Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Trains (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.
NA This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
 
Three rail tracks 350.jpg The Trains WikiProject
General information
Main project page (WP:TWP)  talk
Portal (P:Trains) talk
Project navigation bar talk
Project participants talk
Project banner (doc) {{TWP}} talk
Project category talk
Manual of style (WP:TWP/MOS) talk
Welcome message talk
Departments
Assessments (WP:TWP/A) talk
Peer review (WP:TWP/PR) talk
To do list talk
Daily new article search search criteria talk
Task forces
Article maintenance talk
Assessment backlog elim. drive talk
By country series talk
Categories talk
Images talk
Locomotives talk
Maps talk
Rail transport in Germany talk
Monorails talk
Operations talk
Passenger trains talk
Portal talk
Rail transport modelling talk
Timelines talk

Santa Fe 769 SourcesEdit

I am seeing claims in the Wiki page for Santa Fe 769 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Santa_Fe_769) claims the engine will be restored to operation. But other than the one Facebook page linked, none of the sources seem to actually confirm this. Anyone else willing to give it a look to see if there is sufficient sources on the page, and the claims of the page are not claiming things that are not properly cited?

Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

A railfan adding unsourced content to a train article? Must be a day that ends in y. I did find this article on trains magazine's website which appears to support the claim that they are trying to restore the locomotive. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
That Trains article is reference #8 now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:901:58E0:4C22:8DB2:5593:41EA (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I see that mention now in the Trains article of hoping to see it in steam, so that backs the source. I still see things though like discussing weight restrictions on the railroad line which I am curious if those claims have been sourced properly though in the article. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Module talk:Adjacent stations/Reading CompanyEdit

I've raised a question about how we're modeling the former lines/services of the Reading Company at Module talk:Adjacent stations/Reading Company#Main line and related issues; this may inform how we handle "fallen flags" elsewhere. Mackensen (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Consistent Treatment of RailroadsEdit

I have noticed what I believe is some bias on the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) page. The article has a pretty big section called Notable accidents and then a section called Environmental record. That negativity is not presented on the page of UP's biggest rival, BNSF Railway, which has a small Safety section that is mostly positive. The east coast railroad Norfolk Southern Railway has nothing about accidents, and its Environmental record has positive and negative information. The other large east coast railroad, CSX Transportation, has nothing about the environment. It does have a simple list of accidents and incidents. I believe there should be some type of standard template that should be followed. This would help prevent people with biased opinions about certain railroads from editing articles to make a railroad look worse or better than it is. We do not want a railroad's competitor to edit articles on their rival to make it look bad. We do not want someone with a grudge to use Wikipedia to make a railroad look bad. In addition to standard sections for a railroad, safety statistics from the Federal Railroad Administration should be used, and updated each year. Right now, the UP page makes that railroad look like it is a danger to society, while BNSF appears to be a much safer railroad. If everyone had FRA statistics on their page, it would be much more fair. (The FRA statistics will show a better safety record for BNSF, but UP is not a total disaster.) There needs to be a standard for Class I railroads, regional railroads, small railroads, and defunct railroads. TwoScars (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

We've got certain editors - principally (but not exclusively) IPs who seem to want every single unusual occurrence to be described, look at the history of e.g. List of rail accidents (2020–present) to see some examples - this is typical, notice the phrase no problems reported just before the ref. There are several places these events might be described besides those lists - an article about the railway involved, an article about the location, an article about the class of loco. It gets WP:COATRACKy at times. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I removed [1] the "community responsibility" section a while back as being undue; on June 25 an editor decided to restore and expand it. I am not a fan of that section title, and am of the opinion it is absolutely still undue. That this is happening however is almost certainly not malice, but that different articles are at different states of comprehensiveness and are edited by different people. Our article on CSX in particular is a mess that spends more time listing every single CSX facility than talking about the encyclopedic aspects of the subject. I have a very long term goal to get all the article on Class 1s to GA status, but that would be a monumental undertaking. Part of that would involve ensuring proportionate coverage of these topics.
It is very seldom the railroads themselves editing the articles, it is typically either foamers who aren't familiar with Wikipedia policy, or someone who saw a news article one day and decided to drop it into the article without context. It can also be POV pushers. As indicated above, much of this is done via IPs. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
This why there should be some standard formats. If we had some standards, we would be justified for removing excess put into the articles. This could also help "steer" the foamers. Foamers can be useful, but they need to be kept in line. As an example of standards, Wikipedia Project Military History has a Manual of Style for military history articles. I once tried to call a battle "Indecisive", but that cannot be done. It has to be "Union victory", "Confederate victory", or "Inconclusive". Military units are supposed to be defined a certain way too. For example: 1st West Virginia Cavalry Regiment is the proper way to identify a regiment. It should not be called "1st West Virginia Cavalry" or "1st Regiment, West Virginia Cavalry". Keep the railroad articles on equal footing. The railroad articles can link to other related articles that keep the foamers happy. TwoScars (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't know that we have enough active editors who participate in this WikiProject to really make this a reality. We have maybe a dozen people who post on this talk page somewhat regularly? Most train editors have no clue this WikiProject even exists, unfortunately. I'm not saying you're wrong, quite the opposite, but implementation would likely have to be done by yourself or maybe with a few other editors helping you. In 2022, WikiProjects are on life support with only a few exceptions like MILHIST. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I will revisit this in the fall. Right now, I have two Civil War battles that I am working on, and several more potentially for review. In the fall or next winter, I will upgrade BNSF Railway and try to get it to Good Article. Then we can have a pattern for other Class I railroads. Will also need to branch off enough segments from BNSF to give foamers something to work with. TwoScars (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
If there are issues with IPs adding inappropriate material, we can try semi-protection. All articles on railway/road companies should have an "Accidents and incidents" section or a separate "List of accidents on (company)" article as appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
If it's only one or two instances, it's fine to just directly incorporate that in the body. I did this with Providence and Worcester Railroad, for instance. But I'm somewhat list-averse. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
All US railroads have to report accidents, incidents, and injuries (that are above a low level of damage) to the Federal Railroad Administration. Thus, all railroads can be compared using Accidents per Million Train-Miles and Injuries per Employee Hour. Those comparisons are consistent, although differences can be caused by the terrain the railroads operate on and the commodities carried. In other words, a train operating in the crowded US northeast will have different issues than a train operating in Wyoming (US west). Coal trains will have different issues than intermodal trains carrying containers. I believe the main article can get by with these two safety statistics. If someone wants to mention a recent notable train wreck in two or three sentences, that is OK. Hurricane and natural disasters to railroad infrastructure, and the way the railroads remedy the situation, can also be of interest. Otherwise, major accidents and photos should be in a separate article. US Class I railroads have reporting requirements with the US Surface Transportation Board. Annual Report Form R-1 (on the STB web site) has an Income Statement (including Operating Revenue and Operating Expense), Balance Sheet, and supporting schedules such as locomotive counts, track, and service units like revenue ton-miles. The railroad entity in Form R-1 is US only, so corporate employees are not included, and foreign operations are not included. It is still a way to compare the Class I railroads. The STB also collects a Wage Form A&B for each Class I railroad, and it has employee counts. I have bolded some basis stats that I believe should be in each Class I railroad's Wikipedia page. Freight car counts do not make sense to include, since railroads lease and borrow from other railroads. One of the largest railcar leasing companies, TTX Company, is owned by railroads. TwoScars (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC on train station notabilityEdit

I have started an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of train stations that is of interest to this WikiProject. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

This RFC definitely needs participation from editors who know about trains and train stations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progressEdit

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Russian locomotive class IS which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. (Manually adding this notification as the bot doesn't seem to have picked it up.) Tevildo (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)