![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Anyone familiar with New York Central Railroad in the Buffalo area? Some references concern historical ROWs in Tonawanda and I am having a hard time locating them in the relevant current place names. Thanks. -- Una Smith ( talk) 20:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Is it normal to have a separate NRHP-focused article for a railroad station listed on the National Register of Historic Places, in addition to the standard station article? Please see Fairfield Railroad Stations and Fairfield (Metro-North station). -- Polaron | Talk 03:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Why don't the articles on the Brunswick Line and Camden Line contain ( MARC) in their names? I'm thinking of renaming both of them. ---- DanTD ( talk) 13:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking, in a similar, but opposite vein to Dan's above question, does the Penn Line article really need the (MARC) disambiguator in its name? After all the only other use on the disambiguation page is Penn Line Manufacturing, a relatively obscure model maker that's been out of business for nearly 50 years, and whose article is already disambiguated by the inclusion of the word "Manufacturing". Seems to me that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC tells us the MARC line should be at Penn Line, with a hatnote directing otherwise interested parties to the model maker. And since there's only 2 entries, one of which is clearly the primary topic (amd both of which are within the scope of this project, strangely), that no disambiguation page is even neccessary, as the hatnote would cover it. oknazevad ( talk) 03:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC) PS, I posited a similar query at Talk:South Shore Line (NICTD) a bit back. Wouldn't mind more input there.
I redirected the page Oyster Bay Railroad Museum to Oyster Bay Long Island Rail Road Turntable. After reading the target article over, I realized that it describes the general site of the turntable more than the turntable itself. I am thinking about making this redirect a permanent rename of the page, and rewording the heading of the page to comply. Before proceeding forward, I have decided to ask here. Any opinions?
Train2104 ( talk) 00:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I know in the past i talked about the crossover of WPLT with TWP, the banner becoming part of the TWP banner. However now i think it is time for the banner to separate with the TWP bannner(s). I know that this would create a lot of work and clutter but one major reason is because the use of the LT banner in the TWP banner does not allow for Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/Article alerts. Simply south ( talk) 16:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Please could someone with Irish knowledge have a look at Midlands Gateway ? The external links / refs seem to be very general or dead-links. Is this government project still current / in action ? thisisace ( talk) 20:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi guys. There is a pretty serious problem. I have made this template, Template:Urban Rail transportation in the former Yugoslavia, and in response to that a nationalist croat decided that it would be better off if he created this, Template:Trams in Croatia. Would it be possible to get any input from you guys? User Direktor has helped silence him in the past but the guy started edit warring recently. If some people here could provide some input it would be highly appreciated. ( LAz17 ( talk) 16:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)). Also, we have other similar templates: Template:Rapid transit in the former Soviet Union. ( LAz17 ( talk) 16:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)).
Should Humber Coast and City Railway be deleted? Simply south ( talk) 22:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to write a list similar to List of railroad crossings of the North American continental divide for the Alps. If someone is interested here is a draft: User:Coccodrillo/List of alpine railway crossings. Coccodrillo ( talk) 11:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I have reviewed Timothy Blackstone for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I can not get both logo and image on the Beovoz page. Can someone help? I want to include both
But, it won't let me do both. Here on the CTA page it would... [ [3]]. Can someone help please? ( LAz17 ( talk) 02:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)).
{{
Infobox Public transit}}
, and examination of that template shows that the following image/logo-related parameters are available:Name | Parameter | Required | Definition |
---|---|---|---|
Image | image |
No | Filename of image for the header (typically a logo, but photo can be used if no logo is available) |
Image size | imagesize |
No | Size of image defined above; default:200px |
2nd Image | image2 |
No | Filename of second image for the header (allows for use of a picture if the logo was used for the first image parameter) |
2nd Image size | imagesize2 |
No | Size of second image defined above; default:200px |
Caption | caption |
No | Caption of the image (especially if an image was used for the second image where a logo and image are used) |
Hi there. Even though I am not a member of this project, I would like to tell you that I have improved (translated) a lot of Moscow Monorail Transit System, so it's now in queue 1 of the DYK queues. That queue will be on the Main Page in 27 hours, which will be the dead of night for me. Anyone care to watch for vandalisim in my steed?
Sincerly,
Buggie111 ( talk) 03:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Sheesh, thanks for it.
Buggie111 (
talk) 12:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I commented on the MITT user's talkpage. REverted the MITT part, but kept the link fixing. In Russia, it's one word.
Buggie111 ( talk) 12:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to do an article on WikiProject Trains in the Feb 15th Signpost. The purpose of these articles is to inform a broader audience about the existence of a project, its broad goals, challenges that the project faces, and ideas on how other editors can make use of project resources. If anyone is interested in answering a few questions on WikiProject Trains, please drop a note on my talk page. Thanks. -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 20:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:RAILCRASH, where I've put together a proposed guideline re the notability of articles about railway accidents. Discussion at WT:RAILCRASH please. Mjroots ( talk) 10:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Currently the R7 & R8 line templates lead to North Philadelphia (SEPTA station) rather than North Philadelphia (SEPTA Regional Rail station), where they should go. Could somebody fix that? The one for the Broad Street Line, on the other hand is just fine. ---- DanTD ( talk) 16:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I have created {{
FGW colour}}
and {{
CrossCountry colour}}
, I have been adding these to station articles, this will allow a more effective and quicker change when there is a operator change. I will do this for other operators and update articles. I am aware there is already one for EastCoast Mark999 13:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
{{tlx}}
template into your template names above, so that they show correctly without actually transcluding, and are also clickable. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)I'm bringing this here; not sure if there is a more appropriate forum, or if some rail-related MOS has guidelines on this. There are a couple of things. First, some articles have slashes between names, like 7th St/Metro Center (LACMTA station). That particular move cited the WP:MOS, but on metro.net none of the stations are spelled with spaces, so I'm thinking that the way the name spelled trumps the MOS. I've moved Imperial/Wilmington (LACMTA station) back to no slashes.
Second, several stations have names attached to the station, such as Pico (LACMTA station), 103rd Street-Kenneth Hahn (LACMTA station), the aforementioned 7th St/Metro Center station, and Imperial/Wilmington. In no-slashing I/W, I also removed the "Rosa Parks" part from it. Typically I usually don't hear the full name in everyday conversation; the only time I hear the name is during the automated announcements. So should we add/keep the extra name because it's the actual name, or leave it off per WP:NC(CN)? Whatever happens I just want it to be consistent. hbdragon88 ( talk) 21:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Peterhuocean11 posted an image in the Amtrak Cascades article that has a renaming tag on it( File:HPIM3015.JPG), and justifiably so. But having never been to the Northwest, I'm not entirley certain on the location, which makes it difficult to suggest a name. I asked that user about the image, but so far have received no reply. Is this at King Street Station (Seattle), or is it someplace else? ---- DanTD ( talk) 17:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I have done a GA Reassessment of High Speed 1 as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to be informative and well-written. It does not however, fully comply with the GA Criteria. As such I have outlined my concerns here. I have also put the article on hold for one week pending work. I am notifying all interested projects and editors of this event. If you have questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles ( talk) 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea for Wikipedia to have an internal definition for High Speed trains, see the High Speed rail talk page. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 18:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, these are fairly disconnected items, but I figured I'd save the bandwith and cover them in one post.
Firstly, I changed the colors at Template:MARC color for a few reasons. The big thing that bothered me was that the shades of orange used for the Brunswick Line and the Camden Line were too close, and could cause confusion, or present WP:ACCESS issues.
I don't think we need to be beholden to those colors anyway, as MARC/MTA Maryland has never been particularly consistent with them, unlike, say Metro-North, LIRR, NJT or SEPTA (though that's supposed to change, see my third item). The colors that were there were based on the map currently at the MARC website, but other recent maps have given separate colors to all three, or given them all the same color (as in the 2006 brochure I'm looking at as I type this). Schedules aren't printed with specific colors either.
With this change, our templates are now in line with the map at the main MARC Train article, which allows us a level of consistency.
Second item is also MARC related. While checking out the results of the change at Union Station (Washington, D.C.), the only station all three lines have in common, I noticed that the station succession box for the Brunswick Line has the terminus entry on the opposite side as the other two lines. Presumably this is to allow for stations that are to the east of the station to appear on the right, and on the Brunswick Line, WUS is the eastern-most station, while on the Camden and Penn lines, it's actually the western-most. All makes sense to someone who knows these things, but asthetically, it looks awful.
For MARC, a service where all its lines share a single, common terminal, an "inbound-outbound" dichotomy is a better choice. Just as all the lines converge at Union Station, all 3 succession boxes should converge on the same side.
