Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2012, 1

Category:Moscow Metro templates ' MOSMETRO templates

Category:Moscow Metro templates ' {{MOSMETRO}} templates seem very badly named. Being allcaps, it leads to the conclusion these are MOS (Manual of Style) templates for Metro systems in general, and not Moscow Metro templates. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

These templates are required for routeboxes such as that shown at the bottom of the infobox at Kantemirovskaya (Moscow Metro). You will notice that the routebox is declared by use of |services={{s-rail|title=MOSMETRO}}{{s-line|system=MOSMETRO|line=Zamoskvoretskaya|previous=Kashirskaya|next=Tsaritsyno}} - note the use of |title=MOSMETRO and |system=MOSMETRO. These parameters tell the {{s-rail}}/{{s-line}} templates (also {{S-rail/lines}} and {{S-line/side cell}}) to look for other templates whose names begin MOSMETRO in order to determine which colours to use, what the line names are, what the terminal stations are, etc.

Besides the four generic templates mentioned so far, that article also uses the following members of the family: {{S-line/MOSMETRO left/Zamoskvoretskaya}}; {{S-line/MOSMETRO right/Zamoskvoretskaya}}; {{MOSMETRO color}}; {{MOSMETRO lines}}; {{MOSMETRO stations}}; and {{MOSMETRO style}}.

One reason that I don't like the s-rail/s-line system for routeboxes is the need for a special set of subtemplates just to get colours, line directions, etc. to show up at all. A consequence of that is that once those subtemplates are set up, it's a real bind to rename them. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't a WP:BOTREQ solve that? 76.65.128.132 (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Denver, Raton & Southern Railroad

There's a scene from the 1972 Clint Eastwood movie Joe Kidd where Clint's character uses a train as a battering ram in a shootout. The tender is marked with the name "Denver, Raton & Southern" Railroad. Was this a real railroad, or something made up for the movie? ---DanTD (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The internet seems to say it never existed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, you were watching that the other night too? Good movie. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh, somebody I know was watching it a few days ago, and I caught that scene. ----DanTD (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Not listed in George Drury's The Historical Guide to North American Railroads (ISBN 0-89024-072-8). Useddenim (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

New glitch = Services shifting to the left

Tonight I've noticed that on a lot of station article, all the services are shifting to the left of infoboxes. I first noticed this with the bullets in the New York City Subway infoboxes, and thought it might be a new standard, until I saw railroad names on Amtrak, Metro-North, and MBTA station articles moving to the left of routeboxes. Can somebody fix this? ----DanTD (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears to affect NYCT only, I don't notice anything else with the problem. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing it on the s-line section of MBTA articles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be fixed. It could be this revision. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that this problem is a consequence of Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Alignment of infobox labels. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Help with or suggestions on Metro systems by annual passenger rides article

I am quite confused by this article. I updated the info and notes for the japanese systems..but I am still not sure about this article. First of all it does not define what it means by "metro"...this article seems to be about subway systems...so I propose changing the article's name to "List of Subway systems by annual passenger rides" or defining "metro".

What I mean by defining metro is, let's look at the case of Tokyo. Tokyo has 3.161 billion annual passengers according to the list..but this is only the TOEI and "Metro" subway which only represents 22% of all rail travel in Tokyo. For example JR and many of the other lines run at metro frequencies..and often even at higher frequencies than other urban rail systems in the world's major cities..for example the Yamanote Line or Chuo line and yet these are not counted in the "Metro list". If you were to count the entire tokyo rail network it would be several times the 3.161 number listed..and it would be more accurate, unless we simply change the title to "list of subways". I would prefer we have a wikipedia article on rapid transit (rail) systems including subways and above ground rail..it would make the list much more meaningful and interesting for comparisons for us rail fans.

By the way please look at the notes for Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya on that article to understand further what I mean, I added a source for the numbers as well.. Any thoughts or suggestions? TheRationalDude (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Metro systems are not necessarily "subway"; for example the Manchester Metrolink and Midland Metro are almost entirely above ground, and there are no sub-surface stations on either system. To my mind, a Metro is a railway system of a rapid transit nature, with a frequent service within a small area centred on one city. Few metro systems link two or more cities together, except where those cities have grown together to form a conurbation. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That is essentially what I am saying. The article in question is only counting subways, even though it is titled "metro systems". The definition of metro systems on wikipedia itself is "a passenger railway system in an urban area with a high capacity and frequency". So either we should change the title to "Subway system by annual passenger rides" or fix the list with more accurate data. TheRationalDude (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

European Union document on rail accident investigation

Hi! I'm not sure if there is an article discussing rail accident investigations... but I found a European Union-related document on the manner:

• http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety_library/publications/rosat_presentation_in_english.pdf

I hope this is useful in the articles! WhisperToMe (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Infobox German railway vehicle

Regarding {{Infobox German railway vehicle}}: please see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#I need a template translated from German to English. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

NaPTAN refs in Infobox GB station

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox GB station#NaPTAN refs. -- Trevj (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

New linear geolocationing system

Over at Wikiproject:Highways we've discovered a nifty way of displaying data onto mapping services that I believe will be a large benefit to your project. By using google earth, qgis, or similar software, you can draw lines onto the globe. These can be saved as a kml file, and the contents of that kml file can be used to, in place of or alongside the current {{coord}} system, display a shape or line on the Earth. I believe this group can benefit greatly from this as it can be used to trace the actual path of a railway track or line.

We're still trying to work out the finer details on how to proceed with this new discovery, so if anybody is interested check out the talk page of WikiProject Highways. Cheers, - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The above, should it ever become viaoble, should not be used "in place of… the current {{coord}} system", since it offers none of the functionality of that template, for identifying, locating, and producing KML (etc) of points of interest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

RM: Zürich Hauptbahnhof → Zurich Central Station

• (Discuss) – Zürich Hauptbahnhof → Zurich Central Station Kauffner (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Trams category

Category:Streetcar builders proposed rename to probably "tram and railcar manufacturers" or similar. Follow the links till you get to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 14 if you want to comment.Mddkpp (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand locomotive naming

Please see Talk:NZR_DL_class#Article_name and links therein. Generally NZR ''XXX'' class → New Zealand '''XXX''' class . Please comment there.Mddkpp (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Elmagegos

I see User:Elmagegos has been adding a (COI??) paper about HSR by Gines de Rus on repec.org to various articles. The fact that (s)he didn't read enough about High speed transport to realise it's about a type of ship makes me think that this is an example of academic spamming; repec.org appears to give credit for incoming links from Wikipedia. It's already been removed from the HS2 article, I suspect it's not of sufficient relevance/quality to remain in High-speed rail but I leave it to others with more knowledge to make that call. More generally you might want to keep an eye on that user and repec.org material in general. Le Deluge (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of model railroad clubs for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of model railroad clubs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of model railroad clubs until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Redrose64 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Train crash in Argentina

There been a major train crash in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Are there any Spanish speaking editors able to expand/improve the article from Spanish language sources? Mjroots (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Cambalachero (talk · contribs), the article has been expanded and is currently on the MP as part of ITN. Mjroots (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The KML map link method, and tagging articles with KML missing

I'm not sure how up to speed everyone on this project is on a KML method for creating map links for linear features & outlines. Now there's a proposal to tag suitable articles to add a hidden KML missing category where a KML map link is missing. Discussion here. Please join in and/or acquaint yourself with the KML method. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean like the bottom right link at Hull_and_Hornsea_Railway#Stations ? Or something else. That is the only example I've seen - it seems to work. Are there any other examples/Mddkpp (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You can take a look at how the highway people intend to use it in the ext links section of Oklahoma State Highway 82. It's intended to deal with linear items like train lines or a route map; obviously it makes more sense to stick with coordinates for spot objects like stations. Mangoe (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Naming conventions

