![]() | 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. |
Why are so many Pittsburgh Light Rail station articles being tagged with Project rapid transit parameters when they should get the Project streetcars parameters? ---- DanTD ( talk) 05:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
With the current revitalization of rail transport in the NYC metro area, many formerly used lines are restoring passenger service. One such line receiving recent attention on Wikipedia is the Lackawanna Cut-Off, from Scranton, PA through New Jersey to NYC. With the newly coming service, I have 2 questions regarding appropriate placement of content.
First, should there be a separate article for the new service (to be provided by New Jersey Transit) be created - leaving the current article, Lackawanna Cut-Off as a historical artice; or should information about the new service be incorporated in to the existing article. I prefer having just 1 article, as the proposed line completely encompasses the historical line, and all of the historical contents of the article could be indented under a "History" heading.
My second question is regarding articles for stations. Many historical stations are now privately-owned and have commercial uses; however new stations are being proposed/built in the immediate vicinity of the old buildings. For example, the former station in Scranton is now the Radisson Lackawanna Station Hotel, and the proposed new station is a few blocks from the old. Do there need to be separate articles for Scranton (NJT station) and Radisson Lackawanna Station Hotel? If this distance would warrant separate articles, what if the new station was less than a block from the old? Or what if the new station was in the same place as the old, but did not utilize the old station building? Or if the old station has been demolished and a new station is built on the old site. I ask all these possibilities because all are occurring on varying passenger rail restoration projects in the NYC area. -- Scott Alter ( talk) 00:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Howdy guys, it's always been a puzzlement to me why there doesn't seem to be as much activity on the Trains WikiProject as there is on some others, when I know there are thousands of railfans out there. I thought as one means of maybe encouraging a little more participation and interaction, we might consider imitating the very neat, easy-to-read way the Arkansas folks have got their front page set up: check it out. Just a thought. Textorus ( talk) 12:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I mentioned this to User:Markussep who is diligentally working through creating articles on French railway stations. Shouldn't it be Castres Railway Station rather than Gare de Castres per WP:ENGLISH? Gare isn't actually the name of the building, its just the French word for railway station isn't it? I propose that they are renamed to ..... Railway Station. Any thoughts? Dr. Blofeld 16:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I guess it's EMD day at TWP ;). I've raised a question about images at Talk:EMD FP7; it's something I'd rather not do off my own bat. Comments appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed the icons be removed from this template per WP:ICONDECORATION . Please discuss Gnevin ( talk) 11:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:ICONDECORATION as written is open to a degree of interpretation, perhaps deliberately so. I can imagine situations where icons just become irritating, although I haven't seen any. In this case I think the icons reinforce the words - one of the benefits of images - and they are not unduly intrusive IMHO. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 13:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
This issue has been on and off my mind for the past three years, but I still think that there should be a merger between the Marshall (Amtrak station) and T&P Depot articles. More specifically, I think the T&P Depot should be a chapter of the Marshall Amtrak station article. Let's face it; they even have the same address. ---- DanTD ( talk) 12:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
A coal tipple is a structure used to load coal into railroad hopper cars, or sometimes barges or trucks, but there is no article on it. I did not find much from a Google search, but I hope some other editor will follow up on this. The tipple article is a disambiguation page. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 14:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Trains for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 18:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Currently narrow gauge railways are categorised by imperial units e.g. the Category:Two foot gauge railways "...contains articles about narrow gauge railways with a track gauge between 1 ft 10 3⁄4 in (578 mm) and 2 ft (610 mm)." This is very confusing for the many lines around the world that are measured primarily in mm. For example, there are dozens of 600mm gauge lines that, under the present system, should be categorised as "Two foot gauge", but this is not obvious when creating an article, so the vast majority go uncategorised by gauge. It is also not clear why this type of category is useful: if we are looking for all 600 mm lines; it is not clear from the category which they are. Also if we start adding all the 600 mm etc lines to the category, it will eventually become very large and unwieldy - the 2' category already has over a 100 articles and this would more than double if we start adding all 600 mm lines. I would therefore like to propose the categorisation of mm-gauge lines by size (600, 750, 900, etc - noting that a metre gauge category already exists). Whether we keep the present imperial unit categories as they are (with a range of gauges) or split them into separate imperial sizes (2', 2'6", etc) is a separate debate. I appreciate this will result in a number of additional categories, but it will aid clarity and keep category sizes both meaningful and manageable. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 12:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
So I see it is here that there the "consensus" to overturn practice of 4 years standing. The reason the "grouping" of close gauges was adopted is that there is almost no engineering difference between, say, a 750mm, 760mm and 762mm (2'6") gauge railways. In fact the equipment as far as gauge goes is normally interchangeable. The idea was to allow comparison between like, so that the curious reader could compare the different approaches taken towards the same engineering problems. I mean trying to split 760mm and 762mm gauges into different camps strikes me as just silly. In practical terms there was no difference. If you must go ahead with these "micro-categories" please leave the broad categories in place. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 07:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I see no consensus here - two editors in favour, two against, and one making a comment on fact. Please desist in trying to ramrod these changes through. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 07:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pulling back and letting us all discuss this. First up let me disclose that I was involve in setting up the cats 4 years ago. Actually my preference was for the use of metric measurements, and that remains my preference. I get the feeling here, and I could be wrong, that part of the problem is an Eurocentric approach. That is the Germans had one type of narrow gauge railway, the British had another, and so on. My personal interest is in narrow gauge railways outside Europe, and the position there is much more variable. You can find railways with British, US, German, Swiss, Belgium, French, even Japanese built equipment operating side by side. But lets examine the main issue that concern me in the current proposals, the artificial division of gauges into "metric" and 'imperial". This is artificial and counter productive, as well as raising problems. Artificial because the adoption of, say 750mm and 762mm, was made for the same engineering reasons, even if the gauges are slightly different to each other because of the "rounding off" to the closest "whole" gauge in the measuring system that happened to be in force at the time. Counter productive because the reader is unable to make comparisons between the various systems with closely related gauges. And of course problematic, and here are a number of examples:
Let's not forget there were definite trends in "gauge choice", for instance the swing towards 750mm/762mm at the end of the 19thC. It would be hard to observe that if the two gauges were split along this arbitary "metric/imperial divide. My proposal is simple, leave the groups as they are, and rename the categories to include the metric gauges, for instance 710-790mm (2'6") gauge railways. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 09:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
These are all well-made points which need to be acknowledged. Fundamentally I'd like to see a more direct connexion between the gauge of the railway (presumably as stated in the infobox/text) and the category. It's about clarity and accuracy, especially for the reader. A 600 mm railway should be in a category for 600 mm railways. How we arrive at the gauge is preceding step. It would be neat if e.g. all English/US/Commonwealth railways had been designed to imperial gauges and all the rest to metric. The split would simply be by country of origin - some imperial, others metric. But reality is more complicated. I still think we come back to one of the 4 options above if we want to move forward. I personally favour no. 3: imperial and metric depending on country of origin, noting that although UK has nowadays gone metric, the railways were designed and referred to in imperial units when built. And where e.g. Britain 'borrowed' a metric gauge, we could categorise by it's British designation (presumably imperial) and explain in the category notes that e.g. 1'11½" is the imperial size used by countries that imported the 600 mm gauge. In essence what I am saying is why don't we use the terminology of the country of origin. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 19:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard regarding {{ trainweb}}. Magog the Ogre ( talk · contribs) is starting to tag files to be deleted in a week and some have been removed from articles. What should we do here? — Train2104 ( talk • contribs • count) 18:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
This is under discussion of being moved. See Talk:Rail tracks#Requested move. Simply south ( talk) 23:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
A thread has been raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Locomotives task force#SD40-2 Merge, a talk page which doesn't seem to have much activity, probably few watchers. Could any GM/EMD specialists please take a look? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 17:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I came here via The Signpost's article on this Wikiproject, and because I've been gnoming through some articles that need their date formats fixed. All of the articles in this timeline seem to have been given clunky date-range titles. Here's an example: "May 1 - May 9".
I've been fixing this to, for example, "May 1–9", which looks a lot neater and uses the correct punctuation (an en dash). Please see WP:MOSDASH and WP:MOSDATE.
Please let me know if there's a problem with this. And could editors who maintain these articles use this format in the future? (I don't watchlist this page, so responses on my talk page, if there are any, please.)
Thank you. Tony (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I have been researching the British Columbia Electric Railway (BCER) / BC Hydro (BCH), now Southern Railway of BC (SRY). I have dug deep into its diesel motive power and have learned that all 12 of the EMD / GMD SW-type switchers they purchased are model SW900, not SW900RS, and that, in fact, there was never a SW900RS model produced by EMD / GMD. My sources for this info are Doug Cummings, a former BCER/BCH employee and retired locomotive broker, and EMD itself. I received an official corporate response recently, from two employees in their Service Parts Engineering Group, Jim Rusin and Yuk Mui.
The main SW900 article is correct, because it does not mention an RS designation anywhere and it also correctly lists the infor for BCER. However, a page linked to from that page, List of GMD Locomotives does have an RS category. What is the proper way to fix this issue? I am not sure, for example, if the 11 supposed-SW900RS total should be added to the 86 SW900 total immediately above it. Kent Sullivan ( talk) 16:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Kent Sullivan
There needs to be some information on the fact that the F40-PH has become an internet meme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.75.149.94 ( talk) 02:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
There's a debate/slow-motion edit war in progress at Korea Train Express, additional comments from third parties would be most welcome. Jpatokal ( talk) 12:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I just did some minor edits on the CP and CN pages and noticing how large their infoboxes (=logos) were I had a look at BNSF's - also really really huge in comparison to other wikipedia articles. What's with this? The effect is to make a really really big logo, and to push text off to a narrow column; there are too many factors within the table - the logo size, the map size - for me to know how to reduce them; but they're clearly - clearly - too large. Would someone please reduce these, and keep and eye on advertising-promotional scale use of logos? Wikipedia articles are not the sides of boxcars.... Skookum1 ( talk) 11:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
My Uncle worked for many years at Stratford and told me that all the "Britannia" crews from whichever Region were a little "club" and used to meet up socially.
70047 was a London Midland loco and some names were actually suggested for her. One was "Tempest" to complete a series of World War II aircraft, another was "Princess Anne" to replace 46202 lost at Harrow & Wealdstone in 1952.
Another suggestion was to name her after the Chief Locomotive Engineer of British Railways 'Robin' Riddles. Mr. Riddles modestly declined the accolade but thereafter 70047 was known unofficially as "Riddles". 86.133.122.207 ( talk) 09:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC) John Walden —Preceding Signatures comment added by 86.133.122.207 ( talk) 09:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
After my recent renaming spree of DART Light Rail stations, and Trinity Railway Express stations, I think the same thing should happen to ****(Vancouver SkyTrain station), such as King George (Vancouver SkyTrain station). Honestly, I just looked at the list of recent changes, and when I saw it, I thought of King Street (WMATA station). Then I realized I thought of the wrong name, but renaming them is still a good idea. ---- DanTD ( talk) 00:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The article Gartsherrie East Junction 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)
15:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I just visited Yangon, Myanmar, in mid-September and also went to see the railway station there. Inside the tourist office, there is a route map of "Yangon Circular Railway" hanged on the wall. But the wordings "Yangon Circular Railline" was printed on the route map. So I wonder which is the official name, Yangon Circular "Railway" or Yangon Circular "Railline"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Islandsouthwilson ( talk • contribs) 16:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, {{ BSkm}} has been requested to be renamed. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 02:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Strand Beach Funicular has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 06:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
WTF (I left a message on User_talk:AmosWolfe#Railway_icons), but I guess it's not their fault. Did I miss a memo?
The problem is that any template using "continue arrows" is now bust eg http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Aberford_Railway&oldid=385417202 (was correct before) Sf5xeplus ( talk) 20:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I've traced it to this : see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Axpde#No_Nein_Niet_Non
I don't know enough to know what is correct here. Sf5xeplus ( talk) 20:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
tCONTl
),
exCONTl
),
uCONTl
) etc. all point right,
CONTl
) should have pointed right also (similarly, CONTr should have pointed left to match the other *CONTr ones), and so somebody on Commons decided to exchange CONTl with CONTr without actually setting up a task to fix their transclusions. Despite comments left by
Axpde (
talk ·
contribs) on that thread, I am unable to find the discussions on Commons to which he refers.Unaltered RDT | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
RDT manually fixed | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
CONTr
) and
CONTl
) were exchanged on 9 October 2010 purely so that the names would be consistent with the other left/right pairs such as
tCONTr
)/
tCONTl
),
exCONTr
)/
exCONTl
), etc. When
Chrisbot (
talk ·
contribs) did such exchanges in the past, it also went through every page which used the icons concerned and adjusted the names, so that the visual appearance of the RDTs remained unchanged. In this case however, no bot update of RDTs has occurred, so we're left with a horrendous mixture of unaltered RDTs which now look wrong (see upper RDT at right) and RDTs which have been manually altered so that they now look just the same as they had done prior to 9 Oct (lower RDT at right). --
Redrose64 (
talk)
11:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)AmosWolfe ( User_talk:Sf5xeplus#Railway_Icons) tells me that a bot is supposed to fix the problem. There are over 1500 pages affected, and the ones I've looked at haven't been fixed. I think trying to do this manually is a mistake .. we need a list of pages fixed and pages not fixed. (Otherwise we'll end up with an unbotable mess)
Is there a list of manually fixed icons - the bot needs to ignore these. Sf5xeplus ( talk) 11:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
And the bot's operator appears to have retired .. anyone know how to work the bot? Sf5xeplus ( talk) 11:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
please list below any articles manually changed (please list the template not the article if transcluded)
Template:Bury Lines, Template:Ouse Valley Railway RDT, Template:Salford Lines, Template:Railways around Didcot RDT
This list is from my page. I have worked the list over the last few days doing the icons. Britmax ( talk) 23:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
XYZ
I hope nobody minded that i moved some templates whilst this discussion was going on. Didcot in particular can now be found at {{ Railways around Didcot RDT}}. Simply south ( talk) 17:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
BS-header}}
template to match the new template name,
like this. This parameter is used to generate those links: if it's left alone, the v-d-e will link to the redirect, not to the template itself. Compare this: to this: . --
Redrose64 (
talk)
16:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)I hope someone can enlighten me. Where did the "standard" for RDT at the end of every railway route map come from? I have just gone through a 25% sample of the diagrams in Category:Rail routemap templates and found very few with the RDT suffix. Even in the UK only a few currently have the RDT suffix. Are we sure this is going the right way?
Some examples
To date the template has had the same name as the article, this is now changing - and there are now many articles going to require changing to remove the redirects. I can see a considerable amount of maintenance coming up.
-- Stewart ( talk | edits) 19:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I think this should be added somewhere.
These templates may ideally be distinguished from others by having the suffices "route diagram", "route map", "map" or "RDT".
Simply south ( talk) 11:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
1) Should suffices be added to RDTs to distinguish them from other templates? 2) If so, should a single suffix be used such as RDT, route diagram or equivalent? Which?
Also, Jenuk 1985, is it okay if i move your opinion to this subsection? Simply south ( talk) 20:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Per above. Simply south ( talk) 19:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm just going to apologise now and stop moving the RDTs. Simply south ( talk) 23:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel that this diagram could profitably be shortened by removing the N&S joint railway sections and replacing them with a link to the joint line's own article? Britmax ( talk) 10:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
M&GN Extract | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Would you replace the area with something really minimal as the detail is covered by the line's own article, say this? Britmax ( talk) 11:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
show}}
parameters into this diagram (like with
Template:Metropolitan Main Line RDT) to enable long sections with many small stations (e.g. Honing to Caister) to be hidden.
Lamberhurst (
talk)
14:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)The article Grand Junction, Birmingham, England 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)
15:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Could someone with coding skills fix something I've noticed thats amiss with the Romford to Upminster Line i.e. why all the info appears in the infobox? Simply south ( talk) 12:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I've proposed to make it HO scale; please join the discussion at Talk:H0 scale#Formally requesting move. Mangoe ( talk) 20:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Once again, former User:Lordkinbote's images have been tagged for mass deletion. Many of them are the only ones of their kind on Wikipedia, so I encouraging anyone who can do so to start saving them now. ---- DanTD ( talk) 17:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The article High rail 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)
16:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject Trains! I have recently been reading RailVolution and came across the passage "The underframe is designed to withstand an end-on compressive force of 2,000 kN, and complies with the UIC 566 standard."
I do not really understand this passage, but part of the reason is that there is no article for underframe. If someone here is an expert on the subject, I humbly request that they look into creating such an article, or redirecting to an existing article with this information. Perhaps more information should be added about the various UIC standards, as I found this to be lacking to an amateur/enthusiast such as myself. Thanks, Ynhockey ( Talk) 23:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Rail transport articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Would appreciate a review of Thomas Gray (1788–1848) for consideration as an added entry on the railway history timeline for the year 1820. This date coincides his publication of Observations on a General Iron Railway. This promotional work coincided with much of the early legislation associated with steam locomotion in UK. Thank-you. CUoD ( talk) 00:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 17:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon two articles on the UK's Docklands Light Rail; One is Poplar DLR depot, which is tagged as an orphan, and the other is Poplar DLR station. The "station" article is linked to the "depot" one, and I almost thought the "depot" was a duplicate or a relief segment of the "station." However, the lead sentence of the depot article calls this "The Poplar Traincare Depot," which gives me the impression that this is actually a yard or storage facility. So why the duplicate if this isn't the case? ---- DanTD ( talk) 13:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations)#Capitalisation of french railway stations
Hi, I came across Réseau Nord, Réseau Montparnasse and a few similar articles. Basically these articles are about which destinations can be reached from the main terminus stations in Paris (gare du Nord, gare Montparnasse etc.). As far as I know, the national railway company SNCF isn't organised along these "réseaux" (networks). When the SNCF was founded in 1938, it was subdivided into régions (Nord, Est, Ouest, Sud-Ouest and Sud-Est), more or less conform the former railway companies that formed the SNCF. This structure existed until 1972 according to French wikipedia (couldn't find anything useful confirming this on the SNCF website). Currently the local trains (TER) are organised by administrative region, e.g. Picardie, Lorraine, Corse, Bourgogne. So I think the "Réseau X" articles are not very useful, and should be merged with the respective station articles (Réseau Nord --> Gare du Nord etc.). I think the Category:Région Nord and similar categories can be deleted as well. Thoughts? Markussep Talk 14:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been doing a little work updating/correcting articles on railways in developing countries.
I've noticed that we have a swathe of articles along the lines of "Railway stations in country X" even when country X has no functioning railways, or has barely enough to fill the existing article on "Railways in country X" which sits awkwardly alongside. Also, the "Railway stations in country X" articles seem to have been built according to some set structure which, I think, could do with some improvement. For an example, see
Railway stations in Niger. I think it's pretty redundant as there are no railway stations in Niger and there never have been, the layout is awkward, and we already have an article on
Rail transport in Niger (a paragraph on proposed projects; the usual story of African infrastructure) as well as several more paragraphs on the same thing over at
Transport in Niger#Railway(1). This applies to many other countries too. Hence we have lots of duplication (making it difficult to maintain accuracy) and some unattractive articles that try to fill a page whilst saying very little (and still manage to overlap with other pages while they do it).
Was there some policy reason, or some overarching consensus, which required the creation of "Railway stations in country X" articles in this way, regardless of content? If so, I shall abide by it, but if not I'd like to have a go at tidying this mess up. Any suggestions / comments / complaints?
bobrayner (
talk)
13:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
(1) As an aside, it seems popular to write about gauge changes even when there is no railway built, and even if a railway were built it would have small traffic and slow operations regardless of gauge breaks. I'm not sure why this is such a popular subject, but hey.... over at
Rail transport in Afghanistan somebody was banging on about building thousands of km of dual- or triple- gauge.
(outdent) The scope of the problem is potentially boggling. In some countries any place there was ever even a platform is the subject of an article, and my attempt to try to rein that in failed utterly. Mangoe ( talk) 20:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
(outdent)The Railway stations in the United States article was deleted, and I can't say I disagree with it too much. But has anybody saved the content of the article in a personal file? I keep thinking it might be good for something, even if it was written like crap. ---- DanTD ( talk) 18:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Back to Africa, I had a quick squiz at Railway stations in Kenya and Rail transport in Kenya and I'd recommend a merger given the huge overlap of the content as the pages stand. There seem to be no articles about actual railway stations linked to from Railway stations in Kenya, so List of railway stations in Kenya is going to be a page of red links. This could change over time but for now I'd support merging all the Railway stations in x page to Rail transport in x, and think about starting List of Railway stations in x for place where there is a hope of getting some articles to link to. (I don't consider categories as a substitute for lists - categories can't contain red links). Railwayfan2005 ( talk) 20:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm
requesting an
A-Class review for
Wallkill Valley Rail Trail, which has just become a GA. None of the involved projects have a formal A-Class method, so I'm requesting that two editors review the article and support its promotion. I'm reposting this request on the talk pages of all involved projects.
--
Gyrobo (
talk)
03:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Anyone want to assist in populating Category:Categories named after railway lines by country? __ meco ( talk) 21:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Categories on transportation accidents are hyped up to "disasters" as you go up the line in categorization. I have recategorized CSX 8888 incident so it rolls up into categorized "incidents" all the way up the line. Before, it rolled up into "accident" categories, which, in turn, rolled up into "Disaster" categories! While I have changed it for this one incident (for 2001 only, for example), many other categories need to be defined to replace ones that wrongly promote into worse-sounding categories. Student7 ( talk) 14:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm very surprised that there's no article on this subject. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 11:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I just wanted to pop by and mention something with respect to the articles titles as above (I'm not a member of this project, and I haven't really done any editing on wikipedia at all for a long while). I work for NR and the strategic routes and sections and their numbering have changed. There are now 17 strategic routes (marked A to Q), so it's probable that there's some editing to do to these articles. However, I'm not sure how much of this information is in the public domain and therefore citable as a source, even if it's in common use in the company. This may well be already common knowledge to you chaps here, but if not and if there's a dearth of further info, I'll see what I can do to provide more, though naturally I'm restricted by confidentiality, etc. Let me know if more info is needed. Cheers. El Pollo Diablo ( Talk) 17:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Why are so many Pittsburgh Light Rail station articles being tagged with Project rapid transit parameters when they should get the Project streetcars parameters? ---- DanTD ( talk) 05:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
With the current revitalization of rail transport in the NYC metro area, many formerly used lines are restoring passenger service. One such line receiving recent attention on Wikipedia is the Lackawanna Cut-Off, from Scranton, PA through New Jersey to NYC. With the newly coming service, I have 2 questions regarding appropriate placement of content.
First, should there be a separate article for the new service (to be provided by New Jersey Transit) be created - leaving the current article, Lackawanna Cut-Off as a historical artice; or should information about the new service be incorporated in to the existing article. I prefer having just 1 article, as the proposed line completely encompasses the historical line, and all of the historical contents of the article could be indented under a "History" heading.
My second question is regarding articles for stations. Many historical stations are now privately-owned and have commercial uses; however new stations are being proposed/built in the immediate vicinity of the old buildings. For example, the former station in Scranton is now the Radisson Lackawanna Station Hotel, and the proposed new station is a few blocks from the old. Do there need to be separate articles for Scranton (NJT station) and Radisson Lackawanna Station Hotel? If this distance would warrant separate articles, what if the new station was less than a block from the old? Or what if the new station was in the same place as the old, but did not utilize the old station building? Or if the old station has been demolished and a new station is built on the old site. I ask all these possibilities because all are occurring on varying passenger rail restoration projects in the NYC area. -- Scott Alter ( talk) 00:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Howdy guys, it's always been a puzzlement to me why there doesn't seem to be as much activity on the Trains WikiProject as there is on some others, when I know there are thousands of railfans out there. I thought as one means of maybe encouraging a little more participation and interaction, we might consider imitating the very neat, easy-to-read way the Arkansas folks have got their front page set up: check it out. Just a thought. Textorus ( talk) 12:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I mentioned this to User:Markussep who is diligentally working through creating articles on French railway stations. Shouldn't it be Castres Railway Station rather than Gare de Castres per WP:ENGLISH? Gare isn't actually the name of the building, its just the French word for railway station isn't it? I propose that they are renamed to ..... Railway Station. Any thoughts? Dr. Blofeld 16:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I guess it's EMD day at TWP ;). I've raised a question about images at Talk:EMD FP7; it's something I'd rather not do off my own bat. Comments appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed the icons be removed from this template per WP:ICONDECORATION . Please discuss Gnevin ( talk) 11:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:ICONDECORATION as written is open to a degree of interpretation, perhaps deliberately so. I can imagine situations where icons just become irritating, although I haven't seen any. In this case I think the icons reinforce the words - one of the benefits of images - and they are not unduly intrusive IMHO. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 13:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
This issue has been on and off my mind for the past three years, but I still think that there should be a merger between the Marshall (Amtrak station) and T&P Depot articles. More specifically, I think the T&P Depot should be a chapter of the Marshall Amtrak station article. Let's face it; they even have the same address. ---- DanTD ( talk) 12:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
A coal tipple is a structure used to load coal into railroad hopper cars, or sometimes barges or trucks, but there is no article on it. I did not find much from a Google search, but I hope some other editor will follow up on this. The tipple article is a disambiguation page. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 14:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Trains for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 18:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Currently narrow gauge railways are categorised by imperial units e.g. the Category:Two foot gauge railways "...contains articles about narrow gauge railways with a track gauge between 1 ft 10 3⁄4 in (578 mm) and 2 ft (610 mm)." This is very confusing for the many lines around the world that are measured primarily in mm. For example, there are dozens of 600mm gauge lines that, under the present system, should be categorised as "Two foot gauge", but this is not obvious when creating an article, so the vast majority go uncategorised by gauge. It is also not clear why this type of category is useful: if we are looking for all 600 mm lines; it is not clear from the category which they are. Also if we start adding all the 600 mm etc lines to the category, it will eventually become very large and unwieldy - the 2' category already has over a 100 articles and this would more than double if we start adding all 600 mm lines. I would therefore like to propose the categorisation of mm-gauge lines by size (600, 750, 900, etc - noting that a metre gauge category already exists). Whether we keep the present imperial unit categories as they are (with a range of gauges) or split them into separate imperial sizes (2', 2'6", etc) is a separate debate. I appreciate this will result in a number of additional categories, but it will aid clarity and keep category sizes both meaningful and manageable. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 12:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
So I see it is here that there the "consensus" to overturn practice of 4 years standing. The reason the "grouping" of close gauges was adopted is that there is almost no engineering difference between, say, a 750mm, 760mm and 762mm (2'6") gauge railways. In fact the equipment as far as gauge goes is normally interchangeable. The idea was to allow comparison between like, so that the curious reader could compare the different approaches taken towards the same engineering problems. I mean trying to split 760mm and 762mm gauges into different camps strikes me as just silly. In practical terms there was no difference. If you must go ahead with these "micro-categories" please leave the broad categories in place. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 07:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I see no consensus here - two editors in favour, two against, and one making a comment on fact. Please desist in trying to ramrod these changes through. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 07:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pulling back and letting us all discuss this. First up let me disclose that I was involve in setting up the cats 4 years ago. Actually my preference was for the use of metric measurements, and that remains my preference. I get the feeling here, and I could be wrong, that part of the problem is an Eurocentric approach. That is the Germans had one type of narrow gauge railway, the British had another, and so on. My personal interest is in narrow gauge railways outside Europe, and the position there is much more variable. You can find railways with British, US, German, Swiss, Belgium, French, even Japanese built equipment operating side by side. But lets examine the main issue that concern me in the current proposals, the artificial division of gauges into "metric" and 'imperial". This is artificial and counter productive, as well as raising problems. Artificial because the adoption of, say 750mm and 762mm, was made for the same engineering reasons, even if the gauges are slightly different to each other because of the "rounding off" to the closest "whole" gauge in the measuring system that happened to be in force at the time. Counter productive because the reader is unable to make comparisons between the various systems with closely related gauges. And of course problematic, and here are a number of examples:
Let's not forget there were definite trends in "gauge choice", for instance the swing towards 750mm/762mm at the end of the 19thC. It would be hard to observe that if the two gauges were split along this arbitary "metric/imperial divide. My proposal is simple, leave the groups as they are, and rename the categories to include the metric gauges, for instance 710-790mm (2'6") gauge railways. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 09:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
These are all well-made points which need to be acknowledged. Fundamentally I'd like to see a more direct connexion between the gauge of the railway (presumably as stated in the infobox/text) and the category. It's about clarity and accuracy, especially for the reader. A 600 mm railway should be in a category for 600 mm railways. How we arrive at the gauge is preceding step. It would be neat if e.g. all English/US/Commonwealth railways had been designed to imperial gauges and all the rest to metric. The split would simply be by country of origin - some imperial, others metric. But reality is more complicated. I still think we come back to one of the 4 options above if we want to move forward. I personally favour no. 3: imperial and metric depending on country of origin, noting that although UK has nowadays gone metric, the railways were designed and referred to in imperial units when built. And where e.g. Britain 'borrowed' a metric gauge, we could categorise by it's British designation (presumably imperial) and explain in the category notes that e.g. 1'11½" is the imperial size used by countries that imported the 600 mm gauge. In essence what I am saying is why don't we use the terminology of the country of origin. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 19:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard regarding {{ trainweb}}. Magog the Ogre ( talk · contribs) is starting to tag files to be deleted in a week and some have been removed from articles. What should we do here? — Train2104 ( talk • contribs • count) 18:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
This is under discussion of being moved. See Talk:Rail tracks#Requested move. Simply south ( talk) 23:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
A thread has been raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Locomotives task force#SD40-2 Merge, a talk page which doesn't seem to have much activity, probably few watchers. Could any GM/EMD specialists please take a look? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 17:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I came here via The Signpost's article on this Wikiproject, and because I've been gnoming through some articles that need their date formats fixed. All of the articles in this timeline seem to have been given clunky date-range titles. Here's an example: "May 1 - May 9".
I've been fixing this to, for example, "May 1–9", which looks a lot neater and uses the correct punctuation (an en dash). Please see WP:MOSDASH and WP:MOSDATE.
Please let me know if there's a problem with this. And could editors who maintain these articles use this format in the future? (I don't watchlist this page, so responses on my talk page, if there are any, please.)
Thank you. Tony (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I have been researching the British Columbia Electric Railway (BCER) / BC Hydro (BCH), now Southern Railway of BC (SRY). I have dug deep into its diesel motive power and have learned that all 12 of the EMD / GMD SW-type switchers they purchased are model SW900, not SW900RS, and that, in fact, there was never a SW900RS model produced by EMD / GMD. My sources for this info are Doug Cummings, a former BCER/BCH employee and retired locomotive broker, and EMD itself. I received an official corporate response recently, from two employees in their Service Parts Engineering Group, Jim Rusin and Yuk Mui.
The main SW900 article is correct, because it does not mention an RS designation anywhere and it also correctly lists the infor for BCER. However, a page linked to from that page, List of GMD Locomotives does have an RS category. What is the proper way to fix this issue? I am not sure, for example, if the 11 supposed-SW900RS total should be added to the 86 SW900 total immediately above it. Kent Sullivan ( talk) 16:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Kent Sullivan
There needs to be some information on the fact that the F40-PH has become an internet meme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.75.149.94 ( talk) 02:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
There's a debate/slow-motion edit war in progress at Korea Train Express, additional comments from third parties would be most welcome. Jpatokal ( talk) 12:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I just did some minor edits on the CP and CN pages and noticing how large their infoboxes (=logos) were I had a look at BNSF's - also really really huge in comparison to other wikipedia articles. What's with this? The effect is to make a really really big logo, and to push text off to a narrow column; there are too many factors within the table - the logo size, the map size - for me to know how to reduce them; but they're clearly - clearly - too large. Would someone please reduce these, and keep and eye on advertising-promotional scale use of logos? Wikipedia articles are not the sides of boxcars.... Skookum1 ( talk) 11:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
My Uncle worked for many years at Stratford and told me that all the "Britannia" crews from whichever Region were a little "club" and used to meet up socially.
70047 was a London Midland loco and some names were actually suggested for her. One was "Tempest" to complete a series of World War II aircraft, another was "Princess Anne" to replace 46202 lost at Harrow & Wealdstone in 1952.
Another suggestion was to name her after the Chief Locomotive Engineer of British Railways 'Robin' Riddles. Mr. Riddles modestly declined the accolade but thereafter 70047 was known unofficially as "Riddles". 86.133.122.207 ( talk) 09:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC) John Walden —Preceding Signatures comment added by 86.133.122.207 ( talk) 09:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
After my recent renaming spree of DART Light Rail stations, and Trinity Railway Express stations, I think the same thing should happen to ****(Vancouver SkyTrain station), such as King George (Vancouver SkyTrain station). Honestly, I just looked at the list of recent changes, and when I saw it, I thought of King Street (WMATA station). Then I realized I thought of the wrong name, but renaming them is still a good idea. ---- DanTD ( talk) 00:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The article Gartsherrie East Junction 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)
15:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I just visited Yangon, Myanmar, in mid-September and also went to see the railway station there. Inside the tourist office, there is a route map of "Yangon Circular Railway" hanged on the wall. But the wordings "Yangon Circular Railline" was printed on the route map. So I wonder which is the official name, Yangon Circular "Railway" or Yangon Circular "Railline"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Islandsouthwilson ( talk • contribs) 16:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, {{ BSkm}} has been requested to be renamed. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 02:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Strand Beach Funicular has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 06:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
WTF (I left a message on User_talk:AmosWolfe#Railway_icons), but I guess it's not their fault. Did I miss a memo?
The problem is that any template using "continue arrows" is now bust eg http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Aberford_Railway&oldid=385417202 (was correct before) Sf5xeplus ( talk) 20:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I've traced it to this : see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Axpde#No_Nein_Niet_Non
I don't know enough to know what is correct here. Sf5xeplus ( talk) 20:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
tCONTl
),
exCONTl
),
uCONTl
) etc. all point right,
CONTl
) should have pointed right also (similarly, CONTr should have pointed left to match the other *CONTr ones), and so somebody on Commons decided to exchange CONTl with CONTr without actually setting up a task to fix their transclusions. Despite comments left by
Axpde (
talk ·
contribs) on that thread, I am unable to find the discussions on Commons to which he refers.Unaltered RDT | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
RDT manually fixed | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
CONTr
) and
CONTl
) were exchanged on 9 October 2010 purely so that the names would be consistent with the other left/right pairs such as
tCONTr
)/
tCONTl
),
exCONTr
)/
exCONTl
), etc. When
Chrisbot (
talk ·
contribs) did such exchanges in the past, it also went through every page which used the icons concerned and adjusted the names, so that the visual appearance of the RDTs remained unchanged. In this case however, no bot update of RDTs has occurred, so we're left with a horrendous mixture of unaltered RDTs which now look wrong (see upper RDT at right) and RDTs which have been manually altered so that they now look just the same as they had done prior to 9 Oct (lower RDT at right). --
Redrose64 (
talk)
11:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)AmosWolfe ( User_talk:Sf5xeplus#Railway_Icons) tells me that a bot is supposed to fix the problem. There are over 1500 pages affected, and the ones I've looked at haven't been fixed. I think trying to do this manually is a mistake .. we need a list of pages fixed and pages not fixed. (Otherwise we'll end up with an unbotable mess)
Is there a list of manually fixed icons - the bot needs to ignore these. Sf5xeplus ( talk) 11:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
And the bot's operator appears to have retired .. anyone know how to work the bot? Sf5xeplus ( talk) 11:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
please list below any articles manually changed (please list the template not the article if transcluded)
Template:Bury Lines, Template:Ouse Valley Railway RDT, Template:Salford Lines, Template:Railways around Didcot RDT
This list is from my page. I have worked the list over the last few days doing the icons. Britmax ( talk) 23:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
XYZ
I hope nobody minded that i moved some templates whilst this discussion was going on. Didcot in particular can now be found at {{ Railways around Didcot RDT}}. Simply south ( talk) 17:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
BS-header}}
template to match the new template name,
like this. This parameter is used to generate those links: if it's left alone, the v-d-e will link to the redirect, not to the template itself. Compare this: to this: . --
Redrose64 (
talk)
16:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)I hope someone can enlighten me. Where did the "standard" for RDT at the end of every railway route map come from? I have just gone through a 25% sample of the diagrams in Category:Rail routemap templates and found very few with the RDT suffix. Even in the UK only a few currently have the RDT suffix. Are we sure this is going the right way?
Some examples
To date the template has had the same name as the article, this is now changing - and there are now many articles going to require changing to remove the redirects. I can see a considerable amount of maintenance coming up.
-- Stewart ( talk | edits) 19:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I think this should be added somewhere.
These templates may ideally be distinguished from others by having the suffices "route diagram", "route map", "map" or "RDT".
Simply south ( talk) 11:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
1) Should suffices be added to RDTs to distinguish them from other templates? 2) If so, should a single suffix be used such as RDT, route diagram or equivalent? Which?
Also, Jenuk 1985, is it okay if i move your opinion to this subsection? Simply south ( talk) 20:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Per above. Simply south ( talk) 19:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm just going to apologise now and stop moving the RDTs. Simply south ( talk) 23:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel that this diagram could profitably be shortened by removing the N&S joint railway sections and replacing them with a link to the joint line's own article? Britmax ( talk) 10:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
M&GN Extract | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Would you replace the area with something really minimal as the detail is covered by the line's own article, say this? Britmax ( talk) 11:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
show}}
parameters into this diagram (like with
Template:Metropolitan Main Line RDT) to enable long sections with many small stations (e.g. Honing to Caister) to be hidden.
Lamberhurst (
talk)
14:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)The article Grand Junction, Birmingham, England 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)
15:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Could someone with coding skills fix something I've noticed thats amiss with the Romford to Upminster Line i.e. why all the info appears in the infobox? Simply south ( talk) 12:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I've proposed to make it HO scale; please join the discussion at Talk:H0 scale#Formally requesting move. Mangoe ( talk) 20:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Once again, former User:Lordkinbote's images have been tagged for mass deletion. Many of them are the only ones of their kind on Wikipedia, so I encouraging anyone who can do so to start saving them now. ---- DanTD ( talk) 17:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The article High rail 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)
16:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject Trains! I have recently been reading RailVolution and came across the passage "The underframe is designed to withstand an end-on compressive force of 2,000 kN, and complies with the UIC 566 standard."
I do not really understand this passage, but part of the reason is that there is no article for underframe. If someone here is an expert on the subject, I humbly request that they look into creating such an article, or redirecting to an existing article with this information. Perhaps more information should be added about the various UIC standards, as I found this to be lacking to an amateur/enthusiast such as myself. Thanks, Ynhockey ( Talk) 23:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Rail transport articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Would appreciate a review of Thomas Gray (1788–1848) for consideration as an added entry on the railway history timeline for the year 1820. This date coincides his publication of Observations on a General Iron Railway. This promotional work coincided with much of the early legislation associated with steam locomotion in UK. Thank-you. CUoD ( talk) 00:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 17:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon two articles on the UK's Docklands Light Rail; One is Poplar DLR depot, which is tagged as an orphan, and the other is Poplar DLR station. The "station" article is linked to the "depot" one, and I almost thought the "depot" was a duplicate or a relief segment of the "station." However, the lead sentence of the depot article calls this "The Poplar Traincare Depot," which gives me the impression that this is actually a yard or storage facility. So why the duplicate if this isn't the case? ---- DanTD ( talk) 13:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations)#Capitalisation of french railway stations
Hi, I came across Réseau Nord, Réseau Montparnasse and a few similar articles. Basically these articles are about which destinations can be reached from the main terminus stations in Paris (gare du Nord, gare Montparnasse etc.). As far as I know, the national railway company SNCF isn't organised along these "réseaux" (networks). When the SNCF was founded in 1938, it was subdivided into régions (Nord, Est, Ouest, Sud-Ouest and Sud-Est), more or less conform the former railway companies that formed the SNCF. This structure existed until 1972 according to French wikipedia (couldn't find anything useful confirming this on the SNCF website). Currently the local trains (TER) are organised by administrative region, e.g. Picardie, Lorraine, Corse, Bourgogne. So I think the "Réseau X" articles are not very useful, and should be merged with the respective station articles (Réseau Nord --> Gare du Nord etc.). I think the Category:Région Nord and similar categories can be deleted as well. Thoughts? Markussep Talk 14:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been doing a little work updating/correcting articles on railways in developing countries.
I've noticed that we have a swathe of articles along the lines of "Railway stations in country X" even when country X has no functioning railways, or has barely enough to fill the existing article on "Railways in country X" which sits awkwardly alongside. Also, the "Railway stations in country X" articles seem to have been built according to some set structure which, I think, could do with some improvement. For an example, see
Railway stations in Niger. I think it's pretty redundant as there are no railway stations in Niger and there never have been, the layout is awkward, and we already have an article on
Rail transport in Niger (a paragraph on proposed projects; the usual story of African infrastructure) as well as several more paragraphs on the same thing over at
Transport in Niger#Railway(1). This applies to many other countries too. Hence we have lots of duplication (making it difficult to maintain accuracy) and some unattractive articles that try to fill a page whilst saying very little (and still manage to overlap with other pages while they do it).
Was there some policy reason, or some overarching consensus, which required the creation of "Railway stations in country X" articles in this way, regardless of content? If so, I shall abide by it, but if not I'd like to have a go at tidying this mess up. Any suggestions / comments / complaints?
bobrayner (
talk)
13:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
(1) As an aside, it seems popular to write about gauge changes even when there is no railway built, and even if a railway were built it would have small traffic and slow operations regardless of gauge breaks. I'm not sure why this is such a popular subject, but hey.... over at
Rail transport in Afghanistan somebody was banging on about building thousands of km of dual- or triple- gauge.
(outdent) The scope of the problem is potentially boggling. In some countries any place there was ever even a platform is the subject of an article, and my attempt to try to rein that in failed utterly. Mangoe ( talk) 20:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
(outdent)The Railway stations in the United States article was deleted, and I can't say I disagree with it too much. But has anybody saved the content of the article in a personal file? I keep thinking it might be good for something, even if it was written like crap. ---- DanTD ( talk) 18:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Back to Africa, I had a quick squiz at Railway stations in Kenya and Rail transport in Kenya and I'd recommend a merger given the huge overlap of the content as the pages stand. There seem to be no articles about actual railway stations linked to from Railway stations in Kenya, so List of railway stations in Kenya is going to be a page of red links. This could change over time but for now I'd support merging all the Railway stations in x page to Rail transport in x, and think about starting List of Railway stations in x for place where there is a hope of getting some articles to link to. (I don't consider categories as a substitute for lists - categories can't contain red links). Railwayfan2005 ( talk) 20:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm
requesting an
A-Class review for
Wallkill Valley Rail Trail, which has just become a GA. None of the involved projects have a formal A-Class method, so I'm requesting that two editors review the article and support its promotion. I'm reposting this request on the talk pages of all involved projects.
--
Gyrobo (
talk)
03:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Anyone want to assist in populating Category:Categories named after railway lines by country? __ meco ( talk) 21:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Categories on transportation accidents are hyped up to "disasters" as you go up the line in categorization. I have recategorized CSX 8888 incident so it rolls up into categorized "incidents" all the way up the line. Before, it rolled up into "accident" categories, which, in turn, rolled up into "Disaster" categories! While I have changed it for this one incident (for 2001 only, for example), many other categories need to be defined to replace ones that wrongly promote into worse-sounding categories. Student7 ( talk) 14:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm very surprised that there's no article on this subject. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 11:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I just wanted to pop by and mention something with respect to the articles titles as above (I'm not a member of this project, and I haven't really done any editing on wikipedia at all for a long while). I work for NR and the strategic routes and sections and their numbering have changed. There are now 17 strategic routes (marked A to Q), so it's probable that there's some editing to do to these articles. However, I'm not sure how much of this information is in the public domain and therefore citable as a source, even if it's in common use in the company. This may well be already common knowledge to you chaps here, but if not and if there's a dearth of further info, I'll see what I can do to provide more, though naturally I'm restricted by confidentiality, etc. Let me know if more info is needed. Cheers. El Pollo Diablo ( Talk) 17:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)