probably in smaller works too. I rather think that they should be created as redirects to sections within North Union Railway, one section per railway. Use {{R to section}} but omit {{R with possibilities}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a good idea, Redrose64. Leave it with me. Thanks. CravinChillies 20:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Indian Railways track gauges

In some Indian railway articles Feroze Ahmad 2 created recently, the track gauge is given as a strange value. For example Talaguppa–Mysore Intercity Express says 1171 mm, and Saharsa−Rajendra Nagar Terminal Intercity Express says 2676 mm. These gauges are unsourced, and unknown in {{Track gauge}}.

Could someone do some research into these? I'd expect one of the Indian railways regular gauges. The articles are listed in Category:Articles using template 'Track gauge' with unrecognized input (0). -DePiep (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Much of what is now the Southwest Division of Indian Railways used to be meter gauge (3'-3 3/8"), but has progressively been converted to Indian Gauge (5'-6") - Morphenniel (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

That's very plausible. I'd like to see those gauges in these articles (when OK). My point is: current articles have weird values. {{Track gauge}} recognises many known gauges (250+), but not these. Sources, please. -DePiep (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• I am not sure where the 1171 mm came from. It is possible this was part of the Mysore railways, but that should still be metre gauge. I will search for more information and get back.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
• I found this map [7] which contains the type of roues. Most are metre gauge in the process of being converted to broad gauge.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Removed {{Track gauge}} from these articles, because implausible and unsourced value:

1. Chakradharpur–Barbil Intercity Express
2. Tirupati–Coimbatore Intercity Express
3. Bangalore City–Shivamogga Town Intercity Express
4. Bangalore City–Tirupati Intercity Express
5. Guwahati–Mariani Intercity Express
6. Talaguppa–Mysore Intercity Express
7. Yesvantpur–Harihar Intercity Express
8. Yesvantpur–Hassan Intercity Express
9. Chitrakootdham (Karwi) - Kanpur Intercity Express
10. Faizabad - Kanpur Anwarganj Intercity Express
11. Pratapgarh - Kanpur Intercity Express
12. Saharsa−Rajendra Nagar Terminal Intercity Express
13. Varanasi - Shaktinagar Terminal Intercity Express
14. Howrah - Sri Sathya Sai Prasanthi Nilayam Express
15. Chennai - Sri Sathya Sai Prasanthi Nilayam Express
16. Santragachi - Tirupati Express

-DePiep (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for removing this. I searched a lot, but wasn't able to find any sources.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Train number question

There is a discussion regarding an engine number at this location. Please join in the conversation to help improve the accuracy of this article. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Italic on locomotive names

I noticed that Northumbrian (locomotive) and the articles linked from it are inconsistent in the use of italics on the names of early locomotives (Northumbrian, Rocket, Planet). Is there an accepted convention? Dave.Dunford (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure that we normally italicise loco names. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

+1. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Dave.Dunford (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

When to add forthcoming transit systems, and extensions thereto, to Template:S-rail/lines

As a WP:TemplateEditor responding to a request to insert entries for a planned transit system extension, I declined the request on WP:NOTCRYSTAL grounds. However, I think the people participating in transite-related wikiprojects may have a sense of when they collectively think such info should be added to the template, e.g. when we have articles on the planned system and its stations, when they are under construction, when the system is open to the public, or whatever.

Some input at Template talk:S-rail/lines#New template for REM rapid transit project is requested.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

San Diego meetup invitation

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/November 2017 . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

On-train automated information

FYI, Talk:London Underground 1996 Stock#Announcements. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Category: Diesel-electric locomotives

The above discussion re the Swiss shunter led me to discover that there wasn't a category for diesel-electric locomotives. So I've created Category:Diesel-electric locomotives. All that needs doing now is to populate it! Mjroots (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Given how large it is, is it worth populating as a global cat, or would it be less effort to create some national D-E cats first and go directly to those? Or does the US resistance to this make it unworkable? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

We can create national subcats if that is felt to be desirable. Also, do we need diesel-hydraulic and diesel-mechanical categories? Mjroots (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles without references

There are 200,000 articles without references. Some are about cricketers with only one first-class appearance. There are also hundreds of railroad articles without references to establish notability. There is no doubt that the preponderance of these rail car types, tram stops, and train stations exist. Nevertheless, the credibility of the encyclopedia is at risk when there is no much original research. The stations are in linked lists of the previous and next stations. They are named places (of a sort) and therefore are assumed to have inherent notability. Many have photographs. Some perhaps have references in another language. The ones addressed here have no secondary references. They fail WP:GNG. I know editors like these articles. Well composed PRODS are reverted without comment or improvement. I am asking for a discussion of a policy here. I reject the first option, letting these articles molder for another ten years. One of the next two is what we need to decide on -- if another easy option is not proposed:

1. No action
2. Remove the unreferenced tag if the article seems to be legit. This would appear to be in contravention to WP:GNG
3. Delete the articles in one fell swoop, or at least allowing a speedy for each one. Rhadow (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your negative comments. The discussion you propose stretches wider than simply railroads. Please take this negativity elsewhere, or start making a positive contribution to improving articles that you believe fail WP:GNG. Also bear in mind that an encyclopedia is a long-term project and does not have any fixed durations for getting things done. In order to save you wasting your time, I will tell you now that any and all attempts to PROD a railroad article will fail. Morphenniel (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Hello Morphenniel -- My suggestion to raise the bar for notability for railroad articles comes not from malice, and not more than for unreferenced articles about telephony, cricketers, or minor astronomical objects. One primary value of an encyclopedia is curation: identification of important articles, not a comprehensive list of every development in every field. An article should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. It's not clear to me that SBB-CFF-FFS Em 3/3 is notable and appropriate, at least until a reliable third party tells us why. That article has had no such support since 2008. I respectfully submit this is not negativity, but rather stems from a desire to make railroad articles better, not just more numerous. Rhadow (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please note that WP:GNG is the "General notability guidelines" and in particular please read WP:N at the head of the page wherein it states "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". A glance at SBB-CFF-FFS Em 3/3 would indicate that WP:NEXIST is appropriate here. The shunter clearly existed in considerable numbers (41 were manufactured) and although fringe would IMHO be notable to those interested in such matters. Furthermore, WP:FAILN has good advice: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources ... look for sources yourself". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Rhadow - A quick glance at your contributions to Wikipedia provides clear evidence of your negativity. Your main activity appears to be PROD-ing articles for deletion. I see very few contributions of a positive nature (e.g. actually improving references, finding verifiable sources). I think you need to re-think your purpose on Wikipedia, and whether you really are adding to the value of this project, as opposed to subtracting value by trying to remove the work of others. Morphenniel (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I've come across Rhadow recently. This editor prodded the MV Star Osakana article. It was deleted as notification to WT:SHIPS was very late in the timescale. Following restoration, it has been worked up into an article that at least demonstrates GNG is met.

As for the SBB-CFF-FFS Em 3/3 article, a look at its French equivalent reveals two printed sources (one available online) and its German equivalent reveals a webpage on the locomotive class. As Martin of Sheffield says, Rhadow really needs to look harder before prodding articles. Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Here is more notice of an article that needs improvement: Talk:Soo Line 2718#Original Research. Rhadow (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Rhadow I assume good faith and beleive you are trying to improve the encyclopedia. It is, however, very controversial to assume that deleting unfinished content achieves any improvement. If you feel you can justify your deletion attempts by seeing other editors scurry around and make improvements to neglected articles under threat of deletion, please read WP:NOTCLEANUP and NO:DEADLINE. ~Kvng (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello all. There is a lot of information in this field and a lot of editors don't have access to sources such as Railroad History in JSTOR (see the History of rail transport in the United States article). Looking at some of the page view analysis such as the 4-4-0 article which I made some edits on shows these articles are a big draw for Wikipedia. I also notice that we don't have a writing guide for articles on historic railroads. The current guide seems oriented towards currently running railroads, info boxes,etc. So I would offer to the group the following suggestions:

• Develop a writing guide for railroad articles that implicitly shows what a good railroad article should be. Wouldn't this indirectly address the notability issue?
• Develop a prioritized list of articles needing references, or suggested to be reorganized and or integrated. Maybe the SooLine locomotive mentioned above needs to be a part of the main article for SooLine under motive power as done in other articles. How do we enhance the reader's experience is the goal.
• Lastly, maybe we need to form a subproject on Historic railroads and develop these ideas along that line ... The group could offer help to editors on getting citation support and references, maps, etc... Many Thanks Risk Engineer (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Belgian loco naming

Belgium is bilingual, so the national railway company is either NMBS or SNCB. Our Belgian loco articles are mostly at SNCB Class 70 etc. A few are at NMBS/SNCB Class 55 etc.

Should we rename and standardise to SNCB? Or use a sort order key, at the very least. At present, international categories like Diesel-electric locomotives are sorting with them split into two groups. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I think standardizing it to 'NMBS/SCMB Class x' would be better as people might type in either or both names when they search. Then again,this is just my opinion and I would leave it to the Belgium experts to decide. -1.02 editor (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

In the discussion above about the SBB-CFF-FFS Em 3/3 the Swiss Railway company's styling of "SBB-CFF-FFS" is used. The page National Railway Company of Belgium states that the Belgian company's formal style is "NMBS/SNCB". As a mere dabbler I would have thought either follow the company's style (as for the Swiss), or else claim this is a English language encyclopaedia and call it NRCB with appropriate links. Using the French initials will annoy the Dutch speakers, and vice-versa if you were to use the Dutch initials. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

When publishing to an English language context, SNCB themselves seem to be happy at just using SNCB - admittedly not always. I can't find them as NMBS alone in an English context, and certainly not NRCB. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like you've answered your own question then! :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

But is it answered well enough to fend off the next "well-meaning" RANDYorak who reverts the lot? 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, SNCB is the most common use in English when referring to the company. Articles at SNCB Class xxx with redirects from NMBS Class xxx would seem to be in order. Mjroots (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I am disappointed that the names of so many longstanding articles have been changed after a very short discussion on this talk page (taking just over one day). The new names fail to take into account the well known and longstanding controversy over languages in Belgium (which is actually trilingual, not bilingual) (see Language legislation in Belgium, Francization of Brussels ("This phenomenon is, together with the future of Brussels, one of the most controversial topics in all of Belgian politics."), 2007–08 Belgian government formation) and therefore fail to comply with WP:POVNAMING. The official abbreviated name of the company, as used on its English language website, is NMBS/SNCB, and as per Biel/Bienne, that is the NPOV abbreviation that, against the background of the Belgian controversy over languages, should be used for these articles. Bahnfrend (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Bahnfrend, WP:UE applies, as well as COMMONNAME. There is no need to give the German equivalent in Belgian articles; We don't give the Romansch equivalent in Swiss articles, do we? Mjroots (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Mjroots, SNCB is French, not English, and NMBS is Dutch (Flemish), not German. Dutch (Flemish) and French are the two main official languages of Belgium; German is a very distant third. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and as I stated above COMMONNAME and UE mean that we use "SNCB" to identify the company, without falling foul of POVNAMING. Mjroots (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Commons - should all track gauges be metricated?

