Talk:Railfan/Archive 1

Another merge candidate

Just found Railroad buff today while skimming "What links here". It seems to me that railroad buff should be merged into railfan much like railbuff was. Thoughts? slambo June 30, 2005 12:55 (UTC)

New "Safety" section

While the sentiment in the new section contributed by an anon is laudable and good, it isn't worded in a way that is particularly encyclopedic. It sounds more like something from a railfan's website. I'm tempted to remove it outright, but a better worded section could do well here. Thoughts? slambo July 7, 2005 21:01 (UTC)

That reads much better. Thanks! slambo 15:09, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

link to Virgin is not appropriate here

My wife wouldn't agree that railfans are virgins, especially since that's her (with a mutual friend of ours) in the lead photo. We are both railfans and we have a son who is also a railfan. At least half of the railfans that I know are happily married and raising children. The link to virgin is not appropriate here. The other links that are disputed are also of questionable appropriateness to this article. Please provide your reasoning here why you think they should be included. slambo 15:43, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• I've removed it as I agree with you. Thryduulf 16:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

limited geographic scope & merge

This article is heavily biased towards North America with no examples from other parts of the world for viewing spots and terminology.

merging in train spotting and [[railroad buff] might help with this. They all appear to cover very similar activities, railfan is also a more neutral term than train spotting which can have (imho unjustified) negative connotations (at least in British English). Thryduulf 16:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I knew about train spotting, but never heard that it is sometimes considered a less-than-savory term. I think such a merge would be tricky as "railfan" is so ingrained into the hobby in North America that at least one popular magazine uses it in the publication's title (Railfan and Railroad magazine). However, "train spotting" is known widely enough that I think the majority of American railfans at least know the term and that it is used to describe railfans in Great Britain (or at least that's what I hear from talking to friends here). Probably to do such a merge justice, the lists of railfan hotspots and jargon should be split into separate articles. The jargon could be merged into Rail terminology, but it somehow doesn't seem quite as appropriate there. Hmmm... I'll have to think about this a little more. slambo 17:11, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Trainspotting isn't an unsavoury term, but it is used in a derrogitary (sp?) way by some (cf the links that keep being inserted). Railfan isn't a term that is common in the UK, at least not to my knowledge, although its pretty obvious what it means and from the articles it appears to be a slightly broader term. I would describe myself as a railfan rather than a train spotter, because I am a fan of and interested in railways in general and rail photography rather than just the trains and am not into collecting sightings of particular trains/locomotives. My thoughts on suggesting the merge were to treat it as basically an American English/British English difference, with the article being at the AE title with a redirect from the BE title (plus the normal bolding, etc). It seems to me that basically there are two closely related concepts, "railfandom" and "trainspotting" - both referred to by the first term in the US and both referred to by the second in the UK.

The jargon could be a separate article as its relevant to both these articles and Rail terminology but not quite fitting perfectly within either. The railfan hotspots would probably work less well as a separate article unless it needs to be spun-out of the main one for size reasons. Thryduulf 17:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, after some more thought last night and this morning, I'm inclined to agree on the merge; I'm curious to hear what other editors have to say about this (I've left a note on that article's talk page inviting everyone to the discussion). I have no strong preference for which article should become the new "master" article, but I can see where some editors might prefer one or the other. slambo 13:01, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Five days later and I still see no other comments, so I'm putting the mergeto/mergefrom templates on the articles to try to get some more discussion on this. I'm more inclined now to agree with the merge proposal as presented above. slambo 13:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

A new editor just changed ferroequinologist from a redirect (it was redirecting here) to contain material of its own. I've invited the new editor to join the discussion here before I put the mergefrom/mergeto tags on that too. slambo 19:14, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I said that we would do the merge on Tuesday, but I wanted to give everyone a little more time to comment. Seeing no further comments, I did the merge today from all four of the specified articles. slambo 19:46, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Personal Website Links