Lastly, a heads-up for everyone. For those that don't already know, the Delaware Valley Association of Railroad Passengers is reporting that SEPTA is going to ditch the R# designations for it's Regional Rail lines in a few month. This is largely on the grounds that they don't reflect the operational reality of through-running of trains through the Center City Commuter Tunnel, which ever-increasingly does not stick to the R# pairing decided in the early 1980s.
I mention this because it just popped into my head while contemplating the MARC color situation, as, according to the reports, the colors currently shared by each half of the R# routes will be done away with as well. Generally, though, this is going to require a major overhaul of the SEPTA line articles, as essentially each one will have to be split in two. Associated things like the color templates for succession boxes will also need overhauls. It seems that we may have our work cut out for us, and we may need to start planning the changes now.
Anyway, just wanted to cover a few things. oknazevad ( talk) 06:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
In the case of early historical locos, such as the Stourbridge Lion and the The Salamanca, what's the boundary between "standard" and "narrow" gauge?
Both of these examples were a few inches below "Stephenson gauge", but not significantly so. They had the same haulage capacity and curve radius as 4'8½" did. As they were also very early railways, these were the de facto standard gauge of that time and location anyway.
My concern is that clearly GF edits such as this are literally accurate, but misleading in the broader context of an encyclopedia. This wasn't a "narrowed-gauge" railway, where some standard gauge had been deliberately rejected in favour of a system trading lower capacity for easier routing or cheaper rolling stock, it was just a "standard-sized" railway pre-dating a firm consensus on the precision of the standard. While it's clearly necessary to explain this in the railway article, categorizing the locos in this way reduces their apparanet significance. With apologies to the WHR's humungous Garratts, "narrow-gauge" still has some connotations of the Skarloey Railway about it.
In the case of early lines where a "near-standard" gauge was used because there just wasn't a clear standard yet, I'd suggest we take a broad interpretation and treat them as being standard gauge, not narrow gauge, at least in the "soft" aspects such as categorization. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Some of the articles for individual lines in the Toronto streetcar system have gigantic infoboxes that overwhelm the text and I can't see what the issue is in order to fix it. YSSYguy ( talk) 02:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
|image_width=
(or equivalent) parameter, which is found in most infoboxes (although variously spelled, such as |imagewidth=
, |image size=
etc.). In many cases they can only handle a bare integer, so |image_width=275
works whilst |image_width=275px
gives unpredictable results (including either very wide infobox or very small image); use of the form with "px" can also put the page into hidden category
Category:ParserFunction errors and sometimes even show error messages in red. See, for example,
this old version of
Nigel Gresley. No error message, but the image (and hence the infobox) are overlarge, and if you have (
my preferences → Appearance → Show hidden categories) set, you will see that the page is in
Category:ParserFunction errors. Try the current version: the image and infobox are of normal size, and the page is not in that cat. However, {{
Infobox rail line}}
(the infobox used in
509 Harbourfront) uses a special template {{
px}}
, which I believe fixes things to make the presence or absence of "px" immaterial.
509 Harbourfront has |image_width=275px
, and not only does it display OK for me, but it also doesn't show in
Category:ParserFunction errors either.<br />
) and the infobox is of normal size.{{ helpme}} I am proposing to create a task force called miniature railways for wikitrains project. this task force will improve pages about miniature railways and or create miniature railway pages. Manor 7812 ☎ 15:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Template:Rinkai Main Line, which is a navigation template for stations of the Keiyō Rinkai Railway Rinkai Main Line (a freight-only line), is not currently used in any articles and contains numerous red links (in fact, only two of the stations are blue-linked). I have no prior experience dealing with these types of templates, so I thought I would ask here: Should the template be deleted or kept and added to existing articles? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been having nothing but trouble adding the coordinates for 52nd Street (Pennsylvania Railroad station), because GoogleMaps won't let me focus the specific coordinates on it, and stupid WikiMapia won't let me make an outline of where it used to be! ---- DanTD ( talk) 19:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Currently in Canada, trains cannot run as fast as either in India or Russia due to standard gauge and non-electrified and single-track and wind, snow and grade. Canadian National Railways, Canadian Pacific Railways, VIA Rail and BC Rail should convert from 1435 to 1676 and double-track and electrification 25kV AC 60Hz. 121.102.47.215 ( talk) 06:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
In addition: electrification for high-speed running 121.102.47.215 ( talk) 03:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to ask some people on the Ogilvie Transportation Center page, but nobody will answer me. So is this image from Ogilvie, or is it from Wells Street Station (Chicago), the other C&NW station? ---- DanTD ( talk) 21:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI, List of Shanghai Metro stations has been prodded for deletion.
70.29.210.242 ( talk) 04:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Future high-speed rail and freight rail with use broad gauge proposal
Proposal removed as inappropriate content
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about new ideas and proposals. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about new ideas and proposals at the Reference desk. |
In short, take it to another website, this isn't the place. We are trying to write an encyclopedia that reflects what already exists, not discuss and critique proposals. oknazevad ( talk) 05:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
An Ip has posted an offer of books on Indian railways at WP:EAR#My book 'Indian Railways at a Glance'. I posted here as you might be interested. –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 01:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I was looking to find an article, or even a section within some article, discussing this type of train accident, but I have been unable to find any. Surely this is a topic worthy of its own article? __ meco ( talk) 18:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see Talk:BC_Rail#Lede_revised_-_time_for_the_truth. Skookum1 ( talk) 14:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Following some debate on our talk pages where a fellow editor and I agreed to disagree, we agreed to put the question to the project group for a consensus. We agree to abide by the outcome. In summary, here are the major arguments:
Comments? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 14:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I've typed a couple of long discussions here only to abandon them. I really can't see the difference between the trains per hour that call at a station and where they go (not a timetable), and the number of platforms at the station. They tell the reader about the structure and function of the railway station. Without an objective measure (such as train-per-hour or trains-per-day), we will end up with probably unreferenced subjective measures such 'frequent', 'busy', or 'limited'. Of course the information does need to be referenced and dated. Edgepedia ( talk) 13:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Every station should have a description of its services; in some systems this is done my mentioning the systems or companies that serve the station, while others will have a more extensive coverage. Any station article aiming for GA should at least contain a mention of all routes and companies (along the line used in airport articles). Once this has been presented, I can see two areas where presenting a per-hour figure is encyclopedic. First, a typical commuter rail stations, which has a fixed-interval services (e.g. one train per direction per hour, with additional rush-hour services). The other is where the trains per hour is the limiting factor (e.g. the line/station has a capacity of 24 trains per direction per hour, which is fully utilized during the morning and afternoon peaks). Otherwise I think the exact nature of figures like this should be dealt on a case-by-case basis, and include the calculation basis. The peak-hour information is important because it says a lot about the dimensioned capacity of a station. For instance, and article could state the peak-hour frequency and any other defining metrics that are verifiable over time. Of course, the more volatile the information, the less we should consider including it. In my experience, timetables (and particularly frequency) are for the matter we are discussing now almost entirely stable, sometimes over the course of decades. Arsenikk (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Could we have a quick poll please, to see if there is a significant majority for one or the other. Just add * Yes or * No and your sig. I'll tally. If you want to comment, put it in the Comment section -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 23:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, looks like the consensus is YES. I think we should also approve the provisos suggested by ++ Lar and with an indication of time if peak and off-peak are notably different. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 23:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Category:Disused_station - the previous consensus was to use "Defunct station" - see here. Both "closed" and "defunct" seem sensible options.
I've made a list of all the non-open stations that don't use "defunct" here
Defunct or
closed - As such I'll post to
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion for eventually block renaming. It's clear that the highest level category is
Category:Defunct railway stations and that the subcategories should be in some way consistent.
Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 1#Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom Shortfatlad ( talk) 11:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Metrolink (Southern California) is being reviewed for Good Article status and only requires a few tweaks to pass. Please check out the review here and improve the article if possible. Thanks! Butros (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Please could somebody assist in checking and referencing
T scale? One recent editor has decided that my tagging of the article with {{
unreferenced}}
means that I want it deleted. Far from it - I want it kept, but in such a way that others don't have an excuse to slap a {{
subst:prod}}
on it. The main problem is a lack of English-language sources; further info at
Talk:T scale. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 16:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Just as a question, is the IRC channel for this project ever used by anyone? I've checked a few times, but no-one's ever on. Thanks, C628 ( talk) 20:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purple Line (Namma Metro). NVO ( talk) 19:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anaheim Canyon (Metrolink station) Mjroots ( talk) 07:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
| ||||||||
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter |
As detailed in last week's Signpost, WildBot has been patrolling Wikipedia-Books and searched for various problems in them, such as books having duplicate articles or containing redirects. WikiProject Wikipedia-Books is in the process of cleaning them up, but help would be appreciated. For this project, the following books have problems:
The problem reports explain in details what exactly are the problems, why they are problems, and how to fix them. This way anyone can fix them even if they aren't familiar with books. If you don't see something that looks like this, then all problems have been fixed. (Please strike articles from this list as the problems get fixed.)