Commons:Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2017/10/Category:Track_gauge_by_size

Commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Edit_warring_over_metricating_railway_gauge_categories_by_G.C3.BCrbetaler

Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Railway glossary

Hello everyone, I'm posting the message below on behalf of Botatao (talk · contribs) who approached me with a suggestion about using Wikipedia to share glossaries of terms and definitions related to railways.

I am working in a team within Deutsche Bahn that oversees several European-wide cooperation projects. In a nutshell I think it is safe to say there is a significant push for modernising the railway sector. Shift2Rail is one of the projects that we are involved in, and it is a rather large European research project, including both the main suppliers and the main railway companies. One of the main goals of Shift2Rail is cross-border harmonisation, for which having a common 'language' is essential, thus several glossaries in each sub-domain are under development as part of Shift2Rail. Traditionally glossaries are defined by committees of experts from several countries and institutions, published in some expensive document and then reviewed many years later. In many cases, there are several definitions for the same terms, as a result of work being done in silos. We feel that such a rigid and closed working method is no longer suitable and a more open and dynamic approach is needed. We have come to the conclusion that wikipedia is the only way to completely overhaul this process.

The idea I bring to you, is to pick up the glossaries we are producing and using it as a basis for contributing to wikipedia, however more suitable. Hopefully this would be then the new platform for continuous glossary work, instead of the old publish and forget approach. Within wikipedia the terms and definitions can reach a much wider audience and anyone interested can get involved. In fact, many times, even us the experts, when looking for a particular term, go to wikipedia, instead of trying to find the word in a few dozen different technical standards, some of them are not even freely accessible to us, even though experts paid by our company have been involved in producing them.

I have already been dabbling in wikipedia for a few months and have been pondering eventual downsides and limitations. We know about Wikipedia:OR for example and we think it would not be a limitation. This approach also has already been approved by our partners. What we would like to ask, is if some experienced wikipedians with railway interest are willing to provide guidance, or even better, work alongside us in this process. If this is successful, it could then generate some positive momentum and motivate experts from the partner companies to be more involved with wikipedia and extend this new approach further.

Botatao and I would be interested to hear what WikiProject Trains thinks about the idea. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Richard and Botatao. Would this be something to involve Wikidata in? At random I picked on sleeper, and (eventually) was led to wikidata:Q220229. I might argue with the "British English" (seriously, does anyone this side of the pond call them "railroad ties"?), and dislike the assumption that "English" is US, but the principle is there. HTH, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Martin of Sheffield (talk · contribs). As a EU-wide cooperation project, this project is 100% in English, or whatever we, non-native speakers, speak when we go to Brussels! :) If you suggested Wikidata for its attributes for supporting different languages, I'd say it is not so relevant for us, this is born and bred in English. The intention is also to work on the main pages, what good would it be, if we have a great definition for "Automatic Train Operation" but it is then in a less viewed page? Or do you suggest Wikidata for a different reason? I am new around here, so I might not be aware of things. Anyway, I hope this to be a collaborative process, so your suggestions are most welcome. Botatao (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, my fault, I misunderstood what you were after. I assumed that you needed a glossary to translate between the different European languages. It might be advantageous to post a link to an online glossary so that interested parties could see what you are trying to do. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Martin of Sheffield (talk · contribs) This is just a dump of one of the topic-specific glossaries, the one for Automatic Train Operation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Botatao/sandbox2 - It has no references and it is not intended to be published ever. In there, some of the terms are very specific and not very notable but they are important to understand the overall system. There are five other topic-specific glossaries, all railway-oriented: Communications, Cyber-security, Moving Block, Smart Wayside Objects and Formal Methods - http://shift2rail.org/research-development/ip2/ - But the idea is to completely get away from this siloed approach and stop having topic-specific glossaries. If we provide a document with proper sources, could we use this to improve existing definitions and add missing content? Botatao (talk) 10:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Also note we have the Category:Glossaries of rail transport. I hadn't realized there were 10 different glossaries that we are maintaining. Some rationalization might be in order.--agr (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of glossaries! Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Whitefoord Russell Cole

Is anyone here is interested in expanding Whitefoord Russell Cole please?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

AfD

The EMD BB40-2 article has been nominated for deletion.Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Sydney styling in Template:S-line

Hi, does anyone object to removing the custom Australia styling in {{S-line}}? The styling goes against WP:COLOR, which indicates that colouring links should be avoided; and creates Lint errors due to the use of the <font> tag, which has been deprecated since 1997. It is also inconsistent with styling used in other Australian systems; see e.g. the infobox of Roma Street railway station. (In addition, should the three white-coloured titles in Template:S-rail/lines have the custom colouring removed for mostly the same reasons, even though they use <span>?) Jc86035 (talk) 10:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I oppose modifying the default colors of Wikilinks, so I assume that I don't object to this, but would you please give an example of an article that uses this template to override default Wikilink colors? —Anomalocaris (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the treatment at Roma Street railway station is cute, and I understand why it was done this way, but ultimately I think overriding link colors is a mistake, including in this article. —Anomalocaris (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is version of that table with two spelling errors / bad links. Notice how the normal WP:REDLINK behavior is broken and you can only see one of the bad links in red?

Platform	Lines	Destinations	Notes
2	NSW TrainLink North Coast	Sydney	1 daily NSW TrainLink XPT service
	Doomben	Doomben	1 weekday service
	Traveltrain	Tilt Train from Rockhampton
3	Doooooooomben	Doooooooomben
	Gold Coast	Brisbane Airport Domestic
4	Beenleigh	Beenleigh
	Goooooold Coast	Brisbane Airport Domestic
5	Beenleigh	Beenleigh
	Cleveland	Cleveland
6	Beenleigh	Beenleigh & Ferny Grove
	Doomben	Doomben
	Gold Coast	Brisbane Airport Domestic & Varsity Lakes
	Shorncliffe	Shorncliffe
7	Beenleigh	Ferny Grove
	Caboolture	Caboolture
	Doomben	Doomben
	Gold Coast	Brisbane Airport Domestic
	Shorncliffe	Shorncliffe
	Sunshine Coast	Gympie North
8	Ipswich & Rosewood	Ipswich & Rosewood
	Springfield	Springfield Central
9	Caboolture	Caboolture
	Redcliffe Peninsula	Kippa-Ring
	Sunshine Coast	Nambour
10	Traveltrain	Spirit of Queensland to Cairns
		Spirit of the Outback to Longreach
		Tilt Train to Bundaberg & Rockhampton
		The Westlander to Charleville

References

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: That table… actually has nothing to do with {{S-line}}, which makes the succession boxes in the infobox, but yes, those should probably be changed to use a border colour, {{box-shadow border}} or {{rail color box}}. Jc86035 (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

There does appear to be an example in the infobox. The last line {{s-line|system=CountryLink|line=North Coast3|previous=|next=Kyogle}} looks like it invokes a colour scheme. Nthep (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nthep: Yes, that's it. This was probably not the best example seeing as it's not very prominent (there are more in Central railway station, Sydney), but it works. Incidentally, the table doesn't actually use font tags so it wouldn't register the Lint error. Jc86035 (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Jc86035, Central railway station, Sydney and Roma Street railway station both have Lint errors of Obsolete HTML tags for <font> attributable to their respective sections involving Template:S-line. —Anomalocaris (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: Yes, I know, that's why I used it in the other discussion as an example of a template which needs to have its font tags replaced or removed. Jc86035 (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Jc86035, the reason I messaged you before is that you said "the table doesn't actually use font tags so it wouldn't register the Lint error." The obsolete HTML tag (<font>) error registers in both articles. —Anomalocaris (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: Oh, I was referring to the table that Guy Macon copied into this page. Jc86035 (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Right. The table is simply meant as a glaring example of how coloring wikitext hides the fact that there are two misspellings in the table which would normally be clearly visible because they are colored red. For an in-depth discussion of how wikitext is colored (font vs. span), see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikilink font colors. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

What it comes down to is this. In Roma Street railway station, the infobox contains a routebox, the bottom two rows of which look like this (example 1):

{{S-rail-start|noclear=yes}}
{{s-rail|title=NSW TrainLink}}
{{s-line|system=CountryLink|line=North Coast3|previous=|next=Kyogle}}
{{S-end}}

The middle cell of the bottom row is produced by templates which emit the following:

<td rowspan="1" colspan="3" style="text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; font-weight: bold; color: #ffffff; border: 3px #df4c1d solid; background-color: #df4c1d;"><font style="color: #ffffff;">[[NSW TrainLink#North_Coast|NSW TrainLink North Coast]]</font></td>

Here, the <font>...</font> tags are outside the link; but after converting those double square brackets to <a>...</a> tags, the MediaWiki parser then puts the whole thing through HTML Tidy which emits this:

<td rowspan="1" colspan="3" style="text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; font-weight: bold; color: #ffffff; border: 3px #df4c1d solid; background-color: #df4c1d;"><a href="/wiki/NSW_TrainLink#North_Coast" title="NSW TrainLink"><font style="color: #ffffff;">NSW TrainLink North Coast</font></a></td>

The <td>...</td> tags are unaltered, but the <font>...</font> and <a>...</a> tags are exchanged. This exchange means that the linked text is coloured white instead of the default blue, since the styling of the innermost elements has precedence over the outer elements. If we alter the {{s-line}} template to use <span>...</span> tags instead of <font>...</font>, with nothing else changed, HTML Tidy will no longer exchange the tags, so the innermost element is now the <a>...</a>, and the styling of that has precedence over the styling produced by the <span>...</span> tags (example 2)

{{S-rail-start|noclear=yes}}
{{s-rail|title=NSW TrainLink}}
<tr><td rowspan="1" style="text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; border: 3px #df4c1d solid;">{{S-line/side cell|through=|state=|branch=|next=|system=CountryLink|line=North Coast3|note=|type=|oneway=|round=|circular=|side=left}}</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="3" style="text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; font-weight: bold; color: #ffffff; border: 3px #df4c1d solid; background-color: #df4c1d;"><span style="color: #ffffff;">[[NSW TrainLink#North_Coast|NSW TrainLink North Coast]]</span></td><td rowspan="1" style="text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; border: 3px #df4c1d solid;">{{S-line/side cell|through=|state=|branch=|next=Kyogle|system=CountryLink|line=North Coast3|note=|type=|oneway=|round=|circular=|side=right}}</td></tr>
{{s-end}}

with the effect seen here: the link is blue instead of white. We can get the link to be white again by moving those <span>...</span> tags inside the link (example 3)

