Talk:Railway line

What is the purpose of this article?

It seems like this article wants to be a disambiguation page, but it is not. Or is it a stub which needs much expansion? Anyone know? —fudoreaper (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A disambiguation page, is what it is meant to become though the options are hardly subjects for WP articles. The trouble is that the meaning of "(Railway) line" has become just what any editor has in mind, with some chaotic and nonsensical results. After editing the article (meaning to return to it to make it a proper disambiguation) I met "...map showing the commonly used names for the lines concerned ...." in a Network Rail document which suggests that there is need to say "'Railway line' can mean this, that or the other".

--SilasW (talk) 09:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, a disambiguation page is sensible. The problem currently is that about 180 pages link here, like Madrid-Barcelona high-speed rail line. A reader following this link will not be enlightened by the current page, which is pretty confusing. I'm not sure what the resolution is, but i'll add a disambig and stub tag tag right now to ask for help. —fudoreaper (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed {{disambig}} because this page does not do what a disambiguation page is supposed to do -- help a reader navigate to one of several articles that could have used an ambiguous title. I don't know exactly what this page is supposed to be. Also, please note that the introduction to the page is a self-reference, which Wikipedia articles are supposed to avoid. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your reasoning here, Russ. I know it is a really poor disambig page, but I thought there was a consensus that this article is a disambig page that should be improved, which means removing the disambig tag isn't really helpful. However, that may not be the final form of this article, and you demonstrate there isn't a consensus. What really matters is how to improve the article from its current state, so it's most constructive to work on how to make this page better, which i will attempt now.

From the article currently existing, it seems there are two main ideas:

• A physical line consisting of land (right of way) tracks laid there, and equipment (signals, electrification) which runs between two places
• A logical route, like a 'subway line', where the passengers are mostly interested in the stops, not the physical route (which may be shared with other logical routes, or rerouted around maintenance)

And perhaps a third:

• A railway company, or division of a company, where the term 'railway line' refers to the operation of many trains and routes by an entity under one name.

It appears to me that we don't really have an article addressing the concepts of a physical line, and a logical route. The article on rail tracks is about the hardware that is a part of a physical line, but not much about the whole of a line. I am not aware of an article on logical train routing in a general sense, either. The third sense of a railway company can be handled by the Railway company article, though it ought to be expanded a great deal.

Is there a need for an article dealing with physical lines, and also one on a logical routes? Or do we have appropriate articles we can link to, creating a disambig page? —fudoreaper (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I aroused this discussion by altering Railway line to how it is now. Without academic discussion here is a history.
North London Line needed improving (WP said it was radial!). You can hardly dispute what the West London Line is; the North London Line might allow a quibble.
Such articles and maps show connections to other "lines" usually with their own articles. I found that some of the "XX line" names which editors used, even as titles of articles, had no official standing. One example is Sutton and Mole Valley Lines which lumps together routes partly by current operator (of whom there are several), partly by whether trains roll off a section on to what might be the core track. Some "lines" in WP have several names (Sutton Loop/Wimbledon Loop) so I looked at Railway line and found only a redirect to Rail tracks, a list of the bits and pieces joined together to build a path for a train, which not does tally with most British use of Railway Line.
Many disambiguation pages contain an entry or two with no link. That does not excuse the present page which is rather "A Declaration Of Ambiguity" page but one which seems to me to be needed in some form. If 180 articles link to its present imperfection, that hardly condemns it for previously they linked unhelpfully to the nuts and bolts page. The reference above shows that The Authorities are sometimes none too sure.--SilasW (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Official Names of Lines

This site http://www.railwaycodes.org.uk/ELRs/ELR0.shtm, compiled by Phil Deaves of Swindon, Wiltshire has an extensive list of Engineer's Line References for British lines and would be a good starting point for deciding which lengths of track are fit to be graced with a real Line Name and which fall in the category "Fan-imagined"--SilasW (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Merger

Seems to me that the best thing to do with this would be to merge it into Glossary of rail terminology#R, probably condensing it a little. That would allow it to retain all the meanings, even though they do not have internal links like a disambiguation page. Any objection? - Fayenatic (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Merge. Really it's just one meaning with grey overlaps into other areas. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Not to say that the current page isn't in need of a tweak here and there, and perhaps tighter focus, but it would be a poor fit with the host page's "glossary" format of just one meaning per headword. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose (but see below) -- I don't dispute the issues raised above, but moving the page to the Glossary will not solve the fundamental problem, that 180+ articles feel the need to link the words "railway line" and need clarifying. Keeping this as a DAB page will make it much clearer that there are "links to DAB page" to be resolved, even if the wording provided here doesn't help the process.

A thought just struck me, couldn't the word "railway" equally describe all the meanings? (On Railway line, replace "railway route" with "route" and see if "railway" means the same as "railway line".)

Also, without really wanting to stir up trouble, we have no references to support any of the assertions made here. A true DAB page would rely on the destination articles to assert the validity of the text, while here we have a sequence of effectively OR phrases.

EdJogg (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment -- Dare I suggest that a better solution might be to create a new section at Rail transport (itself the destination for redirects Railway and Railroad)? This, being the top-level article on the subject, would seem the best place to indicate that the term railway / railway line may refer to one of several concepts. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the following but met an edit conflict with EdJogg whose suggestion seems to be a net to catch all, even though the purists might come back that there is ref or support (beyond the "original research" of finding chaos within WP).

I think it was my doing that seeded the above when I found that railway line > railway track, clearly not a fit explanation of the merry collection of "meanings". I concur that the article does not match any WP criterion but somewhere some how the various "meanings" need clarifying. It all started, as I said above. when I found that the purely rail-enthusiast invented Sutton and Mole Valley Lines had an article.--SilasW (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that it would not really fit in rail transport, which is a rather good and coherent article. If it was added there it might just get deleted. Disambiguation is not really suitable as most meanings do not have or deserve articles. I don't see any problem in admitting within the Glossary that this term has multiple meanings. As it stands this is not much better than a dictionary definition of an ambiguous term with some (non-worldwide) examples, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary: this page has been created in good faith but is WP:OR and does not comply with policies. I think there are three options:

1. redirect to rail transport and lose the variations in meaning altogether;
2. merge and redirect to the glossary; or
3. merge to the glossary and redirect to rail transport.

I still favour merge and redirect to the glossary, in order not to lose or bury content which is of some value. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support 2 -- OK, so it's a change of view on my part, but revisiting this a month down the line (sorry!) I don't think we can defend the page remaining here. Option 2 is probably best -- give it an {{anchor}} so that the redirect can link directly to the definition rather than just 'R'. You might need to use 'fact' tags for the different meanings too, so we get some references found. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support 2 The need for an explanatory set of the meanings used in WP for "railway line" is undeniable. Those which my "original research" found seem to me, whether intellectually defensible or not to be in fact what are used (the standard of ry editing is not always the highest [treasures are NLL is radial, "intellectual argument" that Wloo never was Wloo Bridge]). That no editing had dumped railway line=rail tracks reflects none too well on those who strive despite WP:NOTNEWS to proclaim the latest paint colour or line opening before the end of the day of its happening. I do not know all the ins and outs of WP but as there is a glossary that, properly linked, and not among WP articles, is where the list should be.--SilasW (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Done - Fayenatic (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)