Also, the {{ saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of books (title, subtitle, cover-image, cover-color), and gives are preview of the default cover on the book's page. An example of such a cover is found on the right. Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class rail transport articles should have covers.
If you need help with cleaning up a book, help with the {{ saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.
This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 00:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ( owner • talk) 00:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I've updated my missing vehicle topics page, including the section about rail transport - Skysmith ( talk) 12:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Would categorising rail accidents additionally by type be beneficial do you think?. Some possible categories would be:
I'm not set on the naming, or saying the above is an exclusive list of causes, or that each cause should necessarily get it's own category, or be restricted to one category (e.g. an intoxicated driver could pass a signal at danger). The categories could be subdivided by date and/or location as well if needed. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I am planning an AWB run to assess for this project approximately 140 Stub-class articles about railway stations in China created by ChinaRailwayENGED ( talk · contribs) in March (see contributions history for full list). I will add the following to each talk page:
{{TrainsWikiProject | class = Stub | importance = Low | unref = yes | stations = yes | imageneeded = yes | infoboxneeded = yes }}
or
{{TrainsWikiProject|class=Stub|importance=Low|unref=yes|stations=yes|imageneeded=yes|infoboxneeded=yes}}
Before I proceed, I want to check with the members of this project to confirm that an importance rating of 'Low' (based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Assessment#Importance scale) is appropriate. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
A train has crashed in Italy, killing 6 and injuring 20. Help in expanding the 2010 Merano train derailment article would be appreciated. Mjroots ( talk) 09:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
A problem has arisen which needs discussion re the use of flags in the {{
infobox rail accident}}. The infobox says to use a flag shortcut for the country, such as
Norway for Norway. Two editors have replaced this with
Norway citing
WP:MOSFLAG. Discussion was started on the
talk page of the
2010 Sjursøya train crash article, but it needs discussion at a wider level so I'm bringing it here.
Mjroots (
talk) 15:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I've proposed a cull of entries from the list, reasons explained at the talk page. Please feel free to comment there. Mjroots ( talk) 09:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I should've brought this up on the CfD board first, but I proposed that every image and category currently in Category:Images of railway stations should be moved to a new category called Category:Images of railway stations in the United States, and that "Images of railway stations" should be converted into a parent category of this, and similar categories covering stations in other countries. Comments? ---- DanTD ( talk) 17:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm working on redrawing the Réseau Breton diagram to show the networks interaction with other lines. I've got the form right, but it needs tweaking and new icons creating to finish off. Input from other editors is welcome, for example, could the diagram be drawn better for Paimpol? Are the two greens sufficiently distinct for their meaning to be clear? Note Châteauneuf de Faou stations were adjacent, not cross-platform interchange. Mjroots ( talk) 08:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Réseau Breton | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'd agree with that, adding the comment that I do find the two greens to be somewhat too similar as they stand. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 18:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The article Corridor connection has been created. There are many pages which mention this, so link away...
Note that this article is currently UK-centric, on account of the knowledge and reference sources of the originating editor, so rest-of-world information would be welcome.
EdJogg ( talk) 22:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I recently requested a peer review for an article I started, Ghost stations of the Paris Métro. The article was tagged as being within the scope of this WikiProject, and was assesed and given a 'B' on the project's quality scale. One of the suggestions from the peer review was to have the article's prose reviewed and a copy edit made by another editor. If anyone here would be willing to pitch in and assist with a copy edit (or any of the other peer review suggestions) I would really appreciate it. I hope that eventually the article can be taken to good article status. Thanks! -- Aka042 ( talk) 23:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
It would be great to get some input at this TFD discussion if it is still open. Thank you! Plastikspork ( talk) 17:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated SkyTrain (Vancouver) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 11:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I just noticed that the convention for Metra station articles appears to be to use "(Metra)" as the disambiguator, such as at Antioch (Metra). The problem with this, it seems to me, is that it doesn't actually state that the station is a station, running afoul of the intent for clarification that disambiguation is supposed to provide. In short, I think we should change them to read "(Metra station)" instead. Thoughts? oknazevad ( talk) 16:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
What do you think about the creation of a number of templates covering railway accidents by country? For example, the template for Italy could look like this:-
Note that I'm not volunteering to create all the templates. Another possibility is a series of templates for railway accidents by year, similar to those for aircraft accidents such as {{ Aviation accidents and incidents in 2010}}. Both could be implemented if consensus can be found for them.
The template for 2010 could look like this:-
Mjroots ( talk) 11:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
{{
London railway accidents}}
was created as long ago as 23 August 2006. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Just created {{ 1999 railway accidents}} and wondering whether this template ought to be added to the Category:Railway accidents in 1999 or added to the category as a member, or both Thanks GrahamHardy ( talk) 21:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I've remodelled {{ 1999 railway accidents}} so that the navigation is below, to declutter the title, and allow use of an hCalendar microformat, which I've also added. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to re-open an issue I first raised in November 2007 (see here for old discussion): current naming practices for articles on American railway stations. At present we use parenthetical disambiguation by company: [[NAME (SYSTEM station)]] gives Battle Creek (Amtrak station). I find this approach problematic, especially when two or more systems run to the same station, as at La Grange (Amtrak station). La Grange is served by two heavy rail operators, Amtrak and Metra. La Grange (Metra) redirects there. I don't know who owns the station; I doubt it's either of the operators. In addition, we have numerous "Union Station" articles, disambiguated by location: Union Station (Chicago). Finally, we have station articles at their nondeterminate formal names: Kalamazoo Transportation Center and William F. Walsh Regional Transportation Center are two examples of this.
I've written up a bare-bones proposal at User:Mackensen/Naming conventions (US stations). The proposal in a nutshell: all stations are identified by their most common name, followed by "railroad station." In cities or towns with only one station, this would take the form of "Kalamazoo railroad station." In places with multiple stations, it would take the form "Chicago Union railroad station" or "Chicago LaSalle Street railroad station." Formal names for a station would be indicated in the text, but not the article title. This change would bring US articles in line with the rest of the encyclopedia. Mackensen (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I still say it's a bad way to do business, but as apparently I'm the only one who thinks so, I'll let it be ;). Mackensen (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we just stick with WP:COMMONNAME? Also, I've been dealing with the two-lines-serving-a-station problem by moving the pages to Name (train station) as seen here. Perhaps that could be a solution? -- TorriTorri( Talk to me!) 01:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
In List of rail accidents (pre-1950)#1944 is the statement "78 killed officially, maybe over 250; exaggerated estimates of 500-800 still seen in reference books. Date may be Jan 16", it is referenced but the reference does not support the statements. Most sources I have found (including List of train accidents by death toll) state 500. Anyone shed some light on this? GrahamHardy ( talk) 23:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I recall a few years ago, a slew of AfDs about the notability of tiny train stations and stops. Today I was researching two small North American train stations, found them easily on Google maps, then did Google searches for them and lo, found an en.WP article on each. A bit stubby, but still very helpful. Thought I'd drop by and say thanks :) Gwen Gale ( talk) 18:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
A series of diagrams representing various locomotives have recently been added to Locomotive, Steam locomotive and Firebox (steam engine).
Although I appreciate the work that goes into such images, I'm concerned about their accuracy. There are just too many errors in them to really pass muster in an encyclopedia. The same question has already been discussed re the firebox image at User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Firebox Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Tagged for deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Inaccurate railway locomotive diagrams Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
There's a new WP:JCW report. Out of the 500 most highly cited missing journals, here's a few that fall into your scope, or near your scope.
See the writing guide if you need help with those. Some of these might be better as redirects ( Guide to redirects). Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
A move discussion where your input may be useful. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 16:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I recently created the Category:Stations along Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad lines, however considering that the similar category for the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad is named Category:Stations along Milwaukee Road lines, maybe the one I made should be renamed Category:Stations along Burlington Route lines. So should it be renamed, or not? ---- DanTD ( talk) 18:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The 2010 Naugachia train derailment article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 10:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Can we rename the below to add 'notable', ie.
I am not discussing criteria for inclusion here; just trying to head off the casual contributer beleiving the lists to be comprehensive. I beleive such a rename has been suggested in the talk pages but has not yet been taken up. GrahamHardy ( talk) 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
LSWR and Southern Under the LSWR, the was outshopped in the LSWR Passenger Sage Green livery with purple-brown edging, creating panels of green.[1] This was further lined in white and black with 'LSWR' in gilt on the tender tank sides.
What was outshopped?
Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.52.198 ( talk) 05:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I've just noticed some concerning edits, and seemingly a whole project dedicated to winding me up further 8-) Wikipedia:Templates with red links
This was in relation to one editor's clearly GF edits, particularly this to {{ Ireland Steam Locomotives}} and discussed further here User talk:Kathleen.wright5#Stripping redlinks from navigation templates
The crux of this seems to be interpreting this section of WP:REDLINK on redlinks in navigational contexts:
To mean that redlinks shouldn't exist in nav box templates either. As discussed on the user talk (pasted below), I disagree with this in some contexts, specifically those that represent "structured lists" such as the loco class lists.
[[GCR Class 9F|N5]]
N5. Without the redlink, how would the new article creator be guided to create under
GCR Class 9F rather than
LNER Class N5 ?Comments please... Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates with red links is not intended to provide a policy basis for deleting red links in templates. It is merely a project for identifying them and promoting their repair, which is usually best accomplished by creating the article for which the red link stands. However, we do propose as an option removing red links from templates if the links have been there for a very long time, and it does not appear likely that the article will ever be created (which should not be the case with articles on inherently notable topics). To the extent that it will take a long time to get around to creating articles on particular items within a larger set, you may want to consider creating meta articles listing and briefly identifying the members of that set, and providing a seed for more information to be added, until the individual member can be broken out into an article of its own. bd2412 T 15:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a new listing in the National Register of Historic Places for the Century Flyer, a 24-inch guage train ( See here). I was going to write the article. Would this be under your project? Thanks Einbierbitte ( talk) 15:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The Falls of Cruachan derailment article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 06:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a link from Genesee & Wyoming Inc. to East Penn Railroad, but it seems to be incorrect. See Talk:East Penn Railroad for details. Perhaps someone can resolve the confusion.-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 16:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I've edited this to correct a misleading impression given by the line template. However this introduces a new problem, with National Rail being referred to from the rail start template, for a long-closed statement. If someone who understands these templates could help out ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavateraguy ( talk • contribs) 08:44, 17 June 2010
{{
s-start}}
doesn't sit comfortably with either {{
Historical Rail Insert}}
or {{
rail line}}
. The correct template to start the fresh box, and also be compatible with {{
rail line}}
, is {{
Historical Rail Start}}
; I have re-fixed. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 13:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)I just moved scores of Category:Amtrak railway line navbox templates, but I found that many of them couldn't be moved, and probably should be fixed. Additionally, the one for the Hoosier State (Amtrak) should be renamed for capitalization. ---- DanTD ( talk) 13:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be no appropriate category within the Category:Railway accidents by type scheme at present. I notice even the "Type of incident" field in the infobox is empty, so some input seems to be needed from this WikiProject. __ meco ( talk) 21:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
A proposal has been raised at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Model rail. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 16:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads up on this one. A couple weeks ago, since I was the main contributor to this article, another editor asked if I would like to nominate Rogers Locomotive and Machine Works to be shown on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's Featured Article. I was a little hesitant, but said I wouldn't object if someone else nominated it. Now the article is scheduled for July 8.
I will be monitoring the article for at least part of the day. But, if anyone in TWP has some time on that day, please help out with reverting vandalism and fact checking on edits that are made on that day. Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 14:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Section name says it all. Input appreciated. oknazevad ( talk) 15:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Docks Heritage Railway. Simply south ( talk) 21:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
That particular article seems to be a major copyright violation. Most of it was copied directly from this and this. It looks to have been added by Randycarnley ( talk · contribs), who appears to be the operator of the site it's copied from. If I understand correctly, that's still a copyvio, so what I'd like to do is cut it down to this, which is from way back in 2008, but is the earliest version User:Randycarnley didn't edit. Comments would be welcome. Thanks, C628 ( talk) 21:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate some help and advice on the B&O Railroad Bridge over the Schuylkill River. I am including what I know or can reference at User talk:Dthomsen8/Rail Bridge for the convenience of other editors. My objective is to have an article for every bridge in Philadelphia over the Schuylkill River. For example, I created the Columbia Railroad Bridge article. Here are the questions I have:
1) Is it clear from the Philadelphia Subdivision article that this swing bridge is indeed a Baltimore and Ohio Railroad bridge, and perhaps as early as 1886, when the line opened? I looked at some of the references for the Philadelphia Subdivision article, but it wasn't entirely clear to me. Perhaps someone more familiar with reading this old railroad information can be helpful.
2) Should I change the name in the table from "Rail bridge" to "B&O Railroad Bridge" along the lines of the next entry in the table for the PW&B Railroad Bridge?
3) Is the information that I have included in the descriptions for the photos in Wikimedia Commons clear and correct? -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 22:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
We could use a bit of help with the name. Thanks train people. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm starting to look at some railway station articles in Warsaw and I have found that the (incomplete) structure is to create separate articles for the main PKP station and the independently run commuter railway ( Warszawska Kolej Dojazdowa, which runs on completely different tracks throughout). The stations, however, are essentially the same stations. I don't really know the protocol for stations but wouldn't it be better to have these articles as one article. Cheers, Severo T C 14:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Could somebody explain why some British Rail Class 104 abbreviations (those ending LC) are -LC and not CL? They are described as "... Lavatory Composite", so shouldn't the abbreviation be ...LC, not CL?
E.g. current listing for
Which part is wrong: the abbreviation or the description?
I've also posted this question in Talk:British Rail Class 104#Abbreviations.
No point in having 2 discussions, so please reply at the link above rather than here.
Thanks in advance, Trafford09 ( talk) 17:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
There's a problem with Template:Infobox Station or Template:s-start as used on Beverly Depot (MBTA station) and elsewhere. Under the Services banner, the next and previous stations are shown, but over the "previous" is a small empty box. Ma t c hups 10:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Why is it that the {{ Rail color box}} entries for some single-line agencies lead to a box with the correct color border, but no fill?
Examples:
Train2104 ( talk) 21:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
PATCO color}}
, {{
NICTD color}}
and {{
SFRTA color}}
: basically, the <noinclude>
must follow directly on from the "real" template content, without any intervening line breaks. The odd box was down to a similar issue with {{
SFRTA lines}}
. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 21:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The Harrisburg Subdivision page mentions the Arsenal Bridge, a CSX Transportation rail bridge over the Schuylkill River and the Arsenal Interlocking. The "Arsenal" in the Philadelphia bridge name refers to the Schuylkill Arsenal, which was renamed the Philadelphia Quartermaster Depot in 1926. That is all I know about this bridge, but I need more information to create an article on this bridge. Can someone more expert about railroad bridges find something about this rather old truss bridge? -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 23:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Can this be reassessed please, a lot of work from a few people have gone into remaking this article. Southampton_Terminus_railway_station ( Zeoace ( talk) 10:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC))
In 1895 the old engine sheds which were built back in 1847 were still heavily in use but as demands rose for goods, they were converted into a one road depot for freight trains, not only was the engine sheds converted, the original turntable was replaced with a open turntable which had radiating roads, coal stage, water Column(s) and crew bothy.
Hi, Thank you for the imput;
I am next week getting a few Southern Railway books to help try and build more on this article as at the moment most of this is information gathered from other websites.
( Zeoace ( talk) 17:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC))
Edgepedia ( talk) 07:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The discussion here may be of interest to editors frequenting this board. d'oh! talk 07:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
The article Carpet railway has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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 {{
dated prod}}
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 {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
JeepdaySock (AKA,
Jeepday) 10:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Any ideas on whether specific Train Wreck articles be placed in the 'Rail transport in <State>' category or its sub-category 'Passenger rail transport in <state>', ie. in a member of Category:Rail transport in the United States by state or Category:Passenger rail transport in the United States by state, Thanks GrahamHardy ( talk) 17:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I have added lgauge to the Infobox rail line "lgauge= UIC GB+"
WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2010, 1 |
---|
See High Speed 1 for an example. -- Kitchen Knife ( talk) 20:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The infobox trains, and infobox locomotive default width was recently (may) reset to 229, when it had previous been 300px as suggested at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#Design_and_usage. I changed it back.
There is now a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_train#Image_size - though perhaps that should be carried out somewhere more central like Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes). Personally I think 300px may be a little large, but 229px is far too small.