What is everyone's thoughts on personal website links in the list of external links? Right now we have one... the Idiot Railfan. It's amusing, but I would think if we're going to list one, we might as well list several other personal sites which also have value. My gut feeling is we should remove this one link and let the list of links remain to discussion sites and other resources rather than plugging personal sites. Ahockley 14:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The real question is: does the link add value to the article? The links list on this article is, IMHO, a bit long and should be reduced to just those that contain information about railfanning/trainspotting itself rather than where to go and what to see. The links that we have are all relevant to the hobby, they're just not about the hobby. Using only this criterion, we'd probably end up removing all of the links, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. I guess my question would be: what other criteria should we use for inclusion in this article's links list? slambo 15:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Is someone who is interested in rail infrastructure, but not the trains, considered a railfan? --SPUI 06:38, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why not. slambo 15:38, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Merge with Railbuff? Or is there a subtle difference? Phlebas 21:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That article doesn't suggest any difference. The way I understand it, railfan is an all-encompassing term for stuff like metrophile, though train spotting could be considered outside the normal range of railfan. --SPUI (talk) 21:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge, thus. Phlebas 00:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed link for "trainspotter" because it points back to this article. 64.50.192.206 16:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Archive 1

Proposal to drop Jargon section

I just alphabetized the jargon section but it got me thinking... with a much more substantial Rail terminology article already in place, wouldn't it make more sense to just add any needed terms over there rather than duplicate the work in this page? It could be noted on the Rail terminology page if the term is one primarily used by railfans. Any thoughts? Ahockley 22:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Having a single list will be both more logical and easier to maintain. Thryduulf 12:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, we discussed this briefly in July. We could easily merge the jargon into the main terminology page, but we need to ensure that jargon terms are labeled as such. I know several professional railroaders who use some of these terms (i.e. fallen flag and warbonnet), but the others I've only heard in railfanning circles.

Agreed that terms which are slang/jargon should be identified as such. Ahockley 18:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Since it seems there's not any objection, I'm going to merge the list of jargon into the Rail terminology article later today. Ahockley 14:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I merged the non-paint-scheme terms into Rail terminology - what do you guys think about paint schemes? There's a ton of them, only a fraction of which are on this list. Do we expand the list and keep it here? Put it all on Rail terminology? Start a new article?

As a side note, at what point do we split off the List of railfanning locations into its own article? The list here seems to be getting pretty big and about a third of them have their own articles (i.e. Rochelle Railroad Park or Tehachapi Loop). Also, we need to take some time to trim the External links section. WP:NOT a link repository. slambo 12:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the list of locations needs to be a separate article yet, but it could use some organization (perhaps alphabetical by state/country?) Ahockley 18:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

At the very least, it needs entries from outside the United States. We don't hold a monopoly on good railfanning locations. B-) slambo 18:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, both jargon subpages are nominated for deletion. The grounds for nomination is WP:NOT. I think these lists have value, and as it appears that they will be deleted despite many Keep votes, I would be willing to host such a jargon list on my personal website. I will check into the copyright implications this week. Slambo (Speak) 12:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Repetiveness and Citations

There's quite a bit of repetition--for example, the material mentioned in the "Other names" section is repeated in various other places in the article.

Also, someone said railfans tend to be male and homosexual. Source for this? cluth 20:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The homosexual bit is vandalism. It is patently false; the overwhelming majority of railfans that I know personally (myself included) or that I meet while out railfanning are heterosexual, most are married with children. Although there are more men railfanning than women, this is slowly changing to a more even count. Slambo (Speak) 20:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Based on personal observations yesterday at the West Somerset Railway steam gala, I'd say it was about 75% men. Of those who gathered at Taunton railway station to watch a SR Battle of Britain Class loco pass through on a charter London Paddington to the gala, all were men afaict (although just about everybody on the station at the time gravitated towards it during the two minutes it was there!). Thryduulf 21:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

OCD connection?