I posted this question originally on the help desk, and was sent on a wild goose chase to several different places to try to find an answer. Most recently I was sent here. Here is my original question:

I have a question about the naming conventions of articles that I was hoping someone could answer. I have already read the naming conventions article, and my question was not answered by that. I have written several articles (La Floresta (FGC) and Sant Cugat (FGC)) about train stations run by a Catalan train company called the FGC. I was at first unsure about how to name these pages, but then I found a page on the same topic, Les Planes (FGC), which used the naming convention (putting 'FGC' in parentheses after the name of the station) that I then adopted for the two previously mentioned articles I created. But I am not sure if this is the right way to name these pages, as the redlinks to them are often inconsistent. Also the articles about the FGC's train lines are named as FGC lineand then the name of the line (for example FGC line S1). Should the stations be named as La Floresta (FGC station)? or FGC station La Floresta? Also, if you look at the names of some of the articles about the FGC stations, you will see that they have the name of the article followed by(Barcelona Metro) (for example, Sarrià (Barcelona Metro), but it is only correct to name articles about FGC stations this way if they are serviced by a FGC line that is part of the Barcelona Metro system, which the stations I am talking about are not. Please advise.

Thanks, Liam987 14:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello again; I helped with your problem at Template talk:s-line#Problems with this template recently. Naming conventions for railway stations do vary between countries, and sometimes between different systems within the same country. Some subprojects of WP:TRAINS have seen fit to clarify the matter with documents like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations), but this is not universal. I would recommend checking for existing articles about stations on the particular system that you're interested in; if there are few (or none), have a look at articles for the country concerned. I see a lot of variation at Category:Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat de Catalunya stations, at Category:Railway stations in Barcelona and indeed at Category:Railway stations in Catalonia also Category:Railway stations in Spain. In the absence of both explicit guidance and existing precedent, you're basically free to define your own convention.

However, I should point out that regardless of country, the name of the system almost never comes first - the first word, or words, is almost always the name of the station itself. What happens after that does vary, but often includes either the word "station" (or "railway station"), or the system name (which may be in parentheses), or both in either order; where the same station is common to two or more systems, the system name is often omitted. So, to take your example of La Floresta, the possibilities (excluding odd-looking permutations like La Floresta station FGC) would be:

La Floresta FGC, La Floresta (FGC), La Floresta FGC station, La Floresta (FGC) station, La Floresta (FGC station), La Floresta station (FGC), La Floresta station, La Floresta railway station

If a rule gets defined, it can be incorporated into Template:FGC stations, which is currently expecting a form like La Floresta (FGC). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

And FGC is only really needed if there is another railway station of the same name... bearing in mind that stations may be used by several operators or change hands over time. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I changed Template:FGC stations to what it currently is, previously it was in the form La Floresta FGC station. I changed it because no article actually used that system. Liam987 10:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that just calling it La Floresta station is a little bit vague for a minor train station in Catalonia, as there could be other stations in the world sharing the names. Maybe La Floresta station (Catalonia)? Liam987 16:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

La Floresta station (Catalonia) would be what is known as "pre-emptive disambiguation", which is not usually necessary, see WP:PRECISE and WP:DAB. Although a form like La Floresta station (FGC) could also be seen as pre-emptive disambiguation, this is permitted if the other stations on the same system are similarly named. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As I stated in my original question, the only article existing of this type that I didn't create is Les Planes (FGC), which is where I got that form of naming from. It was created in 2009 by Fobizan. Liam987 16:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have now moved all these articles to the format La Floresta station. Liam987 18:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

St. Lawrence and Hudson Railway

The St. Lawrence and Hudson Railway article needs some attention. There is a template showing in the text which needs correction. I did talk page templates. Please help. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It was this edit that broke the page. I have reverted. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Birkenhead Dock Branch

Hello while reading the aforementioned article I found this weird sentence. When you cross it with the screen cursor, the font changes and it seems to create a redirect, although I cannot see how, to a quick maps address in Fort Knox, USA? Which has nothing to do with the Birkenhead railway? Any help on how to remove this glitch from this Wikipedia article?

The final passenger working on the line was the Birkenhead Bandit Railtour, hauled by Class 40 locomotive 40122 D200, on the 16th February 1985.

The glitch also work heres on this talkpage! Even when I have cut and pasted it from the article. What is going on?109.155.66.167 (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

For me, it goes to a photo on Flickr of a class 40 captioned "Highlight of the 'Birkenhead Bandit' railtour of February 16th 1985 was a visit to the freight-only Birkenhead Docks complex. 40 122, at the time the last of the English Electric Type 4 class in service, rumbles alongside Corporation Road, with the dock cranes in the background. Hertfordshire Railtours organised the trip.". --Redrose64 (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to matter which browser is being used. The strange appearance does work with the Firefox browser. However I just checked, the embedded code does not work when using Windows Internet Explorer. This might be case for Chrome or Safari too. But there is definitely a problem with Firefox and this particular sentence. 109.156.28.88 (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've tried it in all five of my browsers, and it doesn't show this mysterious link. Have you got any malware or viruses? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Tried it in Chrome; nothing happened here. bobrayner (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that the sentence in question is tagged with html <blockquote> tags. I'm wondering if somewhere along the way his browser loaded a css style sheet that redefined the blockquote with something like
<style fprolloverstyle>A:hover {font-weight: bold}</style>
which I use on my website to make links more obvious. Useddenim (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I have just uninstalled Firefox and removed everything including all my addons, extensions etc. I have now reinstalled the program and returned to this page. And yes, the glitch which changed the font has stopped. I think the blockquote business is a red herring, as the problem also existed in situ on the dock railway page. I only placed it in blockquote to place the sentence in a clear place within the page. However whatever piece of code that was causing this strange change has been now deactivated when I deleted Firefox and started anew. I hope this is not a virus but I have not noticed any other odd behaviour of late using this PC. Anyway the only thing I can say is I am now annoyed that I did not get a screen saver of the change otherwise it looks like I was the only one seeing it! BTW I am not crazy. As a word of warning, whatever was making this happen could be discovered by other less intent on fixing the problem. It could be something that eventually could bring down this site, as I have no idea what was causing it! And only just this one sentence, that's what made it so weird = and why a redirect to a map of Fort Knox?? I guess I will never know....86.173.142.83 (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge input needed

Should List of local streetcar systems in the United States be merged to List of streetcar systems in the United States? Please comment at Talk:List of streetcar systems in the United States D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You should also bring this issue to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Streetcars. Just a thought. ----DanTD (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:North America Class I needs fixing

I just noticed that a left-column section heading has dropped out of this template, leaving two separatately alphabitzed lists glommed together. I just tried to fix it, but templates are not my strong suit, and it didn't work. Can anyone else here restore the missing heading and re-separate the two lists? The talk page of the template hasn't been active for more than 5 years, so I'm posting this request here. Textorus (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Got it. There was some errant comment markup that, once removed, allowed the header to show. I'm wondering, looking at the navbox, if putting the fallen flags into collapsible sections might make it smoother and less obtrusive. See Template:Broadway theatres for an example. oknazevad (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. For me, it's fine as is, but you may want to get other opinions. Textorus (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Old Nickel Plate Road station category