Please make suggestions at the relevant talk page. Sf5xeplus ( talk) 06:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I am importing the railway stations in the UK into nl:wp (dutch wikipedia). We've tried to harvest the lat/lon coordinates from templates. Is there a list of coordinates of railway stations available? EdBever ( talk) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
|latitude=
|longitude=
pair; (b) near the bottom of the article in a {{
coord}}
template.{{
coord}}
somewhere, for instance
Radley railway station which has
{{
coord|51.686|N|1.240|W|type:landmark_region:GB|display=title}}
Just suggested a move at East Coast Trains. See Talk:East Coast (train operating company). Simply south ( talk) 21:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd like some group input on this subject, or at least some guidelines on how the Group interpret WP:TITLE when applying the rules to the naming convention of locomotive related articles. The debate on the articles talkpage as follows:
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Anyone familiar with New York Central Railroad in the Buffalo area? Some references concern historical ROWs in Tonawanda and I am having a hard time locating them in the relevant current place names. Thanks. -- Una Smith ( talk) 20:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Is it normal to have a separate NRHP-focused article for a railroad station listed on the National Register of Historic Places, in addition to the standard station article? Please see Fairfield Railroad Stations and Fairfield (Metro-North station). -- Polaron | Talk 03:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Why don't the articles on the Brunswick Line and Camden Line contain ( MARC) in their names? I'm thinking of renaming both of them. ---- DanTD ( talk) 13:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking, in a similar, but opposite vein to Dan's above question, does the Penn Line article really need the (MARC) disambiguator in its name? After all the only other use on the disambiguation page is Penn Line Manufacturing, a relatively obscure model maker that's been out of business for nearly 50 years, and whose article is already disambiguated by the inclusion of the word "Manufacturing". Seems to me that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC tells us the MARC line should be at Penn Line, with a hatnote directing otherwise interested parties to the model maker. And since there's only 2 entries, one of which is clearly the primary topic (amd both of which are within the scope of this project, strangely), that no disambiguation page is even neccessary, as the hatnote would cover it. oknazevad ( talk) 03:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC) PS, I posited a similar query at Talk:South Shore Line (NICTD) a bit back. Wouldn't mind more input there.
I redirected the page Oyster Bay Railroad Museum to Oyster Bay Long Island Rail Road Turntable. After reading the target article over, I realized that it describes the general site of the turntable more than the turntable itself. I am thinking about making this redirect a permanent rename of the page, and rewording the heading of the page to comply. Before proceeding forward, I have decided to ask here. Any opinions?
Train2104 ( talk) 00:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I know in the past i talked about the crossover of WPLT with TWP, the banner becoming part of the TWP banner. However now i think it is time for the banner to separate with the TWP bannner(s). I know that this would create a lot of work and clutter but one major reason is because the use of the LT banner in the TWP banner does not allow for Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/Article alerts. Simply south ( talk) 16:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Please could someone with Irish knowledge have a look at Midlands Gateway ? The external links / refs seem to be very general or dead-links. Is this government project still current / in action ? thisisace ( talk) 20:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi guys. There is a pretty serious problem. I have made this template, Template:Urban Rail transportation in the former Yugoslavia, and in response to that a nationalist croat decided that it would be better off if he created this, Template:Trams in Croatia. Would it be possible to get any input from you guys? User Direktor has helped silence him in the past but the guy started edit warring recently. If some people here could provide some input it would be highly appreciated. ( LAz17 ( talk) 16:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)). Also, we have other similar templates: Template:Rapid transit in the former Soviet Union. ( LAz17 ( talk) 16:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)).
Should Humber Coast and City Railway be deleted? Simply south ( talk) 22:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to write a list similar to List of railroad crossings of the North American continental divide for the Alps. If someone is interested here is a draft: User:Coccodrillo/List of alpine railway crossings. Coccodrillo ( talk) 11:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I have reviewed Timothy Blackstone for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I can not get both logo and image on the Beovoz page. Can someone help? I want to include both
But, it won't let me do both. Here on the CTA page it would... [ [3]]. Can someone help please? ( LAz17 ( talk) 02:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)).
{{
Infobox Public transit}}
, and examination of that template shows that the following image/logo-related parameters are available:Name | Parameter | Required | Definition |
---|---|---|---|
Image | image |
No | Filename of image for the header (typically a logo, but photo can be used if no logo is available) |
Image size | imagesize |
No | Size of image defined above; default:200px |
2nd Image | image2 |
No | Filename of second image for the header (allows for use of a picture if the logo was used for the first image parameter) |
2nd Image size | imagesize2 |
No | Size of second image defined above; default:200px |
Caption | caption |
No | Caption of the image (especially if an image was used for the second image where a logo and image are used) |
Hi there. Even though I am not a member of this project, I would like to tell you that I have improved (translated) a lot of Moscow Monorail Transit System, so it's now in queue 1 of the DYK queues. That queue will be on the Main Page in 27 hours, which will be the dead of night for me. Anyone care to watch for vandalisim in my steed?
Sincerly,
Buggie111 ( talk) 03:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Sheesh, thanks for it.
Buggie111 (
talk) 12:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I commented on the MITT user's talkpage. REverted the MITT part, but kept the link fixing. In Russia, it's one word.
Buggie111 ( talk) 12:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to do an article on WikiProject Trains in the Feb 15th Signpost. The purpose of these articles is to inform a broader audience about the existence of a project, its broad goals, challenges that the project faces, and ideas on how other editors can make use of project resources. If anyone is interested in answering a few questions on WikiProject Trains, please drop a note on my talk page. Thanks. -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 20:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:RAILCRASH, where I've put together a proposed guideline re the notability of articles about railway accidents. Discussion at WT:RAILCRASH please. Mjroots ( talk) 10:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Currently the R7 & R8 line templates lead to North Philadelphia (SEPTA station) rather than North Philadelphia (SEPTA Regional Rail station), where they should go. Could somebody fix that? The one for the Broad Street Line, on the other hand is just fine. ---- DanTD ( talk) 16:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I have created {{
FGW colour}}
and {{
CrossCountry colour}}
, I have been adding these to station articles, this will allow a more effective and quicker change when there is a operator change. I will do this for other operators and update articles. I am aware there is already one for EastCoast Mark999 13:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
{{tlx}}
template into your template names above, so that they show correctly without actually transcluding, and are also clickable. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)I'm bringing this here; not sure if there is a more appropriate forum, or if some rail-related MOS has guidelines on this. There are a couple of things. First, some articles have slashes between names, like 7th St/Metro Center (LACMTA station). That particular move cited the WP:MOS, but on metro.net none of the stations are spelled with spaces, so I'm thinking that the way the name spelled trumps the MOS. I've moved Imperial/Wilmington (LACMTA station) back to no slashes.
Second, several stations have names attached to the station, such as Pico (LACMTA station), 103rd Street-Kenneth Hahn (LACMTA station), the aforementioned 7th St/Metro Center station, and Imperial/Wilmington. In no-slashing I/W, I also removed the "Rosa Parks" part from it. Typically I usually don't hear the full name in everyday conversation; the only time I hear the name is during the automated announcements. So should we add/keep the extra name because it's the actual name, or leave it off per WP:NC(CN)? Whatever happens I just want it to be consistent. hbdragon88 ( talk) 21:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Peterhuocean11 posted an image in the Amtrak Cascades article that has a renaming tag on it( File:HPIM3015.JPG), and justifiably so. But having never been to the Northwest, I'm not entirley certain on the location, which makes it difficult to suggest a name. I asked that user about the image, but so far have received no reply. Is this at King Street Station (Seattle), or is it someplace else? ---- DanTD ( talk) 17:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I have done a GA Reassessment of High Speed 1 as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to be informative and well-written. It does not however, fully comply with the GA Criteria. As such I have outlined my concerns here. I have also put the article on hold for one week pending work. I am notifying all interested projects and editors of this event. If you have questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles ( talk) 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea for Wikipedia to have an internal definition for High Speed trains, see the High Speed rail talk page. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 18:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, these are fairly disconnected items, but I figured I'd save the bandwith and cover them in one post.
Firstly, I changed the colors at Template:MARC color for a few reasons. The big thing that bothered me was that the shades of orange used for the Brunswick Line and the Camden Line were too close, and could cause confusion, or present WP:ACCESS issues.
I don't think we need to be beholden to those colors anyway, as MARC/MTA Maryland has never been particularly consistent with them, unlike, say Metro-North, LIRR, NJT or SEPTA (though that's supposed to change, see my third item). The colors that were there were based on the map currently at the MARC website, but other recent maps have given separate colors to all three, or given them all the same color (as in the 2006 brochure I'm looking at as I type this). Schedules aren't printed with specific colors either.
With this change, our templates are now in line with the map at the main MARC Train article, which allows us a level of consistency.
Second item is also MARC related. While checking out the results of the change at Union Station (Washington, D.C.), the only station all three lines have in common, I noticed that the station succession box for the Brunswick Line has the terminus entry on the opposite side as the other two lines. Presumably this is to allow for stations that are to the east of the station to appear on the right, and on the Brunswick Line, WUS is the eastern-most station, while on the Camden and Penn lines, it's actually the western-most. All makes sense to someone who knows these things, but asthetically, it looks awful.
For MARC, a service where all its lines share a single, common terminal, an "inbound-outbound" dichotomy is a better choice. Just as all the lines converge at Union Station, all 3 succession boxes should converge on the same side.