I have my doubts about the latest addition to the Reasons section added by ShyLou (talk · contribs). The original wording made it sound like railfanning itself is a disease from which we must all be cured, but looking a little further, the addition was the user's very first edit under that username. Given the nature of some of the vandalism that we've seen on this page, I'm a little suspicious. A quick Google for "Obsessive Compulsive Railroad Enthusiasts" or for "Southern Ontario Review of Psychology and Neurology" comes up with no exact matches, so I don't know yet if the reference itself is real; do we have an established editor that can verify the reference? I would venture to guess that the "estimated 78% to 93%" figure could be applied equally well to sports fans (especially the ones who paint their bodies in their favorite team's colors; you know the kind of fans I mean). Every hobby has practitioners who could be diagnosed with OCD (see Fan (aficionado)), so it is believable, but I want to be certain. Slambo (Speak) 12:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I see that the controversial addition was restored by Feldman (talk · contribs) as his very first (and so far only) edit. Such an edit is not made by a brand new editor, but someone who has changed usernames or who has been editing anonymously for a while and finally created one. I'm tempted to put in a checkuser request to compare the two logins. Slambo (Speak) 15:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Fat guys who paint their upper torsos in various colors and go shirtless at Lambeau Field in below-freezing temperatures while wearing foam slices of cheese on their heads are normal in their societal function and we affirm them. You railfan types who watch trains while fully clothed are the real freaks! (If I had a way to stick that message board emoticon with the rolling eyes in here, I would.) As for the information, the paper could have been buried in some long-defunct journal that never made it to the current period for electronic reproduction and/or indexing. Google pulls up nothing when any cognizable part of the citation is punched in, so I'm tempted to say that neither journal nor study exists. Unless someone's got access to a specialized psych-profession database and can confirm this citation, strike it. You know, that whole verifiable thing. Unless I just happen to be one of the lucky 7-22%, this thing is bunk.--Foxhound 01:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This issue is going to remain active so long as users such as WashingtonWillie continue to repost this unverified "information" and claim vandalism when anyone removes it. Maybe page protection is in order?--Lordkinbote 19:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If that's the appropriate next step, then go for it. I concur that this issue will remain an active one despite an edit/revert war seeming silly in this case. That being said, I wish someone with specialized knowledge could say, up or down, if the Southern Ontario Review and the piece existed/exist. I wouldn't mind reading it.--Foxhound 05:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I've invited WashingtonWillie (talk · contribs) to join the discussion here. I have my doubts as to the validity of the reference even though it sounds plausible. There is a medical/psych library at the UW Madison campus (about 10 minutes from my house), I just haven't had a chance to go over there to ask about it yet. Slambo (Speak) 11:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I've spent some more time trying to hunt this down, without success. I have however found the website of the "Southern Ontario Library Service" [1]. Thinking that if the journal exists/has existed that they would be likely to know about it I have just sent them the following email asking for assistence:

Hello

I am an editor at Wikipedia the free online encyclopedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org). I am trying to verify the accuracy of some
information added to the Railfan article
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wki/Railfan), apparently from a journal called
the "Southern Ontario Review of Psychology and Neurology". Unfortunately
neither I nor my fellow editors have managed to even verify that this
journal exists or has ever existed.

I found your website (http://www.sols.org) after much searching on Google
for various organisations that might give some clue as to the existence
of the Journal, from where we could then verify whether the study
("Obsessive Compulsive Railroad Enthusiasts") is genuine (neither the
journal title nor the study title produce any direct matches). I was
wondering if it would be possible for you check your records to see if you
can find any record of the Journal, and if so where we might be able to
check to see if the facts presented to us are actually confirmed in the
journal. If this is not possible, I would appreciate it if you could
advise me of somebody who might be able to help.

If you could reply to this email address, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you

Hopefully they'll get back to me with something. Thryduulf 13:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, they have got back to me but unfortunately aren't able to help (they just provide support to public libraries, they aren't one themselves). So I'll try contacting some libraries in the area direct. I'll also see if an online friend who lives near London, Ontario can help as well. Watch this space. Thryduulf 19:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

After a month nobody has been able to provide any evidence that the journal exists or existed. Thryduulf 16:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

FRN

Yes, FRN is a real name that some railroaders use to describe railfans. I've heard it from some friends of mine who work in the industry. In an effort to be a little more neutral in POV, I've added it back to the article and included a book reference for it that specifically cites this term as well as foamer. Slambo (Speak) 18:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I may have considered that, however I maintain that it is not appropraite becuase it stands for "f'cking rail nut" and because of conflict I got into with Monicasdude over the article on Self Portrait where I kept rewriting the s-word with asterisks and I noticed it kept on being changed back. When I eventually looked at the page's history I discovered that this user kept reverting "censored language." Monicasdude stated that wikipedia is not censored. I took this up at the village pump, and then later found WP:Profanity. I also discovered that at Wikitionary and Wikinews this was general policy, but with the allowance for articles to be censored after a consensus.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian):-(

Wikipedia:Profanity is the apropriate guideline for this. It basically boils down to, don't censor profanity unless there is a consensus to do so (I'm having a disucssion with another user there about how to quote censored profanity - If Joe Bloggs said "I f*cking hate the b******d" should that be quoted as written or as "I fucking hate the bastard"?). I don't see a reason to censor in this case - especially as there is a cited use. Thryduulf 23:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I had seriously considered asterisking out f*** as I don't much like the word either, but I felt that since that's the meaning that I've heard from industry and since I have found and supplied a verifiable reference, WP's Profanity guideline won. Personally, I wouldn't mind if it's asterisked, but whatever form it takes, FRN needs to be included because it's a real and verifiable term even if we, as railfans ourselves, don't like the term. Slambo (Speak) 10:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Reducing external links

We now have a nice big box on the article from someone else who thinks we've got too many External links here. I've stated above that we need to reduce them, so I'll propose that any link that does not give a further description of what a railfan is should be removed. In other words we should remove links that cover topics of interest to railfans and list only those that further describe or define railfans. Slambo (Speak) 16:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I agree that the links are somewhat excessive and something needs to be adjusted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I gave it a spin, and sorted the links by country, and removed a number of mailing lists, bulletin boards, not-well-done sites, and very loosely-related sites in two rounds. I also removed the warning tag. Hopefully this will clean this up a bit, but further refinements will always help. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Another neologism

A quick google for the new word (check the history; I'm not mentioning it here to prevent false hits on future search results [I don't like FRN either, but that term is in widespread and published use]) shows six hits, with half of them being a username. I haven't looked at the site mentioned in the latest revert, but I suspect that this new term isn't quite as widespread as it's being made out to be. I'd rather see more references to the term's use in more widely-read and well-publicized resources (I've seen two links, please list more below) before we include it here. Slambo (Speak) 13:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In relation to Asperger's syndrome

I have sometimes seen the word trainspotter used as an insult for a person diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome. After reading this article, indeed, I can understand how many trainspotters and railfans could very well be diagnosable with this condition. Maybe something about this hobby in relation to Asperger's syndrome should be added to the article by someone more intimately familiar with both concepts.--NeantHumain 00:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The tricky part is to add such information so that it doesn't make it sound like all railfans are such, because they are not. Also, make sure to include credible and verifiable references. Railfanning is not the only hobby with its share of fanboys; the same obsession can be observed in sports, music and theater fans as well as car and motorcycle fans. Slambo (Speak) 15:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is this article was already cluttered up with repeated references trying to connect railfans to some form of mental illness or nerdiness: an unsourced mention of a French term for "railway disorder"; far too much discussion of the negative implications of "FRN" and "foamer"; repeated attempts to add unsourced material claiming most railfans have obsessive-compulsive disorder; repeated attempts to add links like "geek", "anorak", and "rivet counter" to the links; too much unsourced accusation that railfans are unsafe or disruptive of railroad operations; etc. Those references have now been removed and it was long overdue. We need to keep them out of this article. This isn't an article about other perjorative uses of Train Spotter, it's an article about the railroad hobbyist aspects. If Train Spotter is used in a perjorative way for Asperger's Syndrome it still doesn't belong in this article, that's what the disambiguation page trainspotting is for. 70.108.115.103 20:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 17:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this link twice as a violation of WP:EL and it's back.

My arguments for removing.

• This is a forum.
• The quality of the forum cannot be assessed without joining the group (a paid membership)
• The forum is not a unique resource to the topic.
• Is being promoted by a member or moderator of the forum in violation of WP:SPAM. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 04:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Rollback reason

The recent edit introduced inconsistencies in the usage of the terms "railway" and "railroad" as well as introduced spellings that were not consistent with the rest of the article. Slambo (Speak) 10:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge discussion: Tram spotter

Another editor added the merge tags; please discuss the proposed merge here. Slambo (Speak) 15:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Tram spotting is little different to trainspotting, which is rightly part of this article. Thryduulf 17:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Seems that they are basically the same thing, and thus can be folded together. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. This is a stub article; simply redirect to Railfanwith a subsection on this. Scoutersig 14:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The other page was deleted on November 4 through the {{prod}} process as "NN hobby, importance". I didn't see too much from there that wasn't already in this article. Slambo (Speak) 14:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Rollback reason, Oct 29, 2006

Ferroequinology is not just studying steam locomotives. Slambo (Speak) 17:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What a sheletered existence I've had. All these years a rail enthusiast, and never encountered the term before! Googling reveals 647 hits, so it is not exactly unknown. I have been BOLD and added a fresh entry under 'Other names'. To avoid the issues behind the earlier rollback, I have been even bolder and tweaked the Wiktionary entry to suit! (See wikt:ferroequinology ).

The reasoning behind the claim that the term is 'rarely used by non-railfans' comes from a sampling of the various Google hits - I didn't find any that weren't on sites for or by railway enthusiasts (although I didn't check every link). It's a bit weasly, but I think necessary clarification.

EdJogg 13:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)