I just created a whole new category for Stations along Nickel Plate Road lines, and unfortunatley, I was only able to add four stations to the article. Who knows of other railroad stations that used to be served by the New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad? ----DanTD (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I added 3 more stations to the category. The reason there is a lack of articles on stations is that Amtrak doesn't run on any former Nickel Plate lines. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 19:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

No commuter railroads or NRHP-preserved stations either, I suppose? ----DanTD (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE - I should've known about Buffalo when we had this discussion in the Hoboken Terminal article. ----DanTD (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Gallery Mess

I have an issue concerning the use of galleries in CityRail railway station articles such as this one, this and so forth. The overuse of galleries is turning these articles into an eyesore, I understand that there may be some content that would be better suited in a gallery format but the way some editors use the gallery is ridiculous. On some CityRail articles, there may be as many as three rows (on a 1920x1080 screen, more rows may be visible on a lower resolution screen) and in addition to that, the side/s would be filled with images that serve little purpose in supporting the prose. These images could be simply summarised into a single line reading - "Wikimedia Commons has media related to:______railway station, Sydney". As the primary Wikiproject maintaining the standards of these articles, do you believe these article should be left the way it is at this current moment or should the galleries be removed? YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 13:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• That would be my preference (to remove most images to Commons). Images should help illustrate the text but not overwhelm it. That's excessive. Mackensen (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• Further, Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries backs up your view as to best practices, FWIW. Mackensen (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It appears that this issue has only been of your concern, no one else besides you has deemed the galleries to be detrimental. Please consult with other fellow Wikipedia editors before taking action solely on your interpretation of the guidelines.

Wykymania (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No it appears it's not only my concern as indicated in the Schofield station article and why would I post a section asking for opinions on a talk page if I didn't want to consult with other editors? It appears you and abesty are the only two who are adding numerous pictures to articles which is a breach of gallery guidelines. This is an encyclopedia not an image gallery, if one wishes to visualise something, it would be wise of them to visit Wikimedia Commons, the main purpose of encyclopedias is to explain and provide information in a prose format which is what is being done on 99.5% of the articles here. Galleries serve as the last resort for information that may be somewhat difficult to explain. Objects and features of a railway station are not difficult to explain at all; the placement or colour of these objects is not necessary nor relevant nor does it meet the notability guidelines hence would be of little interest to most people. If 3-4 images were to added in a gallery format then I would not oppose it but this is beyond sense and reason, you are including an excess of ten images on some articles, I'm sorry but that is not the purpose of an image gallery on Wikipedia. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 13:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Commons is fo life, yo. Anyway, galleries on en.wp are bad, try to stick to side placement, unless there is a good reason for a gallery. See WP:IM, WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:MOS, etc. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Schofields Station's article is one that I am very proud of. It has enough text material to supplement the visual creating an appropriate balance.Wykymania (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not as excessive but the gallery at the bottom of the article can be omitted along with some of the images in the midst of the article that isn't supported by the prose. Simply adding a paragraph about the footbridge construction along with several sources can probably allow that specific gallery in regards to the footbridge construction to be kept in the article. The midst of the article barely has enough information to support the images in a well balanced manner but it's certainly not as concerning as some of the other articles. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 15:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand your approach in keeping articles tidy, however there is nothing wrong with images left on the article, in preparation for someone to expand on the prose and thus rearrange the visuals, Hopefully you can understand that this has been done on other articles such as this: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%96%B0%E5%B9%B9%E7%B7%9A700%E7%B3%BB%E9%9B%BB%E8%BB%8A Articles outside our linguistic and cultural scopes.Wykymania (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Images can always be accessed on Wikicommons as long as you tag and label your images properly. The Commonscat tag can also provide direct access to these images from the article with little space taken; as the article grows, you may then add images along the side of the article to illustrate the prose's point. As for the Japanese article, many wrongs don't make a right but I'm sure that the articles that are featured or are considered "good" don't have an excessive amount of images as such. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 15:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, some commonscat tags can have galleries. I just added the commons tag to one of the articles the OP is complaining about, but since there's no gallery there, I wasn't able to add that yet. In the meantime, there's a category called Category:Images of railway stations in Australia, which should be added to all the ones that aren't in the commons yet. ----DanTD (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Where are the links to commonscat tags that we talk of placed on these pages?Wykymania (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

For Epping railway station, Sydney it's in the References chapter. I didn't add one for Macquarie University railway station yet, although I probably should.. ----DanTD (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I know that he is currently doing mass removals of the images for the sake of adhering to the guidelines, however, there have only been a couple of people of whom he's consulted with and this, I believe is not enough. I am also concerned about the value of whether in mass removing galleries which provide to a degree some information may be 'hiding' information rather than provision of it. Therefore even though the galleries, do not meet the guidelines, I believe the value of mass instances of entries providing information in the form of visuals far exceeds that of the mass instances in removing them. Wykymania (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Not to base this entire debate on consensus but it's currently 4 to 1 and for any consensus to occur, 5 participates is generally enough. No one is doing any hiding either, these pictures can be accessed at any time from Wikimedia Commons which is directly linked from these articles. There are potentially millions of pictures of the Sydney Harbour Bridge from every angle possible but not all of these pictures deserve to be placed and featured in the Sydney Harbour Bridge article. If you really do wish to allow viewers to visualise these stations then a Hi-Res panoramic image of each station would be invaluable. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 08:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Check the commons tag on Epping railway station, Sydney again, because I just created a gallery for it. However there are a lot of blank spaces because that gallery includes some non-commons image text. Move those images to the commons, and you'll see them again. ----DanTD (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a bit disappointing to have made all these edits on Multiple pages with no effort what so ever to link the deleted pictures to the commons in a link below the article or even point them in a talk page associated with the page. I agree some pages may have "excessive" photo's but to remove ALL photos does not add any value to the article. Finally what are the acceptable upper and lower limits of photos in an articles gallery. What ever happened to "A picture tells a thousand words" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiefmanzzz (talk • contribs) 05:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was customary for users to upload images to Commons if it meets the licensing requirements. That's no problem, those images should still be on Wikipedia and I'll make the effort to move them to Common later tonight or early tomorrow morning. I believe the entire gallery should be removed as the images can be easily accessed on Commons in a gallery format while allowing the written content to take prominence. I find them useless in most cases and only adds to the draftiness of an article but I'm not too fuss about it and don't think anyone else would be too so if anyone feels a certain urge to restore it with a valid reason, feel free to do so - if no one else objects. My opinion is that 4-5 meaningful images should be the maximum amount of images any gallery should have. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 05:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've already uploaded at least three of them so far. I was hopng to add some decent summaries to them before I add them to the commons. ----DanTD (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: I had to make two different commons templates for Macquarie University railway station, because when I split the templates, it didn't lead to the proper category. I'll have to check and see if there are others that have this problem. Oh, BTW. unless I'm mistaken, the Epping railway station, Sydney commons gallery is complete. ----DanTD (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject userboxes

Hello, I want to know if you would love a WikiProject userbox. I make animated userboxes, and have already made some with trains. If I haven't spoken here within the last few days, please let me know on my user talkpage if you would like to comment to me. Thanks ! Penyulap ☏

Thanks, but we already have a userbox. Not sure that an animated one is required, but others may want one. Mjroots (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

RF&P Station category

Now, I'm planning a new station category for the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad. So, besides Ashland, Virginia (Amtrak station), does anybody know of any historic/former station articles between Broad Street Station (Richmond) and Fredericksburg (VRE station)? What about articles for stations that aren't along the Northeaast Regional line? ----DanTD (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Cape Gauge