Lastly, a heads-up for everyone. For those that don't already know, the Delaware Valley Association of Railroad Passengers is reporting that SEPTA is going to ditch the R# designations for it's Regional Rail lines in a few month. This is largely on the grounds that they don't reflect the operational reality of through-running of trains through the Center City Commuter Tunnel, which ever-increasingly does not stick to the R# pairing decided in the early 1980s.
I mention this because it just popped into my head while contemplating the MARC color situation, as, according to the reports, the colors currently shared by each half of the R# routes will be done away with as well. Generally, though, this is going to require a major overhaul of the SEPTA line articles, as essentially each one will have to be split in two. Associated things like the color templates for succession boxes will also need overhauls. It seems that we may have our work cut out for us, and we may need to start planning the changes now.
Anyway, just wanted to cover a few things. oknazevad ( talk) 06:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
In the case of early historical locos, such as the Stourbridge Lion and the The Salamanca, what's the boundary between "standard" and "narrow" gauge?
Both of these examples were a few inches below "Stephenson gauge", but not significantly so. They had the same haulage capacity and curve radius as 4'8½" did. As they were also very early railways, these were the de facto standard gauge of that time and location anyway.
My concern is that clearly GF edits such as this are literally accurate, but misleading in the broader context of an encyclopedia. This wasn't a "narrowed-gauge" railway, where some standard gauge had been deliberately rejected in favour of a system trading lower capacity for easier routing or cheaper rolling stock, it was just a "standard-sized" railway pre-dating a firm consensus on the precision of the standard. While it's clearly necessary to explain this in the railway article, categorizing the locos in this way reduces their apparanet significance. With apologies to the WHR's humungous Garratts, "narrow-gauge" still has some connotations of the Skarloey Railway about it.
In the case of early lines where a "near-standard" gauge was used because there just wasn't a clear standard yet, I'd suggest we take a broad interpretation and treat them as being standard gauge, not narrow gauge, at least in the "soft" aspects such as categorization. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Some of the articles for individual lines in the Toronto streetcar system have gigantic infoboxes that overwhelm the text and I can't see what the issue is in order to fix it. YSSYguy ( talk) 02:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
|image_width=
(or equivalent) parameter, which is found in most infoboxes (although variously spelled, such as |imagewidth=
, |image size=
etc.). In many cases they can only handle a bare integer, so |image_width=275
works whilst |image_width=275px
gives unpredictable results (including either very wide infobox or very small image); use of the form with "px" can also put the page into hidden category
Category:ParserFunction errors and sometimes even show error messages in red. See, for example,
this old version of
Nigel Gresley. No error message, but the image (and hence the infobox) are overlarge, and if you have (
my preferences → Appearance → Show hidden categories) set, you will see that the page is in
Category:ParserFunction errors. Try the current version: the image and infobox are of normal size, and the page is not in that cat. However, {{
Infobox rail line}}
(the infobox used in
509 Harbourfront) uses a special template {{
px}}
, which I believe fixes things to make the presence or absence of "px" immaterial.
509 Harbourfront has |image_width=275px
, and not only does it display OK for me, but it also doesn't show in
Category:ParserFunction errors either.<br />
) and the infobox is of normal size.{{ helpme}} I am proposing to create a task force called miniature railways for wikitrains project. this task force will improve pages about miniature railways and or create miniature railway pages. Manor 7812 ☎ 15:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Template:Rinkai Main Line, which is a navigation template for stations of the Keiyō Rinkai Railway Rinkai Main Line (a freight-only line), is not currently used in any articles and contains numerous red links (in fact, only two of the stations are blue-linked). I have no prior experience dealing with these types of templates, so I thought I would ask here: Should the template be deleted or kept and added to existing articles? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been having nothing but trouble adding the coordinates for 52nd Street (Pennsylvania Railroad station), because GoogleMaps won't let me focus the specific coordinates on it, and stupid WikiMapia won't let me make an outline of where it used to be! ---- DanTD ( talk) 19:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Currently in Canada, trains cannot run as fast as either in India or Russia due to standard gauge and non-electrified and single-track and wind, snow and grade. Canadian National Railways, Canadian Pacific Railways, VIA Rail and BC Rail should convert from 1435 to 1676 and double-track and electrification 25kV AC 60Hz. 121.102.47.215 ( talk) 06:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
In addition: electrification for high-speed running 121.102.47.215 ( talk) 03:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to ask some people on the Ogilvie Transportation Center page, but nobody will answer me. So is this image from Ogilvie, or is it from Wells Street Station (Chicago), the other C&NW station? ---- DanTD ( talk) 21:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI, List of Shanghai Metro stations has been prodded for deletion.
70.29.210.242 ( talk) 04:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Future high-speed rail and freight rail with use broad gauge proposal
Proposal removed as inappropriate content
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about new ideas and proposals. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about new ideas and proposals at the Reference desk. |
In short, take it to another website, this isn't the place. We are trying to write an encyclopedia that reflects what already exists, not discuss and critique proposals. oknazevad ( talk) 05:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
An Ip has posted an offer of books on Indian railways at WP:EAR#My book 'Indian Railways at a Glance'. I posted here as you might be interested. –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 01:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I was looking to find an article, or even a section within some article, discussing this type of train accident, but I have been unable to find any. Surely this is a topic worthy of its own article? __ meco ( talk) 18:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see Talk:BC_Rail#Lede_revised_-_time_for_the_truth. Skookum1 ( talk) 14:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Following some debate on our talk pages where a fellow editor and I agreed to disagree, we agreed to put the question to the project group for a consensus. We agree to abide by the outcome. In summary, here are the major arguments:
Comments? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 14:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I've typed a couple of long discussions here only to abandon them. I really can't see the difference between the trains per hour that call at a station and where they go (not a timetable), and the number of platforms at the station. They tell the reader about the structure and function of the railway station. Without an objective measure (such as train-per-hour or trains-per-day), we will end up with probably unreferenced subjective measures such 'frequent', 'busy', or 'limited'. Of course the information does need to be referenced and dated. Edgepedia ( talk) 13:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Every station should have a description of its services; in some systems this is done my mentioning the systems or companies that serve the station, while others will have a more extensive coverage. Any station article aiming for GA should at least contain a mention of all routes and companies (along the line used in airport articles). Once this has been presented, I can see two areas where presenting a per-hour figure is encyclopedic. First, a typical commuter rail stations, which has a fixed-interval services (e.g. one train per direction per hour, with additional rush-hour services). The other is where the trains per hour is the limiting factor (e.g. the line/station has a capacity of 24 trains per direction per hour, which is fully utilized during the morning and afternoon peaks). Otherwise I think the exact nature of figures like this should be dealt on a case-by-case basis, and include the calculation basis. The peak-hour information is important because it says a lot about the dimensioned capacity of a station. For instance, and article could state the peak-hour frequency and any other defining metrics that are verifiable over time. Of course, the more volatile the information, the less we should consider including it. In my experience, timetables (and particularly frequency) are for the matter we are discussing now almost entirely stable, sometimes over the course of decades. Arsenikk (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Could we have a quick poll please, to see if there is a significant majority for one or the other. Just add * Yes or * No and your sig. I'll tally. If you want to comment, put it in the Comment section -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 23:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, looks like the consensus is YES. I think we should also approve the provisos suggested by ++ Lar and with an indication of time if peak and off-peak are notably different. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 23:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Category:Disused_station - the previous consensus was to use "Defunct station" - see here. Both "closed" and "defunct" seem sensible options.
I've made a list of all the non-open stations that don't use "defunct" here
Defunct or
closed - As such I'll post to
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion for eventually block renaming. It's clear that the highest level category is
Category:Defunct railway stations and that the subcategories should be in some way consistent.
Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 1#Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom Shortfatlad ( talk) 11:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Metrolink (Southern California) is being reviewed for Good Article status and only requires a few tweaks to pass. Please check out the review here and improve the article if possible. Thanks! Butros (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Please could somebody assist in checking and referencing
T scale? One recent editor has decided that my tagging of the article with {{
unreferenced}}
means that I want it deleted. Far from it - I want it kept, but in such a way that others don't have an excuse to slap a {{
subst:prod}}
on it. The main problem is a lack of English-language sources; further info at
Talk:T scale. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 16:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Just as a question, is the IRC channel for this project ever used by anyone? I've checked a few times, but no-one's ever on. Thanks, C628 ( talk) 20:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purple Line (Namma Metro). NVO ( talk) 19:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anaheim Canyon (Metrolink station) Mjroots ( talk) 07:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
| ||||||||
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter |
As detailed in last week's Signpost, WildBot has been patrolling Wikipedia-Books and searched for various problems in them, such as books having duplicate articles or containing redirects. WikiProject Wikipedia-Books is in the process of cleaning them up, but help would be appreciated. For this project, the following books have problems:
The problem reports explain in details what exactly are the problems, why they are problems, and how to fix them. This way anyone can fix them even if they aren't familiar with books. If you don't see something that looks like this, then all problems have been fixed. (Please strike articles from this list as the problems get fixed.)