{{S-rail-start|noclear=yes}}
{{s-rail|title=NSW TrainLink}}
<tr><td rowspan="1" style="text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; border: 3px #df4c1d solid;">{{S-line/side cell|through=|state=|branch=|next=|system=CountryLink|line=North Coast3|note=|type=|oneway=|round=|circular=|side=left}}</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="3" style="text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; font-weight: bold; color: #ffffff; border: 3px #df4c1d solid; background-color: #df4c1d;">[[NSW TrainLink#North_Coast|<span style="color: #ffffff;">NSW TrainLink North Coast</span>]]</td><td rowspan="1" style="text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; border: 3px #df4c1d solid;">{{S-line/side cell|through=|state=|branch=|next=Kyogle|system=CountryLink|line=North Coast3|note=|type=|oneway=|round=|circular=|side=right}}</td></tr>
{{s-end}}

The problem now is that we can't apply the exchange at {{s-line}} level, it needs to be at the point where the link is generated - which is inside one of several dozen different templates, depending upon the rail system. For the case under discussion, we would need to amend {{NSW TrainLink lines}}, that being redirected from {{CountryLink lines}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Templates affected are:

• {{NSW TrainLink lines}} (needs to have closing/opening font tags removed)
• {{NSW TrainLink style}}
• {{Sydney Trains style}}
• {{NSW TrainLink intercity style}}
• {{GSR style}}
• {{Sydney Ferries style}}
• {{Sydney Metro style}}
• {{Newcastle Ferries style}}
• {{Sydney Light Rail style}}
• {{NSW non-operational style}}
• {{NSW TrainLink regional style}}

The "style" templates should have |export=AUS removed if the formatting is to be removed from {{S-line}}. In addition, if the formatting is to be removed from {{S-line}} entirely, {{Closed Lines style}} should have |export=CRR removed. However, the templates will probably work just fine even if only {{NSW TrainLink lines}} is corrected upon removal of the formatting. Jc86035 (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

(example 4)

Preceding station		NSW TrainLink		Following station
Terminus		NSW TrainLink North Coast		Kyogle towards Sydney

With modification only to {{S-line/sandbox}}, this is the (substituted) result with unchanged succession templates.

The formatting can be kept by using Module:String to inject span tags into the links, but I don't think it's really worth it just to make the formatting inconsistent for bits of New South Wales. Jc86035 (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Examples 1 and 3 show formatting which should be removed from all Wikipedia articles because it breaks redlinking. Example 2 is hard to read. Example 4 seems like an acceptable solution. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I would think colouring links in templates would be okay in some cases, since WP:COLOR doesn't specifically ban it (and {{rint}} has hundreds of image links for which it's impossible to tell if the linked page exists). (Not that I'd do it in {{S-line}}, though; it's inconsistent with the rest of the world and currently requires a lot of extra coding.) Jc86035 (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:COLOR, second bullet, says "Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers." --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I would totally support 100% removing any special formatting as per "Example 4" —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support example 4 strongly. Aoziwe (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support example 4 as the best of the 4 so far. We should not override default link colors. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support example 4 Turingway (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support example 4. It's the style used by articles and templates for numerous systems from around the world precisely because it coveys the important information (the association of that color with that line) without interfering with other Wikipedia functions. oknazevad (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment If no one objects to use of the standard style (example 4), I will update {{S-line}} to remove the custom styling between 3 and 5 November. Jc86035 (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support example 4 For reasons mentioned by others. Kerry (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• I have removed the styling from {{S-line}}. Jc86035 (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

SEK Class Ζδ

Although this greek class included only ex-prussian P 8, the article is a complete copy from Prussian G 10 and the infobox is a wild mix of data from G 10 and Prussian P 8. Since I edit only occasionaly in the en-WP I'm not familiar with your procedure in such cases. Considering User talk:Vu-0001 this "article" is not the first problematic article caused by the creator of this strange article. Kind regards --Wahldresdner (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

P.S. User:Vu-0001 was blocked indefinitely in the de-WP due to multiple copyright violations. SEK Class Δγ is the next candidate - text and infobox describe completely different locomotives... --Wahldresdner (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, just delete the lot. The effort of cleaning these is more than the effort of writing them from scratch. Certainly not a word from this editor is reliable.Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

A candidate for G12 deletion? Mjroots (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Here's a list of all articles. I would support deleting the lot, unless each is proven to be OK. Some, such as JGR Class 160, have already been checked. Several have already been deleted (and maybe repeatedly created). Some appear to be Greek names for a Prussian class and look as if they ought to be redirects to an existing article. Several are clearly copy-pastes and even have the wrong names as titles. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Vietnam Railways 231 Class These two are groups of classes by wheel arrangement, not by specific class. They're salvageable, but need rewriting.
• Vietnam Railways 230 Class pruned to a supportable minimum
• SPAP class Δ (Vulcan) duplicate of USATC class S118, so redirected there
• SEK class Λγ
• SEK class Λα
• SEK Class Δγ Another SEK class Κγ, db-G3
• SEK Class Εγ Seems to be another copy of SEK class Κγ. Might be fixable, but that's a full rewrite by someone who has the sources, so relatively unlikely to be achievable short-term. Nor would keeping this save them much time. db-G3
• SEK Class Εβ db-G3, as for SEK Class Εγ
• SEK class Κα More Prussian G 10 copies, db-G3
• SEK class Κβ - G3
• SEK class Κδ - G3
• SEK class Κγ May be vaguely accurate. Needs checking by someone with sources.
• SEK class Ηε Another duplicate of SEK Class Θα, db-G3
• Identical size:

• SEK class Ηδ This four are unsourced duplicates of SEK Class Θα, with obvious issues where it claims the same things. db-G3 for all four.
• SEK class Ηγ - G3
• SEK class Ηβ - G3
• SEK class Ηα - G3

• SEK class Ια
• SEK Class Θβ
• SEK Class Θα
• SEK Class Ζε Another SEK Class Θα duplicate, db-G3
• SEK Class Ζδ This four are unsourced duplicates of Prussian G 10, db-G3 for all four.
• Identical size:

• SEK Class Ζγ - G3
• SEK Class Ζβ - G3
• SEK Class Ζα - G3

• Pennsylvania Railroad class K3s - tagged G3
• Pennsylvania Railroad class K29s - has been entirely rewritten, as the original was wrong in every detail except the size of the wheels. @MatthewAnderson707:
• Pennsylvania Railroad class HH2s - tagged G3
• Pennsylvania Railroad class HC1s - tagged G3
• Pennsylvania Railroad 3768
• New Haven I-5 class · (Deleted)
• New Haven I-5 Class · (Deleted)
• New Haven I-5 Class - G12 tagged as a copyvio of [8]; note it has been deleted once before as a copyvio of the same page
• New Haven Class I-5 · (Deleted)
• JNR Class C63
• JNR Class C55
• JNR Class C54
• JNR Class C53
• JNR Class C52
• JNR Class C50
• JNR Class 4110
• JGR Class 8900 - checked, unsourced but so trivial there are no evident problems
• JGR Class 8620 - reworked by DAJF
• JGR Class 7010 - badly done auto-translation of ja:国鉄7010形蒸気機関車. Unsourced. Fixable, but of no real value in this state.
• JGR Class 230 · (Deleted)
• JGR Class 1800 · (Deleted)
• JGR Class 150 Already checked, @DAJF:
• JGR Class 160 Already checked
• JGR Class 1070 · (Deleted)
• FS Class 690 · (Deleted)
• Chicago and North Western Class E · (Deleted)
• CNW Class D · (Deleted)

@Andy Dingley: - these can't be G12'd as that is for unambiguous copyright violations, not likely ones. Suggest these are individually nominated for deletion rather than as a mass nomination. Mjroots (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I've G3'ed a couple. Should we do them bit by bit, or decide each and every one, then nominate those that ought to go? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm about to use this thread as a CSD justification (a tiny bit out of process, but not much), so I'm adding a link to this ANI thread for posterity: [9]. My takeaway from this discussion and the ANI discussion is that there is unanimous agreement that the best way forward is for members of this Wikiproject to review the articles, save what can be saved, and tag for speedy deletion if they think it is better to just nuke the article and start from scratch. As long as a page is tagged by a member of the Wikiproject, and appears to have been reviewed instead of part of a simple mass tagging, I'm happy to delete, and I suspect most admins, when pointed to this thread, will be too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Better to take a measured approach here, review, salvage what can be salvaged, scrap what is beyond repair. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Is it worth getting an indef block here? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Nationalize :: Privatize? (Japan Rail History)

The article on the Japan rail system history, in the "Nationalization (1906...)" section, it appears that the author is using "nationalize" and "privatize" interchangeably. Given that, in the United States, at least, the two terms are antonyms, is it a good idea to use them interchangeably?

72.93.56.170 (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I replaced the misuse of "privatize", which is obvious to anyone fluent in English. Also made he article consistent in using the -ize endings throughout. oknazevad (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Turkish stations naming convention

Hi all

Just a heads up that there is a WP:RM discussion outstanding at Talk:Adana_railway_station#Requested move 2 November 2017, over whether Turkish railway stations should take the form XXX railway station or just XXX station. Although it only concerns three examples now, we would probably regard it as a test case to set a precedent for all others. Any opinions from the WikiProject gratefully received. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Employee division timetables or public timetables?

@Mitchazenia: Now, here's a general question I have for everyone. An example, Lee Road, the Cleveland to Youngstown Erie trains say Cleveland to Pymatuning, but Pymatuning was never mentioned on the public timetables (or I haven't seen it at least), that was just how the system was divided by subdivision. Is this the way that we are supposed to display adjacent stations? Cards84664 (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Minimum criteria for a Station

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What contitutes a (railway) station, for the purposes of article naming? Useddenim (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Primarily with respect to tram, trolley and streetcar lines, but some editors are in the habit of labeling all stopping points as a "station" or "transit station". Is there any support for the idea that in order to be called a station (at least in Wikipedia), there should be at a minimum:

• a permanent, weatherproof platform
• some sort of passenger shelter
• a point of sale for fare media

Anything less should be a "stop" (setting aside the specific British legal definition of a "halt"). Useddenim (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

If those are the criteria, half of the UK's stations will vanish. We have platforms (and some countries just don't) but passenger shelters are pitiful, often missing altogether or no more than an open-fronted bus shelter, and a means of selling tickets is much in the minority. None of these three are requirements for a station. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Would "have or had" be better? Useddenim (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Andy Dingley that those criteria are too restrictive. For me, in Britain at least, if passenger trains regularly call there, it's a station. -- Alarics (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Denton is just as much a railway station as is Grand Central

I agree also; this set of criteria is insanely restrictive. "A point of sale for fare media" would wipe out most railway stations in the UK, "Permanent weatherproof platform" would wipe out large swathes of the US and India, and "some form of passenger shelter" would take care of much of the remainder. A station is a place which appears in passenger rail timetables as a station, and we shouldn't be trying to come up with fancy exceptions. ‑ Iridescent 09:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

If a railway company has timetabled trains to call there, and the public can use said trains, then it is a station, no matter how small it is. These should almost always be capable of meeting WP:GNG. Stations not open to public services (eg: Hoo Junction Staff Halt) may also be capable of meeting GNG, but should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Some of the smaller halts opened by heritage lines (e.g. Bluebell Halt) may be better covered as part of an article on said heritage line. Public freight sidings (e.g. Churn Siding) are almost always going to need to be covered by the article on the line. It will be a rare exception that these will be able to meet GNG. Mjroots (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots the OP was about stations in the context of "tram, trolley and streetcar lines", in which case it isn't as clear-cut; in a tram-heavy town like Amsterdam there are probably well over 1000 tram stops, most of which are just bus stops which happen to have a couple of rails in front of them. My opposition is to any "if it doesn't have a ticket machine it's not a station" rule as originally proposed, but there is a legitimate debate to be had here; sure Berney Arms is unquestionably a station, but is something like Langsett/Primrose View in Sheffield? ‑ Iridescent 15:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that we delegate the question of the notability of tram stops to WP:TRAM. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Look above at Articles without references -- It's going to be a big challenge to find reliable sources to demonstrate notability. See WP:GNG. Rhadow (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Nah. At least with regards to the UK, Mjroots, Redrose64 and myself could provide at least three references for any given station within minutes. The 1965 Bibliography of British Railway History lists well over 20,000 books about British railway history alone, with a further 20,000-ish in the subsequent supplements—there's virtually no aspect of British Rail and its predecessors too obscure to have been covered in detail, and certainly not something high-profile like a station. ‑ Iridescent 16:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• This would be truly counterproductive. Probably half of UK mainline stations would fail, but almost every tram stop would pass! -mattbuck (Talk) 17:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Super! Please help me find a reliable source about Iyoki Station and Asahi-ekimae-dōri Station. Rhadow (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

There are more extensive articles on both at ja:伊与喜駅 and at ja:旭駅前通停留場. You will need assistance with translation to make any progress with them and auto-translation is not yet viable for Japanese. However I can just see you itching to PROD or AfD these as "unsourced", and if you try that you will get very short shrift. Deleting an article just because the sources are all in a (to you) inaccessible language is not looked upon well. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Really, Andy Dingley, since 2005 ja:伊与喜駅 has one timetable reference. That's not notable. Please don't speculate about my intent, nor threaten me with barely adequate time for confession before execution. Rhadow (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

No need to speculate, I've read your edit history. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I ran ja:旭駅前通停留場 through Google Translate. Reveals four book sources and a newspaper source. Mjroots (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• It's currently in use and served by trains it is a station unless it is called something different in reliable sources. If it is disused and was served by trains it is/was a station unless it is called something different in reliable sources. If it is or was served only by something that is not a train (e.g. trams, cable cars) then it is not within the scope of this project to decide whether it is a station. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• I think the above is probably the wrong approach. These are probably best decided (as currently) based on what the operator calls the station, regardless of the system or how large/developed it is. If you just want to fix some article titles, fix the Tiananmen/Tian'anmen discrepancy or propose a consistent disambiguation style for numbered metro lines. Jc86035 (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with the comments above - a station is a station if it is defined as such by its operator, and in sources. I think that means we stick with the way we're already doing things. The proposal above is a solution looking for a problem, and would definitely be a step in the wrong direction. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Follow the sources: It's not Wikipedia's job to try to police language usage. If reliable sources call it a station (or a word in non-English that translates to station) then we also call it one, per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RECOGNIZABLE, and WP:NOR. Wikiprojects don't get to make up their own magical rules out of nowhere (they try it all the time, and when people notice, it gets reversed). Whether something can have an article here is a WP:GNG matter. A tremendous number of pointless stubs on stations and alleged stations needs to be merged into the parent articles on the transit system, exactly as we do with non-notable schools and the local school system's article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  12:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• @SMcCandlish, it's not as straightforward as that. It takes no effort to find sources describing Lebanon Road tram stop or Exchange Square tram stop as "stations" (just google "lebanon road station" or "exchange square station" manchester), despite their clearly being tram stops and not railway stations, and that's in Britain where the tram stops do tend to have some kind of physical infrastructure. For something like the San Francisco cable cars where the stops are literally no more than a "cable car stops here" sign in the road but where numerous sources still describe them as "stations", things get even more blurry, and these examples are all from English-speaking countries where we at least have the fall-back of "what does the operating company call it?". For somewhere like Amsterdam where "halte voor tramlijnen" can be translated in multiple ways (the City of Amsterdam translates it as 'station' (quote marks in original) while GVB who operate the trams translate it as "stop") not having a rule would mean chaos. Then of course there's the gray area of places like Woodlands Road tram stop (a heavy rail station for 78 years; a tram stop for 21 years; now demolished) where there's a legitimate case to be made to use either "station" to represent what it was for most of its existence, or "tram stop" to represent what it was most recently, and where not having a rule in place would be an invitation for a permanent edit-war. I know Wikipedia already has a proliferation of rules, and that I'm one of the more vocal critics of the urge to incorporate a formal rule on every damn thing into the MOS, but station naming is an area where retaining the arbitrary "if scheduled passenger train services call there it's a station, and if its status has changed go with what it was most recently" existing rule makes sense. ‑ Iridescent 13:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Don't confuse mention with in-depth coverage in multiple, independent sources. Tram stops rarely get the latter, thus are generally not notable. Your belief that there's missing policy for this wikiproject to fill with its opinions is just an illusion. Similarly, it does not matter if some sources here and there call a no-structure stop a "station"; if it's not the predominant name in a significant majority of such sources, it is not the WP:COMMONNAME. Follow the WP:P&G, as written not as how you'd like to re-interpret them, and the issue just goes away. And WP:Use common sense; halte is 'halt, stop' in Dutch, not 'station' (also station in Dutch); one source that gets it wrong is meaningless. Where something was a station and a tram stop in different eras, just follow the sources. If most of them address it as a freight station, write the article from predominantly that standpoint, or vice versa if most of the material is about the trams stop, and name accordingly. If these are just passing mentions and not in-depth coverage, the subject is not notable and should be merged to something more general, or just deleted. There is no encyclopedic purpose in writing separate articles about every single point at which some railway, bus, subway, or street car lets people off. The solution to an existing rule that makes no sense and which we do not actually need is to delete it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  14:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• In general, all stops on heavy rail should be regarded as stations, including halts. On light rail it's more subjective, but probably anything more than a tram stop with a sign, seat and/or shelter at the side of the road should be regarded as a station. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undiscussed page moves by User:Irkediambed

User:Irkediambed has been making a host of un-discussed page moves. Most involving SEPTA or PATCO. There is little evidence for any of these moves. This user made their first edit to Wikipedia just one week ago, but seems to already have knowledge of page moves and redirects that I would only expect from a more experienced editor. Do I smell a sock ?? - Morphenniel (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope, I smell it too. I already reverted at least one move, probably could revert more. oknazevad (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

More Line capitalization issues

Dicklyon has moved another few dozen articles, for railway lines in Mainland China, to replace "High-Speed Railway" with "high-speed railway", and edited Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) to reflect this; the guideline is now inconsistent because not all articles were renamed. He also moved articles titled "Railway Station" to "railway station". Was there consensus for this? I believe these may be correct but an RfC should be made first in order to gain consensus if there was no previous discussion. Jc86035 (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

If he's made them without prior discussion, even if they were correct, then it's time for a topic ban. He is permitted to make such changes, by a process of general agreement, but past behaviour has made it clear that the community does not trust him to make such changes on his own. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Numerous previous discussions have concluded that "XXX station" and "XXX railway station" don't get caps, with few exceptions where Station is an actual part of the name. See WP:USSTATION, WP:UKSTATION, WP:CANSTATION, WP:Naming conventions (Australasian stations), WP:NC-PLSTATIONS, and discussions that led to them; there are differences, but none suggest caps for station. Yet I found a cluster of stubs for stations in Asia that had caps, so started working on that; many of them already had the "XXX" part alone as title, and "XXX station" lowercased in the lead, so nothing but a move was needed in those cases. Similarly "XXX line" and "XXX foo railway" don't get caps unless sources show that they are almost always capped, either as a proper name of a line or of a company; that was not the case on the ones I've changed (in some cases, the article does distinguish a company by the same name, XXX High-speech Railway LLC Inc or such, and I left the caps where that was the case, but not for the article title which was clearly about the line not the company). And yes, it's still inconsistent, as there's more to be done. Is there a thought here that Asia is different? Or China particularly? The convention that I edited had an assertion that such things are proper names, which is seldom the actual case as you can see by looking at sources, so I simply removed that statement which appealed politely for over-capping. Are they any particular objections to specific moves that I've made, or just discomfort that's it's me doing it? Dicklyon (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, make no question of it: it's just discomfort that's it's you doing it. Your past behaviour means that you have lost my trust for doing that. Maybe other people here feel the same.

None of us have the right to make unilateral changes on our personal whims. If our judgement is trusted, or AGF is extended to us, then we might make them anyway and they'd be accepted post facto, or else discussed and reverted. But your history is a burden to you. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Don't forget your obnoxious habit of moving great tranches of pages and not fixing a single link. It's taken Colonies Chris months to clean up after your downcasing of UK rail lines. Useddenim (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Useddenim: Be fair, many of them were not broken links, as redirects were created when the pages were moved. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

And any that are double redirs are rapidly fixed by a bot. This invective (did Andy Dingley really say "Oh, make no question of it: it's just discomfort that's it's you doing it" (emphasis in original)? Any excuse to attack Dicklyon. If this persists, it's not going to end well. And actually getting page titles in line with policies and real, site-wide guidelines is not "personal whims", it's standard operating procedure. The refusal of a handful of editors in this one wikiproject to accept that rules they don't like still apply to them is the whim issue, and is a WP:CONLEVEL policy problem. These tendentious antics bring the entire wikiproject system into disrepute, which it really doesn't need these days given that an increasing number of editors are coming to the conclusion we should just do away with them as hotbeds of anti-consensus canvassing and an barrier rather than a boon to open participation, walling off and WP:OWNing content against "outsiders".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  12:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, was I insufficiently clear for you, about how much of a problem Dicklyon has been here? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm entirely aware of the history and nature of your dispute with him; you've pursued it so tendentiously, it would be hard to miss. The fact that you don't agree with him is no excuse for pointed incivility. And when these go to full RMs, then tend to go the way he suggests the majority of the time, so consensus does not agree with your assessment of him being "a problem". The legitimate problem, long resolved at ANI, was manually making large-scale mass moves after objections were raised to them, instead of stopping and using RM, which he now does. Complaining that DL uses the prescribed forum for coming to consensus about article titles, to come to consensus about article titles, as somehow anti-consensus and a "problem" is obviously fallacious reasoning. Now, instead of arguing with me about whether it's okay for you to persist in uncivilly personalizing style disputes, after repeated WP:ARBATC {{DS/alerts}} (if I see it happen again, I'm just going to open a WP:AE request for sanctions, because this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior has to stop), did you have something substantive to discuss?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Regardless of Dicklyon's page moves of articles for British lines, we do now have RfCs which can fully address the issues I was posting about, so it would probably be more productive to participate in the RfCs instead of criticizing Dicklyon's actions again. Jc86035 (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The link fixes that Colonies Chris did were mostly in templates that retained the over-capped titles; I've thanked him again for his help. Nothing was broken, but I agree that continuing to change the over-capped uses to the MOS-compatible versions is worthwhile work, and I'm willing to help and do more of that. I tend to work on titles first, and then cleanup in the moved articles, with the hope that links will be gradually fixed over time. Like I say, happy to help, but I can't do it all. And the accusation of "not fixing a single link" is grossly unfair and untrue. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• FYI, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on Chinese railway station title/style conventions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• @Redrose64, Andy Dingley, and Useddenim: I have begun another RfC on the naming of Chinese railway line articles, which covers more than just the capitalization issue. The reason it is not here is that SMcCandlish has advised against keeping an RfC here since the WikiProject does not own any of the articles. Jc86035 (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Just adding, all the Station articles for the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) have a capital s for Station, for example, Ubi MRT Station (used it as it has shortest name). Do we change or keep it with caps? -1.02 editor (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@1.02 editor: I am not 100% sure but the capitalization is probably incorrect per MOS to avoid over-capitalization and to use RSes for capitalization conventions. The Straits Times uses lowercase "station" and "MRT station", as does the Singaporean government on this page. As for line name capitalization, the Straits Times uses uppercase "Line" although about 5–10% of sources use lowercase "line". Same probably applies to other systems in SE Asia but I haven't checked. Jc86035 (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The BTS Skytrain also uses caps for Station, so does the Taipei Metro for example. -1.02 editor (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The BTS stations mostly used lowercase station in articles; over-capitalization was mostly just in titles, probably because someone didn't understand about WP:NCCAPS. Fixed. There are a lot more in the Singapore and Taipei cases, but they should be fixed, too. Dicklyon (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Market Harborough rail accident prodded

I've applied a PROD template to Market Harborough rail accident, and since the creator has not edited since 2013 and I don't see any other substantial authors in the history, I'm notifying this WikiProject in case anyone here can see reason why it should be kept. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have a link to the RAIB report? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be one, in fact there doesn't appear to be any online for incidents pre-October '05 Nightfury 12:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, wondered why I couldn't find it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

This page.[10] of Railways Archive suggests that the accident was not the subject of a published formal accident investigation report] - Morphenniel (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

RAIB was created seven months after this accident and its first online report is on an incident the next day. I can't find an HMRI report. The road driver received minor injuries and a £200 fine, no one else hurt, so probably not notable. Certes (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you folks have found a deeper version of what I've found. There was a later accident at Market Harborough that does have a report (2010? I believe in that case the Intercity derailed). Yngvadottir (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Transit system icons in nav templates

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Transit system icons in nav templates. 18:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Stylistic discussion, mergers and reorgs

FYI, I'm engaged in a discussion with another editor about how much coverage Wikipedia should give to the corporate mergers and re-organizations for the article Southern Pacific Railroad and how those should be covered. As we are just going back and forth, could I solicit some outside opinion? I'm posting here as this potentially has implications for the articles on other large railroad companies. Discussion at: Talk:Southern_Pacific_Transportation_Company#Additions_made_since_August Dave (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Changes to Infobox services

AJ Pachano (talk · contribs) has been making large numbers of changes to the Infobox stations "services" field in several different articles. These are typically unsourced and have no edit summary. He's been reverted a few times but just keeps re-applying the changes. I don't know enough to tell whether these changes are correct or not. Can someone take a look? There are several articles involved, the one I'm watching is Martin Luther King Jr. Plaza (Toledo). Thanks. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Kendall-K1: blame Cards84664 (talk · contribs) for who do this about large infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJ Pachano (talk • contribs) 1:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Several hundred articles and templates, that's my estimate. I've been watching Union Station (Pittsburgh). Also this. Cards84664 (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Hate to say this, but the writing is so poor I have to wonder if the editor's reading comprehension is likewise. That might explain why the editor thinks they know something but are actually mistaken outright. oknazevad (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Also note the latest discussion on their talk page. Cards84664 (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Blind retaliation. I've had enough of this. Cards84664 (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cards84664: If he's not receptive to explanation I would report him to WP:AN3 or similar. Jc86035 (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I think we have a WP:CIR case here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking. This user lacks the competency to edit Wikipedia. oknazevad (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking, their "sources" appear to be just other wikipedia articles, so I recommend we go through their contribs and re add whatever templates they removed, and sort out how the new ones work. For starters, I've already fixed the newly created Chicago North Shore templates on the Chicago 'L' articles. Cards84664 (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: @Redrose64: @Kendall-K1: Ok, which of you want to take AJ Pachano and "PhilEvolution" to ANI for pulling a WP:SOCK? Be my guest. Cards84664 (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'll start the report, you guys can join in as well. Cards84664 (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Another block evasion, 112.200.107.143. Cards84664 (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Also note, I found this one after I was notified of some reverts, the revert summaries were blanked. Cards84664 (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Another one, User:RoyalCon. Cards84664 (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

DB Class VT 12.5

I have perhaps offended a RR expert. I was going through the backlog and discovered this article about 34 DMUs. I searched for references WP:BEFORE, but perhaps I was unsuccessful because I did not search in German. I PRODded the article. It was immediately reverted. Is there some exclusion from WP:V for this article? Rhadow (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can WP:DEPROD, though it's polite to give a reason. The article seems to be a summary of de:DB-Baureihe VT 12.5. That has a Literatur section, with a few magazines in German that don't happen to be on my bookshelf. There are also a couple of external links (one in German, one in Japanese) though neither shouts "reliable source" at me. The information sounds plausible and is probably verifiable by the right specialist, i.e. not me. Certes (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Certes -- So if there is a German language article, the English language article is excused from WP:V? I don't doubt the veracity of this article, but I worry for all of the unsupported articles. Many thanks. Rhadow (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rhadow: - Your ongoing inputs to the WikiProject Trains project are all negative, unhelpful and unwanted. As I have stated to you before, if your only purpose on Wikipedia is to PROD articles, busy then you have misunderstood the purpose of the encyclopedia. That said, I am more than willing to keep you busy by supplying lists of articles in other areas (not railroads), that you can PROD because they also lack references. As I, and many others have told you, any article you PROD will be reverted. Your underlying theme of getting people to work for you to improve articles rather than taking the time to improve them yourself. Your behavior is now starting to exhibit many of the signs of disruptive behavior, and if it does not cease, then you will find yourself being held accountable at WP:ANI. Morphenniel (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

No, the article isn't "excused" from WP:V. However, the existence of a German-language article with German-language sources suggests that a PROD with the rationale "No reliable sources found today" is untenable. Mackensen (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I think any more of this is time for WP:AN and a formal topic ban. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaguar XJR sportscars‎ too. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Morphenniel -- There are 200,000 articles that are unreferenced. I happened on this one today. I am sorry that it happened to be in your area of interest. Fine. You can give me other articles to chase down, articles that are not in your back yard.
As to the specifics of this single article, as it turns out, the only references for this article are in German. That's not surprising, the article is a direct translation of the German language article from ten years ago. No one bothered to copy the references for ten years following. I bear no ill will toward the Trains Project, no more than against the cricketers or keepers of the railroad station names. The rule is that WP articles are verifiable. Just because this article slid for ten years doesn't justify it. The nine articles I created in the last month are verifiable. It wouldn't bother me if they were challenged. The result is that our readers can rely on what they read. If you feel I need to be banned for that, please be guided accordingly. Rhadow (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Railway line disambiguation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How should railway and subway/metro lines, particularly numbered lines, be disambiguated? Should there be a consistent naming style across systems? Jc86035 (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Information (Railway line disambiguation)

There are 70 English Wikipedia articles for lines named "line 1", "Line 1", "U1" or "S1" (ignoring Line 1 Yonge–University). Since there is no guideline specifying how they should be disambiguated, they follow different naming conventions (as do the other numbered lines).

Out of those 70 articles:

• 25 are disambiguated "Line 1 (system)", "S1 (system)" or "U1 (system)" (all U-Bahn and S-Bahn line articles use this form)
• 17 are disambiguated "System Line 1" or "System line 1"
• 28 are disambiguated "Line 1, system "

Of the six lines named "Line A", four use "Line A (system)" and two use "System Line A". (Edit: For simplicity, I only used as examples lines named "1" and lines named "A", since most named lines do not need disambiguation. 15:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC))

Except for Line 1, Kolkata Metro (which is inexplicably named differently to the other lines in the system), all lines named "Line №, system " are in Mainland China and were written almost entirely by ASDFGH. I believe the comma disambiguation is incorrect, as this form of disambiguation is usually only used for place names and occasionally roads and buildings, and the disambiguator is always a place (not a system).

Should any articles be renamed to have a consistent disambiguation style? (pick one of A, B or C)

• A: no, the article titles should all remain as they are
• B: only some articles should be renamed (pick one to three of B1–B4)
  • B1: just the articles named "Line №, system "
  • B2: just the articles named "System Line № "
  • B3: just the articles named "System line № "
  • B4: just the articles named "Line № (system)" (+ U-Bahn, S-Bahn lines)
• C: yes, all the articles should be named the same way

If articles should be renamed, which form of disambiguation should they use? (pick one)

• 1: "Line № (system)"
• 2: "System Line № " (uppercase)
• 3: "System line № " (lowercase)
• 4: "System Line № " or "System line № " (depending on the form of capitalization used in that place or by the system's operator)
• 5: "Line №, system "

Survey (Railway line disambiguation)

• C and 1 (nominator). Jc86035 (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• C & 1. Version C1 will automatically remove the disambiguation in a piped link, if desired. Useddenim (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• C and 1; and this should apply to names by color, e.g. Red line, names by number and/or letters, and if it comes up, shape (Circle line). —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

  @Anomalocaris: This would probably apply to all railway lines (e.g. Airport Express, Beijing Subway would become Airport Express (Beijing Subway)). Jc86035 (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

  Jc86035: I think Airport Express (Beijing Subway) is a better name for the article than Airport Express, Beijing Subway, but it might be possible to convince me otherwise.—Anomalocaris (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• C, 1. And I agree that it should also be used for letter-named lines, and even full words if they happen to be the same word (like the common use of "airport"). oknazevad (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• C, 1 – without overcapitalization. If the "line" part is not the first word in the article, lowercase per MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS. Serial number designation like "U1" are capitalized (per virtually universal treatment this way in sources, and regardless of topic).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  12:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: If you're referring to lines which aren't numbered as well as lines which are, almost all systems (regardless of train type) outside Europe and Australia use uppercase "Line", especially for named lines (this may sometimes be an American English thing). I would favour using uppercase Line where more than 90% of RSes use uppercase, since "Line" is often considered to be part of the proper name, especially where a non-generic name is used for the line. Interestingly, Sydney uses both capitalized and non-capitalized, seemingly to differentiate lines and services. Jc86035 (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

  Sounds like more WP:SSF to me. WP doesn't imitate the house style of random publishers (and especially wouldn't when the publisher in question can't even be consistent). For cases where there are a lot of independent, secondary reliable sources and they almost uniformly capitalize, then there's a case for diverging and using caps that might not otherwise be used. Most of the time these disputes come up, it's railfans arguing that signage and the transit agency's own internal use are their sources, which is obviously nonsense, since signage is usually overcapitalized, and so is governmentese and internal memo-ese, pretty universally. They're not reliable sources for anything at all pertaining to English usage, even if they are for something like "this train does not stop here on Sundays". Same goes for signage-equivalent things, like timetable boards and paper timetable brochures. All primary sources, and completely irrelevant to encyclopedic style questions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

  That doesn't change the fact that if we impose our own style of phrasing instead of using what is actually represented in sources, that's the very definition of WP:OR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• C and either 1 or 3: I do not have a significant preference as to which. They both make sense. If pushed, I would opt for 3, because I see it as being cleaner. Certainly not 2 and 5—a comma is inappropriate, and we should avoid overcapping. –Sb2001 00:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• C and 1 make the most sense here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• C1 and C3 (without overcapitalization) are both OK, depending on the conventions for the system. Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on Comma or parenthetic disambiguation for "small places"

 SMcCandlish has started an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Comma or parenthetic disambiguation for "small places" to always disambiguate small places, such as railway stations, with commas rather than parentheses. Useddenim (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

German Locomotives

We now have further evidence of disruptive editing by User:Rhadow per this comment [11]. Same approach, raise a question of verifiability with the thinly veiled threat of the article being PRODed, and thus getting others to improve the article. The "What to do?" at the end of the comment is typical, and shows no attempt to improve the article, even though it is in decent shape. Morphenniel (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

And the list continues to grow:

• DR_Class_250
• DB Class 610
• DBAG Class 612

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphenniel (talk • contribs) 17:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, this is now disruptive. A ten minute search found plenty of sources are available for the DR Class 250 article (see talk). Maybe it's time to head to ANI and ask for a topic ban. Mjroots (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

How is it disruptive to say on the article talk page what work he did to look for sources? Mightn't it encourage others to chime in if they have sources available? You could fix this once and for all by adding the sources that you found in ten minutes. Dicklyon (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It is disruptive because there are article on the DR Class 250 in no less than eight languages. Most of the articles have references. Didn't take long to find some useable references, so BEFORE had obviously not been done. Why should I fix the mess? Not of my creation and I'm not the one complaining. Mjroots (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Mjroots -- The references discovered for DR Class 250 were (1) from print magazines (or at least no url was provided) and (2) other databases in German. The second set of references did not include DR 250, but rather the string Baureihe 155. The article creator probably knew that, but a non-German-speaking editor would have no way of knowing that. I didn't, and I don't think that changes my original observation that the article was unreferenced since it was created in 2008. I didn't PROD this article, nor nominate it for AfD. Rhadow (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

References do not have to be online, nor do they have to be in the English language. Obviously, English language references are preferred, but they are not essential. Mjroots (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

So based on the lack of references for articles that do exist, and a large number of articles that have not been prepared, what are we going to do about this sad template Template:German DMUs?? Do we remove all the classes without articles? Do we go the whole none yards, and delete the entire template on the basis that even the articles that have been created will likely fail both WP:V and WP:GNG?? The question being asked of us by Rhadow is whether we should start to dismantle, delete and generally perform a mass cull of the work done by the railways project over many years? Answers on a postcard please! - Morphenniel (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Another round of "presumption of notability" of railway stations

User:Rhadow continues to assail the railroad community, and this time its the old chestnut of the notability of railway stations. Here is a list of some articles where he has re-asserted the WP:V question.

• Bajva railway station
• Talk:Ajina-higashi Station
• Talk:Eba Station

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphenniel (talk • contribs) 17:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Where he says "Without references, the article is all original research and the assertions cannot be confirmed", I wouldn't consider that to be an attack on notability, but a question about what can we say without sources. Maybe we should just say it appears on the map, cite the coordinates, and say no more. Or maybe instead just redirect to a notable line that the station is on, if there's nothing to say other than that it exists. Dicklyon (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dicklyon -- Sorry to chime in on the old chestnut late. You are correct. I am not challenging the notability of train stations or named populated places or locomotives that clearly existed (and for which there are photographs). What I challenge is the creation of articles without references whatsoever. In other fields of human endeavor, the requirement for sources is undisputed. It seems strange that there are pockets of interest where interested editors believe that the subject matter is excused from sourcing. Finance is one, nautical matters is another. Ninety-nine percent of the articles are great. The remaining one percent are junk, and in many cases are counter-factual. I think we owe it to our readers to deliver articles on which they can count, and for which there are sources. In the railroad realm, here's list of old articles. They are just a few of the 200,000 articles with no references whatsoever. Rhadow (talk) - Morphenniel (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• DB Class 614
• DB Class 610
• DBAG Class 612
• DBAG Class 648
• DRB Class 41
• Bavarian C VI
• Bavarian G 3/4 H
• Prussian G 7.1
• Prussian G 8.1
• DRG Class 56.2–8
• Bavarian G 4/5 N

I agree that it's important that these be tagged as unreferenced, and it's not a bad idea to remind editors of that at a relevant project page, as that might motivate them to look for sources. E.g. for the first one, here are a couple. Note that there's no apparent reason to capitalize class here either; that should be fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

So we can now add Dicklyon to the list of lazy editors who have nothing positive to contribute to Wikipedia, and would rather spend their time tagging articles for improvement or PROD-ing them for deletion. I have just spent a quick 10 minutes and added references to the four German Railway (DB/DBAG) articles. I think we need to get a topic ban for both Dicklyon and Rhadow for being time-wasters and disruptive. Morphenniel (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I have worked with Dick on non-train projects and consider his contribution to Wikipedia to be positive. We all need to tag or PROD occasionally but, with 73,000 edits in article space, this editor is hardly "lazy". Certes (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Here is clear evidence of disruptive behavior by Rhadow. I improved this article that he had tagged by adding missing references and providing at leat one inline citation (more than enough considering the article length). Accordingly I removed the tag. Almost immediately afterwards the tag is restored, with no discussion on the talk page, and no further attempt to add more information. Worse, the editor then implies that the references are invalid because "I do not possess the paper book" [12], which infers a lack of faith and suggests that any inline citation is not acceptable to him unless he has the book himself. This is getting ridiculous. - Morphenniel (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Please don't be so sensitive. The book is a fine reference, just one not available to me. If I didn't trust it, I would say so. Rhadow (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rhadow: WP:V means that a reference has to be verifiable. It does not mean that you have to be able to verify it there and then. Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can look at my 100,000 contributions over the last 12 years and see that I seldom PROD or tag anything, and that I add tons of content to WP, and I do lots of gnoming style improvements without much drama. And I take a lot of photos that I upload to commons and place on articles that can use more or better illustration. What's this sudden attack about? Dicklyon (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

To be fair to Rhadow what he actually said was "inline; I would help with the inline citations but I do not possess the paper book". He is demanding that there are inline references, which is Wiki policy for anything contentious, would help but doesn't have the book. Some people interpret "sufficient" references in a short article such as this as one good one to show where the information came from. Others believe that every paragraph needs a reference, even if it is the same one repeated from the previous paragraph. The ideal is probably somewhere between the two. I have added a {{reflist}} section and the inline references now show up, If you could add a {{sfnp}} at the end of each paragraph that ought to deflect any criticisms. Martin of Sheffield (talk)

Give me a couple weeks and I'll help when my copy of the 2-part German Railways book arrives if it still needs it by then. One thing I find helpful when sources are not online is to include brief quotes from them in support of the points made; so I'll try to do that. Dicklyon (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Books arrived already. Boring bunch of tables, mostly, but do ask me if you want anything verified. When I feel patient I may do some inline refs. Dicklyon (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

In the DB Class 614 article I've clarified and fixed the citations like this:

• Garvin, Brian (2013). German Railways: The Complete Guide to All Locomotives and Multiple Units of Deutsche Bahn – Part 1: Locomotives & Multiple Units of Deutsche Bahn (5 ed.). Sheffield, UK: Platform 5 Publishing. ISBN 978-1-9094-3103-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Garvin, Brian (2015). German Railways: The Complete Guide to All Locomotives and Multiple Units of Deutsche Bahn – Part 2: Private Operators, Museums and Museum Lines (5 ed.). Sheffield, UK: Platform 5 Publishing. ISBN 978-1-9094-3118-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

But I think I'll remove the second one, as I don't see anything about that class in there. And I'll add page 155 to the footnote. Dicklyon (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move discussion

A move discussion is taking place at Talk:Arden railway station, Melbourne#Requested move 28 November 2017 which may interest the members of WP Trains. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Trains

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 19:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rodw: The DAB solver doesn't work. I tried to fix the disambiguation in Arthur M. Wellington and it wouldn't save so I'm doing it directly. CravinChillies 23:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - I don't know why the tool didn't work for you - might be worth asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation, but thanks for the work you are doing on these without it.— Rod ^talk 07:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move discussion

There is a discussion at Talk:NRE N-ViroMotive Series#Requested move 8 December 2017 regarding a requested move of that article. This discussion is of interest to the members of this WikiProject, and you are invited to share your thoughts. -happy5214 01:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on CONSISTENCY and USEENGLISH (and dashes and capital letters) in Russian train station article titles

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Russian railway line article titles.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

New York Central MU Cars

Hi:

I was just looking at the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Central_MU_Cars, and noted that the photograph in the upper right corner of the article is incorrect-- it is of a wood rapid transit car, not of a New York Central MU car. Good photos of NYC MU cars described in the article can be found at: http://passcarphotos.info/Indices/NYC2.htm. One that looks particularly good is: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/nyc4174.jpg.

-Eric Bott 108.89.250.75 (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, due to copyright issues, Wikipedia can't just indiscriminately post images from anywhere. Useddenim (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be one that's made of steel here. Wasn't there a commons category for NYC EMU's? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC: UK railway station disambiguation

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

By pure nose counting, Option D has the most support. RfC closers, of course, are not supposed to merely count noses and so I take note that there are a number of cogent arguments that use of parenthetical disambiguation is not policy-compliant. On further review, however, I note that most of what has been called "policy" are editing guidelines and conventions. The exception to this is the Article titles policy, which includes the Precision and disambiguation policy. That policy states parenthetical disambiguation is: Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title. The phrase "optimal article title" is open to subjective interpretation and there has been a clear expression by the participants that comma-separated disambiguation is not optimal. The consensus is therefore in favor of Option D: Use Xxx railway station (Location) for all stations. With regard to the order of preference for the contents of the "Location" disambiguator, Option 2 country then county/community has a clear consensus. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

---

What should WP:UKSTATION recommend for disambiguating articles on UK railway stations?--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Information (UK railway station disambiguation)

WP:UKSTATION currently doesn't include sufficient advice on how to disambiguate articles on stations when necessary, leading to considerable inconsistency in how these articles are disambiguated. It's time we come to a consensus on what to use and then add it into the guideline.

Using Scotland as an example, the following forms of disambiguation are currently in use:

• Xxx (Location) railway station : e.g. Armadale (West Lothian) railway station – This is the most common use, especially if National Rail uses this disambiguation, but is at variance with WP:NCDAB.
• Xxx railway station (Location): e.g. Georgetown railway station (Scotland) – This version more closely follows WP:DISAMBIGUATION, and use in U.S. and Canadian stations.
• Xxx railway station, Location: e.g. Stirling railway station, Scotland – This version follows a WP:NCDAB format used in many articles on geographic locations.

Please choose which of the following form of disambiguation should be used for railway stations in the UK:

• A: Use Xxx (Location) railway station for all stations
• B: Use Xxx (Location) railway station if National Rail or predecessors use this form, otherwise use Xxx railway station (Location)
• C: Use Xxx (Location) railway station if National Rail or predecessors use this form, otherwise use Xxx railway station, Location
• D: Use Xxx railway station (Location) for all stations
• E: Use Xxx railway station, Location for all stations

Also please choose what should be used for "Location":

• 1: County/community (e.g., "Glasgow", "West Lothian", etc.) for all stations (with more precise disambiguation if necessary).
• 2: Country (e.g. Scotland, England, etc.) if available, and county/community if more precise disambiguation is necessary (and further disambiguation if necessary).

Survey (UK railway station disambiguation)

• D, but B would be an acceptable second choice. I oppose A. For location, 2. I am the nominator.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• B. Where Network Rail disambiguates them, the name of the station is (eg) "Newport (Essex)", and unless there's another "Newport (Essex)" railway station this is not ambiguous. Where we need to disambiguate because there are legitimately two stations with the same name in different countries (eg Georgetown) then I think brackets are better than commas. While I understand commas are the preferred go-to for geographic disambiguations, it doesn't feel right here because "Georgetown railway station" is not a place name. Regarding location I would prefer 2. For the most part we're not going to need to disambiguate within the same country unless we're dealing with closed stations, and I don't imagine West Lothian means much to most people looking for Georgetown. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• A (i.e. existing). Disambiguate using this hierarchy: country │ county (or province/state) │ railway (or operator) │ year. Useddenim (talk) 10:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Useddenim: Good point on the disambiguation hierarchy; I'll add a note to the above.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• A - I'd prefer to be consistent across the board rather than have a mix of the two styles. As for location I have no preference. Jeni ^(talk) 11:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• D, or B as second choice, and oppose A, C and E, taking into account other places' systems (especially USSTATION, which AFAIK was changed to harmonize it with the European systems) and naming conventions for buildings (parentheses containing location, after the name). Almost no other systems' station article titles are disambiguated by putting the brackets between the station name and the station type. It's not entirely clear to me if National Rail actually calls those stations "Armadale (West Lothian) station" or similar; the parenthetical is omitted here in the address which suggests it could be put before or after "railway station". They don't really seem to care that much about the specifics of station names anyway; e.g. Queens Park (NR) / Queen's Park (TfL). I would prefer 1 for location, since articles about other buildings seem to use that. Jc86035 (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  I've always believed that USSTATION was changed in order to harmonize it with European naming conventions. At this point I'll still have to check on the other choices in Europe, before I decide anything. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  Correct, both WP:USSTATION and WP:CANSTATION were created in part to make the articles more consistent with other countries' articles, but the main reason was bringing them in line with the article titles policy and WP:DISAMBIGUATION guideline. The disambiguation system required the most work and was pretty much decided from scratch in both cases. As far as I know, the UK is the only country to use the mid-phrase disambiguation, which is pretty idiosyncratic.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

  But the elimination of system names under the guise of removing unnecessary disambiguations were made without any consideration to the structure of individual systems. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

  You've made that argument many times in the past, but this isn't really the place to take it back up.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

  Really? Because this involves the issue of naming conventions. You already screwed up the US station naming conventions, I don't want to screw up the ones in the UK. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  This RfC on UK stations is not the place to discuss the US naming conventions (which were adopted by the consensus of editors).--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• A - this is the way that {{rws}} is set up to work. Mjroots (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  @Mjroots: I don't think that means too much, since the template just reflects the article naming of the plurality/majority of articles named that way in 2012, when the disambiguation parameter was added on that basis. One editor on the template's talk page did describe the other disambiguation forms as "aberrations", but even though many articles, such as Higham (Kent) railway station, were renamed to match in recent years (per the UKSTATION policy, despite the policy not directly specifying the method of disambiguation except for using the Newport (Essex) example), still only about 4⁄5 of articles use that system. Incidentally, I think choice D would also help to differentiate stations actually referred to by "name (disambiguator)", such as Kensington (Olympia), and stations referred to without the disambiguator. Jc86035 (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, templates are made to fit the articles, not the other way around. Templates can be updated fairly easily.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• C as first choice, but I'd also be happy with B. As for location, the usual conventions as for any other article. -- Dr Greg  talk  16:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  @Dr Greg: Location conventions for places or for buildings/features? Places (e.g. London, Ontario) would be 2, whereas buildings/features (e.g. Abbey Road, London; World Trade Centre (Hong Kong)) would be 1. Jc86035 (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• D and 2 as per natural disambiguation —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• D and 2; that's the natural disambiguation. If there are stations that use the form specified in B then that's the actual name and not subject to disambiguation. Mackensen (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• D and 2 as per natural disambiguation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• D per site-wide precedent, and implementation in North America that is currently underway. SounderBruce 22:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Cúchullain, with choice D, would Kensington (Olympia) and Ingrow (West) still be titled "Kensington (Olympia) station" and "Ingrow (West) railway station"? Jc86035 (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  Jc86035: Good question. I don't think either of those would change even with D, as "Kensington (Olympia)" and "Ingrow (West)" appear to be their actual names. "(Olympia)" at any rate would not be the way Wikipedia would normally disambiguation). I do see some sources that use "Ingrow West" for the second one, without the parentheses, which might could dissolve the whole issue in that case.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  Unlike "Newport (Essex)" and "Sutton (Surrey)", the name "Kensington (Olympia)" actually appears on signs at the station istelf. See for example File:British summer, Kensington Olympia, August 2015. - panoramio.jpg. It is never omitted (and occasionally is written without the parentheses), so should be considered part of the name.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks for that. Clearly there will be some additional decision making for a number of individual articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• B or C. Noting that e.g. "Newport (Essex) railway station" is the name of the station, it is not Wikipedia disambiguating the station name. Thryduulf (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• D and 2 with E as second choice. I'm thinking of Georgetown Rauilway Station (Scotland) versus Georgetown GO Station, or the Georgetown Railway Stations in Ontario CA, P.E.I. CA, Delaware US, or Colorado US. Markbassett (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• D and 2 would be first choice, and failing that B would be acceptable as well. Note that although "Newport (Essex)" is a National Rail format, it's not necessarily correct to say that "Newport (Essex)" is the official name of the station. The sign on the building and on the platforms just say Newport. The timetable just says Newport. In a way National Rail are just putting in a disambiguator much as we do here at Wikipedia, so going for D is fine, because we're just saying we'll disambiguate it our way rather than NR's way. For the record I strongly oppose A, and dispute the assertion above that A is the current status quo. In the early days of Wikipedia, the unwritten convention was B - use National Rail infix style where available, but otherwise use standard Wikipedia parenthetical disambiguation. But then people came along who didn't understand the distinction between National Rail and others, and thought that all UK stations were disambiguated with an infix. That was never the intention, and it creates confusion for readers if we imply that there is a National Rail disambiguator in use where there actually isn't. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• E. Parenthetic disambiguation is the last choice, per WP:ATDAB policy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  Parenthetic disambiguation is actually the third choice, and in this case the highest one available to us, as (#1) there is no natural disambiguator in common usage, and (#2) commas are only used for place names, as ATDIS clearly states. Station names are not place names.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

  Obviously, I mean "last of those under discussion", let's not be silly. Commas in this sort of construction are in fact natural and used all the time (e.g., [13] and a zillion others). COMMADIS does not at all say what you imagine it does; place names are an example, among others. Concrete proof the list is not exhaustive? WP:NCLL, "common and acceptable ...: List of foos, A–K", yet long lists are not enumerated at COMMADIS. And since when is "Diana, Princess of Wales" a place? The only requirement is that words be presented in natural order.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  12:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

In the case you mention, "London Victoria Railway Station" is much more common than "Victoria Railway Station, London" in the sources.[14][15]--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

But WP doesn't disambiguate that way, so WP:DGAF. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  13:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• D or E, and please clarify that these options are only for stations needing disambiguation, not for all station articles even those with unambiguous titles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Correct, this is only for stations that need disambiguation. UK railway stations don't currently disambiguate unambiguous titles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• E much preferred. Parentheses are sometimes inescapable, but avoid their visual and parsing disruption where possible. Tony (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  Parentheses are preferred to commas, per WP:ATDAB, except for place names. I don't know where this sudden hatred of parentheses has come from, but the community has generally preferred them as the default disambiguator from day one, and they are easier for a reader to parse than commas, since they stand out from the main name. There are numerous topics that could be disambiguated with a comma, like "John Smith, explorer" instead of "John Smith (explorer)".  — Amakuru (talk) 11:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

  Please actually read WP:COMMADIS and stop blatantly misrepresenting what it says. This is twice in row you've done that. The comma construction here is in fact WP:NATURALDIS that happens to have a comma. Even if it were not, COMMADIS doesn't permit unnatural word order (which "Foobar station, City" is not); that is why we don't use "John Smith, explorer".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  12:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: WP:NCDAB indicates that parentheses are preferred to commas (COMMADIS' hatnote says to also read WP:Disambiguation, which NCDAB is a section of). Buildings that aren't railway stations, roads, and rivers are often or always disambiguated using a region name in parentheses. Jc86035 (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

  Not responsive to what I said. But I'll bite. If a guideline WP:POLICYFORKs from a policy, the policy trumps it. Next, no building is a road or river, so I'm not sure what your point is. We do have a large number of building articles that are unnecessarily parenthetically disambiguated, because wikiprojects and random editors keep doing whatever the F they feel like. This needs to be rectified, not worsened. Numerous stations are outdoor and are not buildings but open-air platforms (i.e., places), so the WP:OTHERCRAP argument to use parenthetic in imitation of various building articles doesn't work out anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

  The policy doesn't say that though. It says (1) natural disambiguation, then (2) commas for places, then (3) parentheses. And commas aren't natural disambiguation. If they were, there'd be no need for criterion 2, which advises using commas for place names, where natural disambiguation wasn't possible. NCDAB is simply reiterating that policy. In my opinion commas just don't work well for non-places, and yes that is my opinion, which clearly differs from yours, but the opinion is backed up by the way the policy is worded as well as established practice for topics such as John Smith, explorer, as well as structures in the United States, most UK railway stations etc. etc.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

  If you can't, won't, or pretend not to [I don't read minds] understand that use of a comma in an "A, B" construction that is not unnatural (like "Jackson, Michael" and "dog, sled" are unnatural) but which occurs in everyday spoken and written English is natural by definition, and that COMMADIS is about the unnatural kind, then I can't help you. If you can't, won't, or pretend not to understand that, regardless, the section on COMMADIS illustrates examples which include but are not limited to places and various other things, including names of royalty/peerage, and you just will not see that it isn't an exclusive list, even after shown further proof of this (above) at WP:NCLL (quoted for you again: "Common and acceptable: ... List of foos, A–K"). Please stop this WP:ICANTHEARYOU game. It's unbecoming.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  14:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, the issue is whether the comma form is used enough that it's really WP:NATURALDIS well established in sources. It does not look more common in sources than using parentheses. Sources do use parentheses as well in many cases (eg [16][17]), so it could be argued that that's natural disambiguation as well.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

  Except even if it fails WP:NATURALDIS, it still qualifies as "raw" WP:COMMADIS, which is still preferred in the policy over WP:PARENDIS when the comma form is sensible. We don't use the comma form for things like "John D. Smith, biologist", because it's awkward (it sounds like someone introducing himself at a conference). We do regularly use comma disambiguation for place names, and all that's required to make this "natural" is that it's a natural feature of everyday English, written and spoken, which it obviously is. Whether one particular station is most often disambiguated this way is completely immaterial. WP:COMMONNAME pertains to the base name (e.g. Foo station), not to the disambiguated form. Once we hit disambiguation, we're already past the COMMONNAME phase of the naming flowchart. And "I don't think stations are really places" is a really, really weak argument. This is why I opened the VPPOL RfC about this (though not specifically about stations; it was inspired by a trifecta of similar "I don't want place to mean anything that interferes with my style pet peeves" arguments about public monuments, institutional buildings, and stations, all ongoing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  13:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: Note that the proposal also covers the renaming of articles for closed stations which are disambiguated by the company that owned them. We would always disambiguate using brackets for company or system disambiguation. Disambiguating by using England/Wales(?)/Scotland could use either bracket or comma disambiguation (similar to e.g. A8 road (Scotland)), but I don't think it should be deliberately made different to other railway station articles' disambiguation. Jc86035 (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  Sure. There's more than one way to disambiguate various things; I'm just trying to address the default style, which for too long has been pretending that WP:AT prefers parenthetic, which is the opposite of the truth.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  13:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• A, 2 since that's how the majority have been for several years. No need to change established practice. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• D and 2 per Cuchullain and Amakuru. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• C and 1: C because it goes with what outside sources say if necessary, and 1 because precision is desirable wherever possible. –Sb2001 00:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• B and 2. B follows from WP:ATDAB:

1. Where NR use Newport (Essex) or similar, there is a natural disambiguation, so let's use it. Essex isn't a Wikipedia perenthetical qualifier, it's part of the name like Housing (Scotland) Act 2014, so we should put "railway station" after it rather than in the middle.
2. Are stations place names or other contexts? It's a matter of opinion. My POV is that comma-separated disambiguation isn't the best choice here.
3. Where NR don't disambiguate but Wikipedia must (to distinguish from a foreign or closed station), the leaves us with adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name (not in the middle of it).

If there's an NR qualifier we should use it as is, even an abbreviation like (Hants) which wouldn't be Wikipedia's choice. Otherwise, 2 follows from WP:PRECISION: where the only other contender is abroad, use Patna railway station (Scotland) rather than (East Ayrshire) etc. In practice, I expect most such cases will need to be distinguished from closed or confusingly similar British stations, so we'll need a county or year. Certes (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• C and 1. We use comma disambiguation for structures and places in the UK. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  That convention, which is not written down, and which I personally disagree with, has never applied to railway stations. There is no reason to move them all to an anachronistic format now, when they never have been before, and all other statoins around the world use parentheses. That's why D is preferable to C.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion (UK railway station disambiguation)

Just to complicate this discussion somewhat further, participants are invited to have a look at User:Amakuru/Disambiguated stations, where I put together a list of all present and past rail stations with an article, and categorised them as to how they are disambiguated. Note that many of them are not actually disambiguated by location at all, but by the rail company that owned the station. This makes sense, because often there used to be two stations in the same town, and the only difference between them was which line they were on. For example Banbridge (BJR) railway station and Banbridge (BLBR) railway station. It probably makes sense to conclude the above discussion first, but if we end up going for something like option D, we should then discuss whether that should extend to these other formatted stations. Personally I would say yes, and we should move the above pair to Banbridge railway station (BJR) and Banbridge railway station (BLBR). Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links at Cromford and High Peak Railway

FYI

Talk:Cromford and High Peak Railway#External links. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Lower case railway station in templates

Following the recent bulk page moves from Foo Railway Station to Foo railway station, I'm making similar changes to the title in the lead, infobox, wikilinks, etc. I've done the awkward cases and am now working through the routine articles and dabs (A-M done).

We still have about 500 templates containing "Railway Station" in upper case. Most of those should probably change to "railway station", to address the moved pages directly and to pick up any new articles of the form Bar railway station which don't get redirects from upper case. I'm aware that this needs to be done with care: although all articles were moved, some redirects are only in upper case or differ between cases. I've edited a few templates already, mainly in New Zealand^[a] where an IP editor had already started the job, but am leaving the bulk change for another week or two in case anyone wants to object or help out.

[a] Needed because several stations were disambiguated only by case; e.g. Panmure Railway Station in NZ versus Panmure railway station in Australia.

Comments welcome. Dicklyon and Tom.Reding have also been working on the task. Certes (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I've mostly been busy (manually) on downcasing "Railway" where appropriate in China; a few dozen to go. Also working on "Station" in Hong Kong MTR stations and such; see multi-RM discussion at Talk:Hung_Hom_Station#Requested move 17 December 2017. This seems to be one of the few places where "Station" is capped even though the article doesn't treat it as part of the name. For the bulk "Railway Station" downcasing followup, I think that's best for people with AWB, yes? Thanks for taking it on. Dicklyon (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Update: I've finished editing the moved articles, and fixed a few templates which were already broken before this change. I'm now creating redirects such as Auckland Strand railway station matching some of the more widely used upper case equivalents, to avoid unexpected redlinks later. I'll change the templates in January if no one objects. Comments still welcome. Certes (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Certes: Are you planning to rename subway/metro station articles in China/Japan/South Korea, with no "Railway", as well? Those could probably be handled trivially by bot once existing pages and disambiguated titles are filtered out to be done manually (e.g. for China, existing disambiguators could be changed from "(city)" to "(system)" to account for systems not necessarily being within city limits). Jc86035 (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Not initially. That may be a phase two, if there's a consensus for it and if our experience with Railway Station suggests that it would be practical. A bot could help, but it might take a lot of manual work too. Certes (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Certes: At first I actually didn't think anyone would bother doing most of these manually. I think there might be a difference in how WikiProjects like this one treat article titles compared to other projects, because within areas like the UK it is actually possible to have 100% of possible articles in existence and so more things can be thought of as neat and systematic. One example is {{S-line}}, whose helper templates like {{SZM stations}} can usually assume that every station is named or disambiguated systematically, with a few exceptions. There was also a lot of opposition to adding "station" to New York City Subway station article titles (as was done for some other American systems), since this would make disambiguation more inconsistent and make many titles longer. Jc86035 (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

As for your comment on my talk page, I think the best solution would probably be one of "Name railway station is [located in]…" (no "is a railway station"), "Name railway station is [located in]…", "Name network railway station is [located in]…" or "Name railway station is a network station [located in]…" or some combination of these. Jc86035 (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Those are good suggestions but they affect far more than the 1200 or so pages I just edited, so I'll leave them for someone else to implement! Certes (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:LIRRMNPC replacement suggestion

I noticed that Template:LIRRMNPC is starting to get too big (wide), so I was wondering if it could be replaced with the following template that I have created: Template:LIRR and MNCR rolling stock? SportsFan007 (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)SportsFan007

• I'm in favor; it's in line with other templates like {{Amtrak rollingstock}}. Mackensen (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
• Cooying what I said on the older template's talk page: I agree that the timeline setup of this is less than ideal. It's a formatting that's meant to be used to show the range of production years, not service years, as is done for auto manufacturer templates. But frankly, it's terrible there, too. I do think the new template is better, but would rather have just overhauled this than create redundant templates. Also, I removed the see also links, as they're too weakly related to be appropriate for a navbox. Especially the Amtrak one, which includes cars that can't run in the city at all. oknazevad (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• I'm all for it, even though many cars are shared between the LIRR and Metro-North (i.e.; M1 (LIRR) vs. M1A (Metro-North)). Would anyone care if I worked on the split? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @DanTD: What do you mean by work on the split? SportsFan007 (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)SportsFan007
    • I meant splitting the existing template between those for Long Island Rail Road cars, and Metro-North Railroad cars. I missed the part about you making a new version. For what it's worth though, the old version has timelines attached to each car. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Ah ok, thank you for clarifying SportsFan007 (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)SportsFan007

I just modified the new template to split the LIRR trains from the MNCR trains, please let me know what you all think. SportsFan007 (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)SportsFan007

Yours is nice, because it keeps everything neat. My versions maintain the timelines though, although I have to adjust the LIRR's use of the Budd Rail Diesel Cars. Other version also include timelines (most notably Template:SEPTA Regional Rail Rolling stock and Template:SEPTA rolling stock timeline). Perhaps some changes will turn up there as well. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Those two SEPTA templates are completely redundant. Regardless of anything else, one of those should be deleted as duplicative. That said, I really don't like the timelines. Too wide, and the point of navboxes is to navigate articles, which the timelines can do, but they also overload the viewer with info which should be left to the individual articles. So the surviving SEPTA template should really look more like a list, and the timelines just deleted. oknazevad (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I also think that the list versions on the navboxes are better, maybe the timelines can go on the LIRR and Metro-North in a non-navbox form. SportsFan007 (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)SportsFan007

Check new article

Hello WikiProject Trains editors. I just reviewed and approved the Lenzie Peat Railway article. I don't know anything about trains and railways and wondered if one of you might look at it and check its categories are OK. Thank you. Triptropic (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Triptropic: Well, 'tis not a station but a railway line. Categories fixed. Triptothecottage (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)