Please note that I have placed a move proposal for Cape gauge to be moved to Narrow gauge - as I believe it is such a limited term to define a world wide used gauge. The current term has limited geographic usage, and is not like the generally well explained different usages found in this project in WP SatuSuro 09:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Lisapalomeque

I'd like some more eyeballs on Lisapalomeque (talk · contribs). S/he's been making lots on unhelpful incremental edits. I've left a note and checked the last fifty contributions but I think they all have to be checked. Mackensen (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This problem is continuing. Changes are unexplained and unsourced and some are obviously erroneous. The editor has not responded to any of the warnings on his/her talk page. Please can someone else look at it? - David Biddulph (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Still going on; no explanation for changes, and still no response to warnings. For example, the editor keeps changing the top speed value for European (non-British) trains in List of high-speed trains from kph to mph, and keep adding "top speed" sentences to articles about a route rather than about a particular train. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

... and after a brief block for the above user, we now have Titopalomeque (talk · contribs) with exactly the same behaviour. You will note the similarity of the names. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I've raised a SPI. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, assuming we could actually source it and word it appropriately, shouldn't a "top speed" for a route be acceptable in principle? Speeds are not specific to rolling stock alone; different routes have different speed restrictions. bobrayner (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's of dubious value. In the United States it would be close to meaningless. Is the top speed of a route the FRA-mandated speed limit, the maximum speed the train usually operates at, the average speed, or something else? I don't know what the practice is in other countries. Mackensen (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

In cases where there's sufficient sourcing to reveal a complex situation with different numbers, we could always have a couple of sentences presenting them in context. For example, West Coast Main Line#Increased line speed. But most of the time it can be simpler; more generally, outside the USA we'd usually expect a national regulator or infrastructure owner to specify maximum line speeds. If I remember correctly, in much of Europe there are regulatory requirements for infracos to publish information like this (along with details of electrification, loading gauge, &c); in the rest of the world it could be a bit more piecemeal.

{{Infobox rail line}} even has a "speed" parameter. Some articles already use it. bobrayner (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

In Britain, each rail line has a maximum speed, which often varies along its length (due to tight curves, proximity of structures, etc.). Routes where tilting trains (such as Class 390) are regularly used often have two maximum speeds: a higher one for tilting trains, and a lower one for everything else. In addition, every item of modern rolling stock has a rated maximum speed which depends more upon safety factors such as oscillation than on the capabilities of the power plant. Steam locomotives rarely had a rated maximum speed; indeed the only published speeds for steam locomotives that I know of are the figures actually attained in service, never a rated maximum. So, one of Lisa's favourite edits is to add |topspeed=90 mph (145 km/h) to LNER Class A4 4468 Mallard - but I know of no book that gives a "maximum" speed for that loco, other than tests such as the 1938 record run. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

In the USA, it's more relevant to what part of the country you're in. The Silver Star for example runs at the same speed as most trains along the Northeast Corridor in places like New Jersey, whereas in parts of Florida they runs so slow that any kid driving a jalopy could beat one at a grade crossing, not that we want to encourage such behavior, of course. ----DanTD (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so that's how Clark Kent could outrun the train in Superman before he had been to the Fortress of Solitude. Smallville must therefore be in Fla. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Nah, they just have a lot of slow speed limits, narrow areas, tight turns, and what not. A lot of conditions that don't give engineers the chance to go that fast. Even the straight lines aren't that fast. US 17 north of Palatka has a speed limit of 60 mph, and a lot of people go faster, and yet on the railroad line that runs relatively parallel to it, you'd be lucky if you find any trains going 50 mph. ----DanTD (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be back at it: [1]. Mackensen (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Chicken Wire Grills on F7's

The article states that no chicken wire grills were on F7's, and generally, I would not dispute this. This may be true, and if so, there are errors on several other locations. However, photos of DL&W 631A, later EL 6311, show chicken wire grills on a unit identified on the Unofficial EMD Home Page and Andre's EMD Serial Number Page as an F7. I've referred to my copy of Diesel Locomotive Rosters, The Railroad Magazine Series, soft cover book, which also states that DL&W 631A was built as an F7. Here's a link to photos of the locomotive in question.

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/Locopicture.aspx?id=58708 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckzeiler (talk • contribs) 16:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Jurong Bird Park Panorail

I have to ask someone on this project... Do we really really believe that on a closed-loop 1.7km (barely over a mile) system we are going to come up with real articles for the rail line Jurong Bird Park Panorail plus its three stations? Wouldn't it be better to just combine things into a reasonable article about the panorail that included all three stations, rather than creating a one sentence article for the main station and looping references for the other two? Just asking. It seems rather extreme to me, but I'm the zoo guy, not the rail guy. Don Lammers (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As things stand, I would (personally) merge into the Jurong Bird Park article; but if there is potential to write a lot more about the railway, you can keep them separate (examples: Ruislip Lido and Ruislip Lido Railway, or Whipsnade Zoo and Great Whipsnade Railway). I would definitely avoid having separate articles for the individual stations, since this is a tourist attraction rather than a public transport system. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Early steam locomotives ?

Given how many books and papers have been published on the subject (and how many controversies earnestly fought out) it seems a bit odd that, unless I've missed something, we don't seem to have a general survey article on early steam locomotives, i.e. to trace what the key innovations were, and when they were made them and by who, that had to come on the way to the first recognisably 'modern' locomotives circa 1831.

We have lots of articles on individual locomotives, and there's the template {{early-steam-locos}}, but there seems to be no actual survey article (and also no comprehensive listing -- there were a lot more than the 19 locos in the template before 1829). At the moment History of rail transport in Great Britain to 1830 has a few paragraphs; there's a bit at History of rail transport; and Steam locomotive#Origins has a couple of paragraphs; but AFAICS there's really no detailed survey specifically about locomotives, pulling out what were the key technical developments that finally all came together. At the moment our blue link above just links to the category.

This seems a gap that surely, given the sources directly on this topic, some attempt should be made to fill? Jheald (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Rename of Category:Locomotives introduced by year

Greetings. I have proposed renaming Category:Locomotives introduced by year to Category:Locomotives by year of introduction. You may participate in the discussion at CfD 2012/May/24.- choster (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

X-Dominion

I found this image when browsing the LAC.

I couldn't find any articles to put it in though. I think it means Export from the Dominion?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Mystery station

I've been staring at File:Amtrak Empire Builder 2007.JPG and I think I've identified it as Winona (Amtrak station) but I'd like a second opinion. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It's always possible. I zoomed in on the cars in the parking lot, and one of the images in the TrainWeb link. But like you, I want to be 100% sure. ----DanTD (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd call it pretty definite. The antenna tower in the yard and the red container in the background match perfectly. Boarded-over tracks are rather unique, and the sunset matches the scheduled 7:50 PM departure for mid August. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely it's Winona. Took a look at some flickr images today. Compare this one and this other one to the image. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, okay. So it's Winona. ----DanTD (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

What can I say, I get over-excited about mysteries :) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

What constitues a major station in Britain?

As usual, there are debates on what consitutes a major station in Britain and maybe this could have some fresh eyes. Please see Template talk:Major railway stations in Britain. Simply south...... always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years 16:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Images need moving to Commons

There are seven images in Category:Locomotives that need moving to Commons. I am having trouble with the automated tools. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 11:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• They're working again. I've taken care of these images. Mackensen (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Reliability of sources for NA railroad class lists

There seem to be some significant problems with List of U.S. Class II railroads and Class III railroad, starting right off from the fact that Reading Blue Mountain and Northern Railroad is in both lists. The Class II list cites this page, but this Fed Register entry states that it was a Class III in 2009. I haven't updated either page because it's not clear to me where I should look for definitive assignment to each class. Mangoe (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Metro services category

I'm not a contributor but I think it would be useful for Wikipedia to have a list or a category of proposed metro services. What do you think? There are several cities that are developing projects: Bogotá Metro, Belgrade Metro, Dublin Metro, Riyadh... now we only have categories for Category:Proposed public transport and the List_of_metro_systems. I hope you can have information on projected metro systems. Best regards. 85.50.151.196 (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Green Line (Namma Metro) and a few others are already in Category:Proposed railways and it seem to me that's where the others belong. If that category is large then yes, "by type" subcats are appropriate including one for local rapid transit rail. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Category:Proposed railways is fine. If it became crowded then we could perhaps create more subcats, but not until then. We already have a tangle of underpopulated categories. bobrayner (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Missing Picture Found on Google

I have found a picture to replace the missing picture symbol on the page for Cumberland, Maryland, here it is;

http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/cumberland2.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.107.11 (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no evidence that there's any Creative Commons license on that image. I did find some CC-BY-SA and CC-BY images on Flickr which I'll have transferred shortly. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, crud. Confused the Western Maryland depot for the Amshack. No picture yet, but Flickr may deliver this, too. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done: Flickr once again delivers. I had to de-hipster an instagram picture, but it's there now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

London Wiki

At [2]] - any train-related contributions welcome.

On a different track - developing Dr Beeching and/or his report for 2013 (being 50 years) for the WP main page. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Stub articles from Victoria (Australia)

Could an editor who is familiar with the Australian state of Victoria please take a look at Tulkara railway station, Victoria and Navarre railway line? Other articles that would benefit from the attention of experienced editors are listed at Special:Contributions/NEUSCHWABENLAND Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

there has been some partial remedy - if it continues - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Victoria and or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australia might be worth dropping a short note SatuSuro 13:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we may have a troublemaker. One of the articles created by this user was PRODded - NEUSCHWABENLAND (talk · contribs) then removed the PROD but also copied it to Baluchistan Pygmy Jerboa and User:Crusoe8181. He also seems to have a dislike for the lead section of Tulkara railway station. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Union Pacific Railroad and Accidents section

I believe the Union Pacific Railroad section called Accidents is not a neutral point of view—and should be removed. There is no accident section for the other three big railroads in the USA: BNSF Railway, CSX Transportation, or Norfolk Southern Railway. The section has several "citation needed" markings. I suspect the author holds a grudge against Union Pacific or has another motive for creating that section. I will not change that section myself. I believe someone from this WikiProject should make the change.TwoScars (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with you, but perhaps there should be an accident section for BNSF, CSX, and Norfolk Southern, and perhaps some predacessor railroads of each of them. ----DanTD (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The section does need some cleanup to remove some non-notable incidents, but it's presence is hardly non-neutral and the WP:OTHERSTUFF arguement only serves to highlight a weakness in the other articles. (And why does everyone forget KCS?) oknazevad (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to clutter the whole page with minor accidents any more than anyone else, but that doesn't mean we should eliminate anything related to the accidents. Maybe that derailment in Macdona, Texas on June 28, 2004 needs a separate article. Anyway oknazevad, I'm glad you brought up Kansas City Southern, because I've had some issues of my own with that railroad recently. I've considered a new station category for it, but I'd rather know of more former KCS stations first. ----DanTD (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think in most cases accidents are trivia and probably shouldn't be mentioned in the main article unless they were a truly noteworthy part of the company's history. If the accident is sufficiently notable it'll have its own article and can be handled there. In its current state the coverage is disproportionate. Mackensen (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that an accident in which a passenger was killed should be mentioned, and is probably notable enough to have an article. Accidents to freight trains are less notable, but may still be worth mentioning if there was significant disruption as a result (line closed for weeks/months). Accidents occurring at stations should be mentioned at the station article. That a section needs improvement is not a reason for it to be deleted. It should be rewritten. Mjroots (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mackensen on the first point - most accidents are trivia - but must disagree on the second point; if something is noteworthy enough to mention then I would prefer that we mention it within an existing article, rather than standalone. I think that a scattering of short articles on individual accidents, separate from articles about affected organisations or infrastructure, would do readers a disfavour - we could offer better articles if we integrated content a little more. Of course, if an article is really really significant then a separate article is fine by me, but for most accidents in the middle of the spectrum... bobrayner (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Some accidents are noteworthy enough for a standalone article - such as Tay Bridge disaster or Quintinshill rail disaster. If an accident is not sufficiently notable, but is discussed in the usual sources, it ought to be mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia. If it occurred in a station, and the station has its own article, mention it there; otherwise on the article about the line or route. Describing isolated incidents on the article about the rail company is WP:UNDUE; but if such incidents are in some way connected to each other and to the running of the railroad as a whole (such as long-term management failure to address safety concerns), it can be mentioned on the rail company's article. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that any accident that isn't notorious enough to justify its own article probably ought not to be mentioned. Having accidents is part of running a railroad, for better or worse. I would also point out that there is a strong element of recentism in this, because it's so much easier to find information on accidents in the last decade. This tends to give a false impression that railroading has gotten much more accident-prone of late, which is unlikely to be true.

...and for instance I see that the section in question mentions two accidents over a period of the last twenty years only. I cannot imagine that this is an accurate reflection of UP's operating history. Mangoe (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Railroad accident rates are typically measured as the number of accidents per million train miles. Today's typical rates are between 2 and 4, while the average for 1980 was above 11. Therefore, the railroads with more train-miles (Big 5, etc.) will have more accidents—even if their rate is normal. Right now, if my children looked at the Union Pacific Wikipedia site, they would be misled to believe that UP is not safe. UP is not much different from BNSF or CSX. I assume members of this Wikigroup are familiar with the FRA web site. Here is a link.TwoScars (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Unhelpfully, I'll add that whilst a section on accidents may well be undue, a section on 'safety record' is probably apropos. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If a train accident caused numerous deaths, landmark lawsuits, or led to new legislation—then it is notable and should have its own Wikipedia page. Otherwise, listing a random group of train accidents (with cool pictures) is biased. Not only are there no accidents discussed for CSX, Norfolk Southern, BNSF, or Kansas City Southern—there are no accidents discussed for Amtrak, UPS, FexEx, or YRC either. None of these railroad and trucking companies ever had accidents? All transportation companies have accidents, but statistics from the Federal Railroad Administration show that accidents per million train-miles (for railroads) have been decreasing over the last 30 years. The serious accidents are significant to all involved and their families—but I believe only a few are Wikipedia-worthy. Let us get realistic. I am a former (non-railroad) Teamster. Unions are important, and have made life bearable for the American worker. However, if I decided that more Teamsters needed to be employed, a useful tactic is to publicize safety problems (justifying the need for more Teamsters). Good train wreck pictures can especially influence politicians. Even if the Union Pacific Accidents section was not written by someone with an agenda or motive (I am still concerned), keeping a section like this "opens the door" for those that have an agenda. An accidents section may be allowing those types of "battles" to use Wikipedia as an arena. Do we really want that?TwoScars (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not strictly true: the Amtrak article does not have a separate section on accidents, but at the end of the article the four accidents in which passengers died are listed without comment. The Silver Spring/Capitol Limited accident could have been added though all the fatalities were on the MARC train. But all of these accidents received major coverage on the front pages of the newspapers and in some cases on the evening news. Each of these has its own Wikipedia article. Mangoe (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The four bullets under the sub-sub section Rail Disasters is much better than a five-paragraph section under with a picture of a wreck from 2004.TwoScars (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. I would also note that the FRA allows looking up statistical data on incidents, and by and large the numbers are stable and way down from their peak. Mangoe (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

And while we're at it, notability of accidents

In the course of looking into this, I've been over some of the members of Category:Railway accidents in the United States. While the majority are notorious passenger accidents with dozens of fatalities, we're also getting some creep into freight incidents which don't involve loss of life. For example, the "crazy eights" incident is certainly an entertaining story, enough to inspire a movie, but otherwise, how notable was it? It's not going to be hard to document recent freight accidents which happen to attract the newspaper on a slow enough day, or if there was some property damage, but as above the likelihood is going to be a pattern of recentism given that I doubt that anyone is going to go back through all those old archival copies of city newspapers looking for accident articles. Mangoe (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to revisit WP:RAILCRASH. See its talk page for why it collapsed. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm wary of the trend towards framing notability in project-specific technical terms (IE. in terms of crash severity, fatalities, &c). Looking through other failed proposals on notability rules, there's one on restaurant notability which focuses on restaurant guides & reviews; one on cemetery notability which expects cemeteries to contain the graves of important people; one on notability of royals which concentrates on titles and ancestry. And so on. Independent sources seem to have felt that the CSX8888 incident was noteworthy enough to devote whole articles to it, and that's good enough for me. bobrayner (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The crazy eights incident became notable because of the movie—it was not notable beforehand. I liked the movie, and I like the Wikipedia article that set the record straight. I do not believe the crazy eights incident should have its own section under CSX Transportation (and it does not have one).TwoScars (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• We have all stated our opinions. How is this group "governed"? Will somebody make a decision for action or inaction? How does the group come to an agreement or consensus?TwoScars (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Amtrak Cascades

Comments sought at Talk:Amtrak Cascades#Proposed changes to Proposed changes about how to refactor the page. Mackensen (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments Requested

Comments are requested at the discussion at Talk:Metropolitan District Railway#Move Proposal. Thank you. Edgepedia (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Help identifying EMU

This image is labelled Liverpool Overhead Railway, but I really don't think its an EMU from that overhead railway; the EMUs were smaller and didn't have clerestory roofs. It could be an early Mersey Railway EMU, this had fourth rail electrification and American-style cars. It's not a London Underground B Stock, these didn't have end doors, and it looks different to this L&YR EMU. Note also the 'L' shaped positive (outside) conductor rail. This is a scan from All about Railways and I think this is available on-line from a US IP address here. Could someone look up the caption for me please? Edgepedia (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW I going to be away for a few days. Edgepedia (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Er, the B Stock did have end doors, but I've not found any pics showing that style (two tall narrow windows). --Redrose64 (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a Mersey Railway EMU - the caption states "The Electrified Mersey Railway", although I can't verify the date provided on Commons as there's no date accompanying the image. Will go and change the filename and caption. Could the location be just east of Birkenhead Park station maybe? The lettering on the building appears to read "...int station" so "xxxx joint station" perhaps, what with the station being shared between the Mersey Railway and Wirral Railway at the time. Raywil (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Found between pages 136 and 137 (for future reference). Raywil (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely just east of Birkenhead Park from looking at the design of the bridge from this aerial photo. [3]

Thanks folks! Don't know way I said the B Stock didn't have end doors.. Of course they do. Edgepedia (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem - it was a useful exercise for me as well due to currently working on Wirral Line. The article on the Mersey Railway seems to be coming along rather nicely thanks to your recent work. Raywil (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

New category

Category:Gearless electric drive - please populate, and if necessary create sub cat for rail vehicles.

I believe early B&O Baltimore_Belt_Line electrics had gearless drive too (GE design) eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:B-and-O_electric.jpg but couldn't find an article.Oranjblud (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Today's Railways

The article Today's Railways has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Redrose64 (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Railways Illustrated

The article Railways Illustrated has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Redrose64 (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

railway magazines

(see PRODs above) There's a lot that of magazine articles that pretty clearly don't meet notability guidelines - see List of railroad-related periodicals or Category:Rail transport magazines. Some may be borderline. Rather than list them all here please check the two links given for any that can be shown to be notable etc..Oranjblud (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

All of these PRODs will require review: I just found three which were ineligible for WP:PROD, because each of them had been PRODded before (one had even gone to AfD, closing as "keep"). --Redrose64 (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with most of the prods - just because an interpretation of notability is being applied - it is gutting a specific genre of article and I find it too systematic and rushed. Further discussion is required, if not some careful thought as to why this form of article is attracting this interest (and also the lack of understanding that previous prods and afds have been done) SatuSuro 23:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Notability - the inherent worthiness, usefulness of a thing, though not disputed, is not the issue here. Publications of the industrial railway society, for example meet similar levels of interest, and may be useful sources in their field - but are simply not notable enough for an article. Oranjblud (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I have added notability information to the Today's Railways article. However, the source I found has no information about the other magazine, and I'm not familiar with it. Finding independent source material about magazines is actually quite difficult, because non-affiliated periodicals tend not to review each other. I figured that a comment by a large specialist bookseller was about the best independent source I was likely to find. Bahnfrend (talk) 01:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

SatuSuro - if you (or anybody else) disagrees with a PROD, you have the right to contest it as described at WP:CONTESTED. --Redrose64 (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I find Bahnfrend's comment very pertinent - it is very easy for Oranjblud to prod and put up for afd articles about various rail magazines - as the issue is with WP:RS being difficult to source for such items... I believe the Notability - Prod - Afd cycle somewhat a red-herring - there are more creative ways of dealing with the issue - and the current cycle is of little pertinence when considering the articles. SatuSuro 08:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Since I made that comment, Oakshade has pointed out that there is a special Wikipedia:Notability (media) guideline, and that the Today's Railways article easily passes the test set out in that guideline. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Today's Railways. I suspect it's very likely that the other PRODded articles about railway magazines also pass that test. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: this is being discussed in two places. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#railway_magazines --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Birmingham, Alabama (Amtrak station)

Sources are somewhat vague on this, so I've decided to establish the opening date of Birmingham, Alabama (Amtrak station) as 1960 (when L&N built its final station on the site). If anyone has any specific information on when that building was torn down (sometime 2007-2008) that would be helpful too. If Birmingham ever does build an intermodal facility we would probably want to treat that as a new station altogether. Mackensen (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Article tags

I have been trying to delete tags off articles. For example, I redirected Yankees – East 153rd Street (Metro-North station) to Yankees – East 153rd Street. Someone reverted it. I have an idea: If a station name is the only station name of all train services, then don't put a tag in parentheses. It's common sense! Bob Mono (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well, consensus is that it's better for thousands of articles to be named consistently. It's been discussed to death. Mackensen (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Having the parenthetical section makes everything fit together in the larger systems. Please do not remove them. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

But what if there's only one of that specific station, though? Bob Mono (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Not enough of a reason to remove the qualifiers. These are articles specifically for railroad stations within specific systems. ----DanTD (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to put something in parentheses for every single train station. That would most likely make the name too long. There was an article stating not to make names long (I forget what it is), so don't make the names long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananas Monkey (talk • contribs) 11:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Lackawanna Cut-Off

Hi, all. Is anyone knowledgeable in this area willing to examine the article on the Lackawanna Cut-Off for violations of WP:NOR? The main contributor lives in the area of the recent construction on the cutoff and is perhaps using personal knowledge to supplement reliable sources. The section I'm usually worried about is Lackawanna Cut-Off#Efforts to restore rail service (2001–present), and in particular the "Progress as of June 2012" table. I sincerely doubt there are reliable sources that could be cited for whether track has been installed at those particular junctions or sites. And the "remaining work" field may be original research by way of using a reliable source to determine what work was required at each site, then subtracting personal observations. Anyway, the article could certainly use some attention if someone's up for it. (It's a very peripheral interest of mine.) Have at it! Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 04:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

To some degree, the pictures serve as reliable sources in themselves - you don't need to cite something if the reader can see simply see look to verify. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't necessarily have accurate metadata for photos (date and location &c), and we shouldn't assume that a reader is so familiar with the intricacies of rail projects that they can just look at a photo and know how much work is outstanding. (For one thing, there are various things which could be problematic and cause lots of delays/rework which are unlikely to be obvious in a photo).

Serious deception is unlikely in this case but I've seen an article about rail infrastructure in a developing country, where an editor deliberately borrowed photos of big expensive infrastructure in Europe / the USA to make it look as though their own country's railways were much more advanced... bobrayner (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. I agree that the editor in question is not trying to deceive anyone, but parts of the article end up reading much more like a blog or personal website that's constantly updated with bits of new personal observations than an encyclopedia entry. I don't think it's intentional - when you have all sources laid out and editing the article, it could be easy to introduce info that cannot be attributed to any source other than your own observation without realizing it. I've tried to explain it to the editor before and linked to the relevant policies and guidelines and it has gotten better, but the pattern continues. The obvious OR makes me uncomfortable, but I'm not very knowledgeable in this topic so I thought perhaps some of you might be able to tease it apart. Thanks again for the comments, Rkitko ^(talk) 13:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

International border w/o border control (Schengen area): GRENZE or eGRENZE?

Hi,

The Template:Railway line legend states that GRENZE should be used for "international border w/ border control" and eGRENZE should be used for "fare zone or territorial border w/o border control".

But what about the international borders within Schengen area? They are international borders, but w/o border control... I started replacing some GRENZE by eGRENZE, but stopped after seeing some people did the change the other way a while ago.

Slasher-fun (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell German Wiki is still using GRENZE for borders within the Schengen area. So I think the definitions may need changing to something like GRENZE = "international border" and eGRENZE = "fare zone boundary or territorial border within the same country". --Bermicourt (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine for me, I'll change that :) Slasher-fun (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

For those who may be puzzled:  (GRENZE) (eGRENZE) --Redrose64 (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Excessive pedantry may be unhelpful; intra-Schengen borders don't have border controls, and thanks to the ERA and the Railway Packages &c intra-Schengen borders are much less likely to have other technical or regulatory hassles that you might expect at an international rail crossing outside Schengenland (despite SNCF/RFF's most determined efforts), so it's probably better to use eGRENZE. Tweak the wording if necessary. What's the alternative - create a new icon solely for railways crossing intra-Schengen borders? bobrayner (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

CA Bullet Train not New?

I seem to remember plans for a "bullet train" in CA in the 1970's -- can anyone confirm that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.60.121 (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Amtrak stations in California

The article Amtrak stations in California has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Long-time orphan and not integrated with other articles on the topic.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If anything, it should be renamed List of Amtrak stations in California. If not, then simply merge it into Amtrak California. ----DanTD (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: I just saved it from the orphanage. Therefore the reasons given for deletion no longer apply. ----DanTD (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

I think one of our old friends is back: [4] [5] [6]
Keep your eyes open. However, their interests vary over time; they're no longer so enthusiastic about massive dual- and triple-gauge networks, or changing electrification standards according to local ethnicity. Unfortunately it's difficult to stop a persistent editor with short IP leases whose edits are superficially coherent enough to get through recent changes patrol &c and who edits a wide range of articles. If anybody can think of another way to tackle the problem, I'm all ears... bobrayner (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion

See discussion at Talk:City of Los Angeles#Requested move. Mackensen (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Rail_line_three_to_two

Is anyone here handy enough with wikicode to make the colour columns on Template:Rail_line_three_to_two just one big strip down rather than 6 boxes? I can't seem to work it out - filelakeshoe 12:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I wrote it; and at the time I did want to make them continuous strips. The reason that I didn't is that in the absence of any rows of height 1, there are no longer any cells in rows 2 & 6, so these collapse; and since there are no longer six rows, the row heights are no longer even. Here it is as wikicode:

previous1		route		next1
					previous2
next2
				previous3

but redrawing it as pure HTML still causes troubles at rows 2 & 6:

previous1		route		next1
previous2
				next2
previous3

The following version uses four rows, and works in Firefox 14, but it's not obvious why:

previous1		route		next1
previous2
				next2
previous3

--Redrose64 (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done I set some of the border-top: and border-bottom: CSS properties to none; - this means that although there are still six cells in a vertical stack, the dividing lines between them are no longer shown. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I've found the discussion that led to its creation. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot! I came here after using one in Žilina railway station which looked wrong before.. looks good now. - filelakeshoe 09:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Problem at Talk:Jammu–Poonch railway

A Talk:Jammu–Poonch railway a user wants to a have case by case treatment of railway lines, referring to the fact that one source has something in lower case. But what are style guides for if for every line one looks at a source document for capitalization?Triomio (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there a style guide which says that the "railway" must be capitalised? WP:TWP/MOS doesn't really state a preference.

I would say that if it's about a railway company and so forms part of a proper name, it's capitalised (as in Great Western Railway); but if it's a convenient name for a railway line or route, it's not capitalised. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"Convenient name" is not defined. Note that there are names for railway lines like:

• X railway: Jammu–Poonch railway (!easily mistaken to be a company)
• X Rail Line: Jasidih Dumka Rampurhat Rail Line
• X Railway Line: Nilambur – Shoranur Railway Line
• X Branch Line: Sheoraphuli-Tarakeswar Branch Line
• X Line: Western Line (Mumbai Suburban Railway)
• X Line: Howrah-New Jalpaiguri Line
• X Main Line: Howrah-Bardhaman Main Line
• X section: Barauni-Katihar section
• X Chord: Howrah-Bardhaman Chord
• X Road Line: New Jalpaiguri-Alipurduar-Samuktala Road Line Triomio (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I brought that to the TWP/MOS page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Manual of style#Line naming convention. Triomio (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Outdated category(ies)

Some railroad station articles are still tagged with the Category:Proposed railway stations scheduled to open in 2011. 2012 is more than half over, so maybe those that are supposedly scheduled to open in 2011 should be updated. It also makes me wonder about any other outdated categories that need to be dealt with. ----DanTD (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. Alas, we have lots of outdated content, and categories are just the tip of the iceberg... would now be a good time to suggest that people use {{as of}} when writing contemporary content? bobrayner (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but I wonder how far you can go without overloading articles with the {{as of}} templates. I was thinking more in line with finding out what has changed since 2011, and making corrections to those articles. ----DanTD (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You can almost always write around needing to use the as of template. For example, from Four Corners/Geneva (MBTA station): "By April 2012, the station was 75% complete, with the inbound platform and the Geneva Avenue ramp structures in place." Tells you just as much, but the wording doesn't get outdated. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:MelbStn block

Template:MelbStn block has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Railway info

Template:Railway info has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"NS stops" templates nominated for deletion

{{NS stops 32000}} and {{NS stops 32100}} have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to participate in the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Steam

FYI, an issue concerning steam has come up, see WT:PHYSICS#Steam -- 70.50.151.36 (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rosewood railway line, Queensland

Template:Rosewood railway line, Queensland has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rly gds stn

Template:Rly gds stn has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Start Sheffield Supertram box

Template:Start Sheffield Supertram box has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Start River Line box

Template:Start River Line box has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:DMRC lines

Template:DMRC lines has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Start Manila LRT box

Template:Start Manila LRT box has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Manila LRT station

Template:Manila LRT station has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Manila MRT station

Template:Manila MRT station has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerestory

Mersey Railway emu with a clerestory roof in 1903

On (UK) trains this the raised centre section on the roof with to allow ventiation, common in early electric stock, copied, I believe, from contemporary U.S. practice. However, does anyone one have a source for this? Clerestory doesn't mention this usage of the word. I'm being asked at Talk:District Railway/GA2 Edgepedia (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The clerestory roof was common UK practice on steam-hauled trains, so long as gas lighting was in use: it gave necessary ventilation, otherwise toxic carbon monoxide (odourless and invisible) could build up. If electric trains had gas lighting, they would have had a clerestory roof for the same reason; but those with electric lighting may have used the clere roof simply to present a uniform appearance when seen near to steam-hauled stock. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Some German coaches also had clerestory roofs. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It's probable that many countries which had gas-lit coaches also needed to solve the ventilation problem, and there are only so many ways of doing it, so it's quite possible that other railways besides those of the UK and Germany also used the clerestory roof. But my non-UK railway knowledge is low, so I can only really state what UK practice was. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Surely the solution here is to add a section to the clerestory artcle giving details of clerestory carriages. Mjroots (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! What I find interesting is that the early 1900s EMUs - London Underground B Stock, the early Metropolitan Railway electric multiple units, the first LYR electric units, the Mersey Railway electric units, the early LNER Tyneside electric units and the deep tube London Underground 1906 Stock all had clerestory roofs. What I am missing at this point is a reliable source - my books start talking about a clerestory roof or a clerestory roof ventilator without discussion or defination. We need that whereever we add the information. Edgepedia (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not able to supply that information, but I can say that clerestory roofs were common on single deck electric trams in Australia, particularly the early ones. I would be surprised if these trams ever had gas lighting, and some of them (eg the first batch of trams in Fremantle) were imported from the USA, so the clerestory roofs were not necessarily a gas lighting or British Empire phenomenon. And, of course, the San Francisco cable car system still has clerestory roofed cars to this day. Bahnfrend (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

We really need to look through the works of David Jenkinson who was an absolute expert on British railway carriages. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

After a visit to the library Jackson, Alan (1992). The Railway Dictionary: An A-Z of Railway Terminology. Sutton Publishing. ISBN 07509-00385. has
Please Note: This is a direct quotation and would be a copyright violation if copied.

“ A raised central section of coach roof fitted with ventiators and deck lights, intended to give extra daylight and ventilation. ”

As Redrose says Jenkinson had more details: Jenkinson, David (1996). History of British Railway Carriages, 1900-53. Atlantic Transport. ISBN 978-1899816033. gives:

p39:	A raised centre section, sometimes with windows known as deck lights
p43:	Purpose is to cope with "some of the problems of artifical light" and to give additional "natural light and airness".

Edgepedia (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

NRHP Station articles needing railroads; Part Two

Last December I posted a message on the TWP talk page asking for the railroads that used some former railroad stations listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Now I'm seeking others, and I suspect they may have been former New York and New England Railroad stations. They include 1)Newington Junction Railroad Depot, and 2)Forestville Passenger Station. There are probably some others out there, but I can't think of them right now, although I'd like to know if Waterbury Union Station, also served the NY&NE, among other railroads in Connecticut. ----DanTD 05:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ‎

Both served the Hartford, Providence, and Fishkill which became part of the NY&NE. Newington Junction also served the Hartford & New Haven, one of the original pieces of the mighty New Haven. Waterbury served the HP&F and thus the NY&NE, as well as the Meridian, Waterbury, & Connecticut River (long extinct) and the good old Naugatuck. Hope this helps. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Serial sockpuppeteer at work on rail accident articles

Hi all, this is to inform the Trains Project about a serial sockpuppeteer who has been active for a couple of years in air crash-related articles, and who has now switched his attention to rail accident-related articles. User:Ryan kirkpatrick was first blocked 25 months ago and in February this year he was community banned. Despite this he has created sock after sock, now over 100 different named and IP accounts (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ryan kirkpatrick). In recent months those of us working in Aviation have taken a hard line and his work on air crash articles has almost always been deleted under G5 of WP:CSD, regardless of the notability of the subject. He seems to have become sick of this so he has started creating articles where possibly he thinks he will escape notice. Three socks were discovered earlier this week, the most prolific of these three can be viewed here; the following article was also G5ed and therefore does not appear in the list of contribs:

• Glasgow tram collision

Salient features of the socks are: a 'new' User, often with an alphanumeric name, knowing how to create an article 'straight out of the gate', usually with a very obscure disaster as subject (by which I mean its usually a little-known event, it's always an event involving loss-of-life); also creating categories to be populated by the articles he creates. All of this is done with very bad spelling and grammar, and he never leaves an edit summary. There are a number of Users who are familiar with his work, who can be seen in the SPI revision history. In the past he has basically stated: "as long as my work is kept, I will keep creating sockpuppets", which is one reason why I am posting this message. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"train" vs "railway" and page moves

There was a recent page move request to move train station to railway station, which did not succeed.[7] One of the supporters, User:Hypocaustic, has since changed the lead paragraph of "train station" to eliminate the word 'train' in favor of 'railway' or 'railroad' (and edit-warred when his edits were undone).[8] He has also moved List of highest train stations in the world to List of highest railway stations in the world without discussion. He has also made edits to many articles to change text and wikilinks from "train station" to "railway station".[9]

I am raising this issue because he has history of these editing tactics. About six months ago he attempted a long edit war over many articles, changing "smoking ban" to "smoke-free laws" in articles (especially the lead paragraphs) and move-warring over many pages.[10] It reached dispute resolution (see here for the details) before his major edits were permanently undone.

You should expect him to try to systematically remove references to "train station" from Wikipedia over the next few weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cross porpoises (talk • contribs) 10:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You get my vote. Whilst I support the general use of "railway station" rather than "train station" because this appears to be the term used by the International Union of Railways, except in countries where "train station" is the official national term, it is a contentious area and we should not be edit warring over it. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject for German railways

Is there any reason why Indian railways with 900 articles is a WikiProject, whilst German railways, with 3,000 articles, is just a task force? Would anyone object if the latter were upgraded to WikiProject status? If not, how do we go about this? --Bermicourt (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps because Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian railways was never formally proposed at WP:WPPRO, but instead created following lengthy discussion (with few participants) at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 39#WP:Indian Roads and Transport. What if we took the opposite view: leave Germany as is, but make Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian railways into a subproject or even task force of WP:RAIL? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why Germany can't be a separate WP if there are enough editors willing to run it as such. I won't be joining myself, but support the proposal in principle. Mjroots (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the main reason for the difference is that WikiProject India has lots of daughter WikiProjects, including WikiProject Indian railways, and WikiProject Germany doesn't have all that many. I'm happy for the present arrangement to continue, and also happy for the Indian approach to be adopted (in which case, the normal procedure for setting up a new WikiProject should be followed). However, there are potential issues of nomenclature if the latter approach is chosen; WikiProject Trains in Germany would seem to be the best choice. Bahnfrend (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)