Also, the {{ saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of books (title, subtitle, cover-image, cover-color), and gives are preview of the default cover on the book's page. An example of such a cover is found on the right. Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class rail transport articles should have covers.
If you need help with cleaning up a book, help with the {{ saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.
This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 00:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ( owner • talk) 00:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I've updated my missing vehicle topics page, including the section about rail transport - Skysmith ( talk) 12:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Would categorising rail accidents additionally by type be beneficial do you think?. Some possible categories would be:
I'm not set on the naming, or saying the above is an exclusive list of causes, or that each cause should necessarily get it's own category, or be restricted to one category (e.g. an intoxicated driver could pass a signal at danger). The categories could be subdivided by date and/or location as well if needed. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I am planning an AWB run to assess for this project approximately 140 Stub-class articles about railway stations in China created by ChinaRailwayENGED ( talk · contribs) in March (see contributions history for full list). I will add the following to each talk page:
{{TrainsWikiProject | class = Stub | importance = Low | unref = yes | stations = yes | imageneeded = yes | infoboxneeded = yes }}
or
{{TrainsWikiProject|class=Stub|importance=Low|unref=yes|stations=yes|imageneeded=yes|infoboxneeded=yes}}
Before I proceed, I want to check with the members of this project to confirm that an importance rating of 'Low' (based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Assessment#Importance scale) is appropriate. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
A train has crashed in Italy, killing 6 and injuring 20. Help in expanding the 2010 Merano train derailment article would be appreciated. Mjroots ( talk) 09:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
A problem has arisen which needs discussion re the use of flags in the {{
infobox rail accident}}. The infobox says to use a flag shortcut for the country, such as
Norway for Norway. Two editors have replaced this with
Norway citing
WP:MOSFLAG. Discussion was started on the
talk page of the
2010 Sjursøya train crash article, but it needs discussion at a wider level so I'm bringing it here.
Mjroots (
talk) 15:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I've proposed a cull of entries from the list, reasons explained at the talk page. Please feel free to comment there. Mjroots ( talk) 09:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I should've brought this up on the CfD board first, but I proposed that every image and category currently in Category:Images of railway stations should be moved to a new category called Category:Images of railway stations in the United States, and that "Images of railway stations" should be converted into a parent category of this, and similar categories covering stations in other countries. Comments? ---- DanTD ( talk) 17:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm working on redrawing the Réseau Breton diagram to show the networks interaction with other lines. I've got the form right, but it needs tweaking and new icons creating to finish off. Input from other editors is welcome, for example, could the diagram be drawn better for Paimpol? Are the two greens sufficiently distinct for their meaning to be clear? Note Châteauneuf de Faou stations were adjacent, not cross-platform interchange. Mjroots ( talk) 08:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Réseau Breton | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'd agree with that, adding the comment that I do find the two greens to be somewhat too similar as they stand. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 18:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The article Corridor connection has been created. There are many pages which mention this, so link away...
Note that this article is currently UK-centric, on account of the knowledge and reference sources of the originating editor, so rest-of-world information would be welcome.
EdJogg ( talk) 22:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I recently requested a peer review for an article I started, Ghost stations of the Paris Métro. The article was tagged as being within the scope of this WikiProject, and was assesed and given a 'B' on the project's quality scale. One of the suggestions from the peer review was to have the article's prose reviewed and a copy edit made by another editor. If anyone here would be willing to pitch in and assist with a copy edit (or any of the other peer review suggestions) I would really appreciate it. I hope that eventually the article can be taken to good article status. Thanks! -- Aka042 ( talk) 23:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
It would be great to get some input at this TFD discussion if it is still open. Thank you! Plastikspork ( talk) 17:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated SkyTrain (Vancouver) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 11:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I just noticed that the convention for Metra station articles appears to be to use "(Metra)" as the disambiguator, such as at Antioch (Metra). The problem with this, it seems to me, is that it doesn't actually state that the station is a station, running afoul of the intent for clarification that disambiguation is supposed to provide. In short, I think we should change them to read "(Metra station)" instead. Thoughts? oknazevad ( talk) 16:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
What do you think about the creation of a number of templates covering railway accidents by country? For example, the template for Italy could look like this:-
Note that I'm not volunteering to create all the templates. Another possibility is a series of templates for railway accidents by year, similar to those for aircraft accidents such as {{ Aviation accidents and incidents in 2010}}. Both could be implemented if consensus can be found for them.
The template for 2010 could look like this:-
Mjroots ( talk) 11:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
{{
London railway accidents}}
was created as long ago as 23 August 2006. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Just created {{ 1999 railway accidents}} and wondering whether this template ought to be added to the Category:Railway accidents in 1999 or added to the category as a member, or both Thanks GrahamHardy ( talk) 21:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I've remodelled {{ 1999 railway accidents}} so that the navigation is below, to declutter the title, and allow use of an hCalendar microformat, which I've also added. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to re-open an issue I first raised in November 2007 (see here for old discussion): current naming practices for articles on American railway stations. At present we use parenthetical disambiguation by company: [[NAME (SYSTEM station)]] gives Battle Creek (Amtrak station). I find this approach problematic, especially when two or more systems run to the same station, as at La Grange (Amtrak station). La Grange is served by two heavy rail operators, Amtrak and Metra. La Grange (Metra) redirects there. I don't know who owns the station; I doubt it's either of the operators. In addition, we have numerous "Union Station" articles, disambiguated by location: Union Station (Chicago). Finally, we have station articles at their nondeterminate formal names: Kalamazoo Transportation Center and William F. Walsh Regional Transportation Center are two examples of this.
I've written up a bare-bones proposal at User:Mackensen/Naming conventions (US stations). The proposal in a nutshell: all stations are identified by their most common name, followed by "railroad station." In cities or towns with only one station, this would take the form of "Kalamazoo railroad station." In places with multiple stations, it would take the form "Chicago Union railroad station" or "Chicago LaSalle Street railroad station." Formal names for a station would be indicated in the text, but not the article title. This change would bring US articles in line with the rest of the encyclopedia. Mackensen (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I still say it's a bad way to do business, but as apparently I'm the only one who thinks so, I'll let it be ;). Mackensen (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we just stick with WP:COMMONNAME? Also, I've been dealing with the two-lines-serving-a-station problem by moving the pages to Name (train station) as seen here. Perhaps that could be a solution? -- TorriTorri( Talk to me!) 01:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
In List of rail accidents (pre-1950)#1944 is the statement "78 killed officially, maybe over 250; exaggerated estimates of 500-800 still seen in reference books. Date may be Jan 16", it is referenced but the reference does not support the statements. Most sources I have found (including List of train accidents by death toll) state 500. Anyone shed some light on this? GrahamHardy ( talk) 23:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I recall a few years ago, a slew of AfDs about the notability of tiny train stations and stops. Today I was researching two small North American train stations, found them easily on Google maps, then did Google searches for them and lo, found an en.WP article on each. A bit stubby, but still very helpful. Thought I'd drop by and say thanks :) Gwen Gale ( talk) 18:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
A series of diagrams representing various locomotives have recently been added to Locomotive, Steam locomotive and Firebox (steam engine).
Although I appreciate the work that goes into such images, I'm concerned about their accuracy. There are just too many errors in them to really pass muster in an encyclopedia. The same question has already been discussed re the firebox image at User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Firebox Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Tagged for deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Inaccurate railway locomotive diagrams Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
There's a new WP:JCW report. Out of the 500 most highly cited missing journals, here's a few that fall into your scope, or near your scope.
See the writing guide if you need help with those. Some of these might be better as redirects ( Guide to redirects). Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
A move discussion where your input may be useful. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 16:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I recently created the Category:Stations along Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad lines, however considering that the similar category for the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad is named Category:Stations along Milwaukee Road lines, maybe the one I made should be renamed Category:Stations along Burlington Route lines. So should it be renamed, or not? ---- DanTD ( talk) 18:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The 2010 Naugachia train derailment article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 10:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Can we rename the below to add 'notable', ie.
I am not discussing criteria for inclusion here; just trying to head off the casual contributer beleiving the lists to be comprehensive. I beleive such a rename has been suggested in the talk pages but has not yet been taken up. GrahamHardy ( talk) 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
LSWR and Southern Under the LSWR, the was outshopped in the LSWR Passenger Sage Green livery with purple-brown edging, creating panels of green.[1] This was further lined in white and black with 'LSWR' in gilt on the tender tank sides.
What was outshopped?
Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.52.198 ( talk) 05:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I've just noticed some concerning edits, and seemingly a whole project dedicated to winding me up further 8-) Wikipedia:Templates with red links
This was in relation to one editor's clearly GF edits, particularly this to {{ Ireland Steam Locomotives}} and discussed further here User talk:Kathleen.wright5#Stripping redlinks from navigation templates
The crux of this seems to be interpreting this section of WP:REDLINK on redlinks in navigational contexts:
To mean that redlinks shouldn't exist in nav box templates either. As discussed on the user talk (pasted below), I disagree with this in some contexts, specifically those that represent "structured lists" such as the loco class lists.
[[GCR Class 9F|N5]]
N5. Without the redlink, how would the new article creator be guided to create under
GCR Class 9F rather than
LNER Class N5 ?Comments please... Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates with red links is not intended to provide a policy basis for deleting red links in templates. It is merely a project for identifying them and promoting their repair, which is usually best accomplished by creating the article for which the red link stands. However, we do propose as an option removing red links from templates if the links have been there for a very long time, and it does not appear likely that the article will ever be created (which should not be the case with articles on inherently notable topics). To the extent that it will take a long time to get around to creating articles on particular items within a larger set, you may want to consider creating meta articles listing and briefly identifying the members of that set, and providing a seed for more information to be added, until the individual member can be broken out into an article of its own. bd2412 T 15:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a new listing in the National Register of Historic Places for the Century Flyer, a 24-inch guage train ( See here). I was going to write the article. Would this be under your project? Thanks Einbierbitte ( talk) 15:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The Falls of Cruachan derailment article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 06:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a link from Genesee & Wyoming Inc. to East Penn Railroad, but it seems to be incorrect. See Talk:East Penn Railroad for details. Perhaps someone can resolve the confusion.-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 16:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I've edited this to correct a misleading impression given by the line template. However this introduces a new problem, with National Rail being referred to from the rail start template, for a long-closed statement. If someone who understands these templates could help out ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavateraguy ( talk • contribs) 08:44, 17 June 2010
{{
s-start}}
doesn't sit comfortably with either {{
Historical Rail Insert}}
or {{
rail line}}
. The correct template to start the fresh box, and also be compatible with {{
rail line}}
, is {{
Historical Rail Start}}
; I have re-fixed. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 13:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)I just moved scores of Category:Amtrak railway line navbox templates, but I found that many of them couldn't be moved, and probably should be fixed. Additionally, the one for the Hoosier State (Amtrak) should be renamed for capitalization. ---- DanTD ( talk) 13:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be no appropriate category within the Category:Railway accidents by type scheme at present. I notice even the "Type of incident" field in the infobox is empty, so some input seems to be needed from this WikiProject. __ meco ( talk) 21:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
A proposal has been raised at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Model rail. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 16:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads up on this one. A couple weeks ago, since I was the main contributor to this article, another editor asked if I would like to nominate Rogers Locomotive and Machine Works to be shown on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's Featured Article. I was a little hesitant, but said I wouldn't object if someone else nominated it. Now the article is scheduled for July 8.
I will be monitoring the article for at least part of the day. But, if anyone in TWP has some time on that day, please help out with reverting vandalism and fact checking on edits that are made on that day. Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 14:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Section name says it all. Input appreciated. oknazevad ( talk) 15:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Docks Heritage Railway. Simply south ( talk) 21:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
That particular article seems to be a major copyright violation. Most of it was copied directly from this and this. It looks to have been added by Randycarnley ( talk · contribs), who appears to be the operator of the site it's copied from. If I understand correctly, that's still a copyvio, so what I'd like to do is cut it down to this, which is from way back in 2008, but is the earliest version User:Randycarnley didn't edit. Comments would be welcome. Thanks, C628 ( talk) 21:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate some help and advice on the B&O Railroad Bridge over the Schuylkill River. I am including what I know or can reference at User talk:Dthomsen8/Rail Bridge for the convenience of other editors. My objective is to have an article for every bridge in Philadelphia over the Schuylkill River. For example, I created the Columbia Railroad Bridge article. Here are the questions I have:
1) Is it clear from the Philadelphia Subdivision article that this swing bridge is indeed a Baltimore and Ohio Railroad bridge, and perhaps as early as 1886, when the line opened? I looked at some of the references for the Philadelphia Subdivision article, but it wasn't entirely clear to me. Perhaps someone more familiar with reading this old railroad information can be helpful.
2) Should I change the name in the table from "Rail bridge" to "B&O Railroad Bridge" along the lines of the next entry in the table for the PW&B Railroad Bridge?
3) Is the information that I have included in the descriptions for the photos in Wikimedia Commons clear and correct? -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 22:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
We could use a bit of help with the name. Thanks train people. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm starting to look at some railway station articles in Warsaw and I have found that the (incomplete) structure is to create separate articles for the main PKP station and the independently run commuter railway ( Warszawska Kolej Dojazdowa, which runs on completely different tracks throughout). The stations, however, are essentially the same stations. I don't really know the protocol for stations but wouldn't it be better to have these articles as one article. Cheers, Severo T C 14:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Could somebody explain why some British Rail Class 104 abbreviations (those ending LC) are -LC and not CL? They are described as "... Lavatory Composite", so shouldn't the abbreviation be ...LC, not CL?
E.g. current listing for
Which part is wrong: the abbreviation or the description?
I've also posted this question in Talk:British Rail Class 104#Abbreviations.
No point in having 2 discussions, so please reply at the link above rather than here.
Thanks in advance, Trafford09 ( talk) 17:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
There's a problem with Template:Infobox Station or Template:s-start as used on Beverly Depot (MBTA station) and elsewhere. Under the Services banner, the next and previous stations are shown, but over the "previous" is a small empty box. Ma t c hups 10:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Why is it that the {{ Rail color box}} entries for some single-line agencies lead to a box with the correct color border, but no fill?
Examples:
Train2104 ( talk) 21:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
PATCO color}}
, {{
NICTD color}}
and {{
SFRTA color}}
: basically, the <noinclude>
must follow directly on from the "real" template content, without any intervening line breaks. The odd box was down to a similar issue with {{
SFRTA lines}}
. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 21:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The Harrisburg Subdivision page mentions the Arsenal Bridge, a CSX Transportation rail bridge over the Schuylkill River and the Arsenal Interlocking. The "Arsenal" in the Philadelphia bridge name refers to the Schuylkill Arsenal, which was renamed the Philadelphia Quartermaster Depot in 1926. That is all I know about this bridge, but I need more information to create an article on this bridge. Can someone more expert about railroad bridges find something about this rather old truss bridge? -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 23:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Can this be reassessed please, a lot of work from a few people have gone into remaking this article. Southampton_Terminus_railway_station ( Zeoace ( talk) 10:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC))
In 1895 the old engine sheds which were built back in 1847 were still heavily in use but as demands rose for goods, they were converted into a one road depot for freight trains, not only was the engine sheds converted, the original turntable was replaced with a open turntable which had radiating roads, coal stage, water Column(s) and crew bothy.
Hi, Thank you for the imput;
I am next week getting a few Southern Railway books to help try and build more on this article as at the moment most of this is information gathered from other websites.
( Zeoace ( talk) 17:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC))
Edgepedia ( talk) 07:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The discussion here may be of interest to editors frequenting this board. d'oh! talk 07:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
The article Carpet railway has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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 {{
dated prod}}
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 {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
JeepdaySock (AKA,
Jeepday) 10:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Any ideas on whether specific Train Wreck articles be placed in the 'Rail transport in <State>' category or its sub-category 'Passenger rail transport in <state>', ie. in a member of Category:Rail transport in the United States by state or Category:Passenger rail transport in the United States by state, Thanks GrahamHardy ( talk) 17:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I have added lgauge to the Infobox rail line "lgauge= UIC GB+"
WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2010, 1 |
---|
See High Speed 1 for an example. -- Kitchen Knife ( talk) 20:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The infobox trains, and infobox locomotive default width was recently (may) reset to 229, when it had previous been 300px as suggested at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#Design_and_usage. I changed it back.
There is now a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_train#Image_size - though perhaps that should be carried out somewhere more central like Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes). Personally I think 300px may be a little large, but 229px is far too small.
Please make suggestions at the relevant talk page. Sf5xeplus ( talk) 06:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I am importing the railway stations in the UK into nl:wp (dutch wikipedia). We've tried to harvest the lat/lon coordinates from templates. Is there a list of coordinates of railway stations available? EdBever ( talk) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
|latitude=
|longitude=
pair; (b) near the bottom of the article in a {{
coord}}
template.{{
coord}}
somewhere, for instance
Radley railway station which has
{{
coord|51.686|N|1.240|W|type:landmark_region:GB|display=title}}
Just suggested a move at East Coast Trains. See Talk:East Coast (train operating company). Simply south ( talk) 21:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd like some group input on this subject, or at least some guidelines on how the Group interpret WP:TITLE when applying the rules to the naming convention of locomotive related articles. The debate on the articles talkpage as follows: