![]() | 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. |
I've just finished creating a web page about the final Grand Canyon Limited...or, more precisely, its nameless successor (the train lost its name at some point between March and June of 1968). According to the Official Guide of the Railways for April 1971 and according to Keith L. Bryant Jr.'s History of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. it was the final Santa Fe passenger train to operate and in fact as far as published schedule is concerned (I don't have records of actual arrival times) was the last pre-Amtrak passenger train of any original Amtrak member railroad. However, when I checked the Wikipedia entry for the train, I see that it shows the train being discontinued in January 1970.
I feel that my own references are pretty sound, but I do not have any of the references cited in the article to compare reliability of the source material. I could go ahead and change the article myself, of course, and I may just do that if I can't persuade anyone here to help. However, I would prefer to work with another editor, preferably someone with access to some of the reference material that I don't have. I can provide information from a pretty extensive collection of Official Guides of the Railways and a few other books such as Some Classic Trains and More Classic Trains.
Is anyone interested in working with me on this? If so, contact me via my talk page or by email—my email address is readily available on my web site, Streamliner Schedules (I check the email more frequently than the talk page). Thanks In Advance! Ehbowen ( talk) 00:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
What happened to the map at 8th Street (SEPTA station)? The image was in the PATCO Speedline chapter at this link, and had two descriptions; 1)"A map of the station layout on display across from the South Fare Gates," and 2)"A map of the station layout, shown below, is on display across from the South Fare Gates." Now it has a thumbnal with a missing link. ---- DanTD ( talk) 23:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm currently working as the
Wikipedian-in-Residence at
The Children's Museum of Indianapolis, where students recently created the article for the
Reuben Wells steam locomotive located there. I wanted to touch base with you all and ask that you check the article for any necessary clarifications. We were a DYK and some of you may have already come upon the article through that, as I mistakenly included an inaccurate generalization as the DYK hook (I know to triple check hooks, now!) We are about to post a QR code in the exhibit for this train and I thought it'd be helpful to check with you all, in addition to our curators, before that goes live. Thanks ahead of time! Let me know if you have any questions.
HstryQT (
talk)
17:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The Railway stations in Burundi article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 06:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a similar problem with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:VERIFY with the (non-existent) Railway stations in Rwanda and Rail transport in Rwanda duplicating similar content in Transport in Rwanda#Railways and about the same speculation and proposals for a possible railway to link Rwanda to the coast which just might get extended into Burundi. Tim PF ( talk) 09:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
As a general comment, editors here may wish to add Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation to their watchlists. AfD debates with relevance to this project should be (and normally are) listed on that page. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Now that Railway stations in Burundi and others have been deleted, should they be recreated as a simple redirects (eg to Transport in Burundi#Railways) or specifically left deleted?
I favour using redirects as there are other articles that use the Template:Railway stations in Africa (which can be edited to point directly to the "Transport in ..." articles), but also those "Rail transport in ..." which use the Template:Africa topic, which will show up as redlinks unless redirected, and may encourage recreation as articles.
The alternative to the latter would be to create a Template:Rail transport in Africa which can also pipe links to the "Transport in ..." articles. Similar for Asia, except that Template:Asia topic is used for both "Railway stations in ..." and "Rail transport in ...". Any thoughts? Tim PF ( talk) 09:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The Gare de la Bastille article needs to be reassessed please. Mjroots ( talk) 19:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Currently I have noticed that a lot of the foreign trains, for example the German ones, have infoboxes taken straight from the German language version of the wiki. Obviously when I see them, I add the conversion figures in, but should the English wiki have a standardized layout for ALL train infoboxes? I appreciate this is a lot of work but I'm myself fixing a heck of a lot of older train articles that lack conversion tables.
Lukeno94 ( talk) 11:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure this never existed. There is a discussion at Talk:Stainby_railway_station#No_evidence. If anyone knows anything could they join there, else I will nominate for deletion. -- Robert EA Harvey ( talk) 17:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Should infoboxes use the term Weight or Mass? Separate, slightly different, but related, threads started at Template talk:Infobox locomotive#Recent changes: weight to mass and at Template talk:Infobox train#Recent change: weight to mass. Comments there are invited. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 14:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I am currently applying to ScotRail for permission to take photographs of all the stations on the Argyle Line for the purposes of illustrating their Wikipedia articles, where the current image is more than one year old. In my letter to them I have explained that my interest is to ensure all Wikipedia articles for stations on their network have relevant, up to date images which accurately depict the stations (for example, the Carluke railway station has changed quite a bit since the photo currently in use was taken in 1998). I have asked permission to photograph the Argyle Line because my local station lies on it and I wanted to focus on a small group at first. However, if there are any stations in Scotland which this project feels need photographs urgently, I will add them to my application. It will be sent to First ScotRail's Sponsorship and Events Manager on 26 April 2011 so I need any requested stations by them. Please note, Glasgow Central and Edinburgh Waverly are operated by Network Rail, who have more stringent security in place and give out permits to take photos less frequently (and generally also charge people for the privilege). -- Terryblack ( talk) 18:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Currently, there is an article which covers the 1913 locomotive, but there was also an older version. I propose a rename of the Class D article, for more see it's talk page. Lukeno94 ( talk) 10:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I have again proposed this for splitting but with further reasoning. Please see Talk:List of London Underground stations#Ah, that age old question. Simply south.... .. trying to improve for 5 years 17:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TrackConversion ( talk · contribs)
Massive and inappropriate metrication of gauge-related categories, also some bizarre renaming. Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Though it should be noted that there's nothing preventing us from having two parallel sets of categories, one imperial and one metric, and putting an article in both appropriate categories. That's something that categories can do that other items (such as titles, templates, and navboxes) can't do. oknazevad ( talk) 19:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The Rail gauge article actually redirects to Track gauge, but now Template:Rail gauges has now been retitled as "Track gauge" (although not yet moved to Template:Track gauge) by TrackConversion. I'm raising this as a sub-section here, as I think that the discussion is related but separate.
Just for the record, Rail gauge has an awful lot of links to it, and it is the term I would use. Whilst I am all for consistency, that is something that I would have raised here to identify the preferred term before changing it (or reverting edits / moves). Tim PF ( talk) 22:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
This is a list of track gauges by size.
The quarter inch is the smallest fraction shown for gauges defined in imperial units.
Gauge | imperial | metric | other unit | Name | Notes | Grouping |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2140 | yes | no | Brunel's broad gauge | UK, and other | Broad | |
1829 | yes | no | Broad | |||
1676 | yes | yes | Indian gauge | Broad | ||
1672 | yes, 6 Castilian feet | (historic) | Broad | |||
1668 | yes | Iberian gauge | Broad | |||
1664 | yes, 5 Portuguese feet | (historic) | Broad | |||
1600 | yes | yes | Irish gauge | Broad | ||
1588 | yes | no | Pennsylvania Trolley Gauge | Broad | ||
1581 | yes | no | Pennsylvania Trolley Gauge | (variant) | Broad | |
1524 | yes | yes | Russian gauge | original and Finnish gauge | Broad | |
1520 | yes | Russian gauge | redefinition in the 1960s | Broad | ||
1473 | yes | no | Broad | |||
1445 | no | yes | Italian broad gauge | Broad | ||
1435 | yes | yes | Standard gauge | Standard | ||
1422 | yes | no | Narrow/Medium | |||
1372 | yes | yes | Scotch gauge | Narrow/Medium | ||
1295 | yes | no | Narrow/Medium | |||
1270 | yes | no | Narrow/Medium | |||
1245 | yes | no | only UK (England) | Narrow/Medium | ||
1219 | yes | no | only UK and US | Narrow/Medium | ||
1100 | yes | only in Germany | Narrow/Medium | |||
1093 | yes | only one line in Sweden | Narrow/Medium | |||
1067 | yes | yes | Cape gauge | Narrow/Medium | ||
1000 | yes | Metre gauge | Narrow/Medium | |||
950 | yes | Italian metre gauge | Narrow | |||
914 | yes | no | Narrow | |||
891 | yes | yes, 3 Swedish feet | Swedish narrow gauge | only in Sweden | Narrow | |
838 | yes | no | Narrow | |||
802 | ? | only historic in Sweden | Narrow | |||
800 | yes | Narrow | ||||
785 | ? | Narrow | ||||
762 | yes | no | Narrow | |||
760 | no | yes | Bosnian gauge | Narrow | ||
750 | yes | Narrow | ||||
711 | ? | Narrow | ||||
700 | yes | Italian narrow gauge | Narrow | |||
686 | yes | no | Narrow | |||
622 | yes | no | Narrow | |||
610 | ? | Narrow | ||||
603 | yes | no | Narrow | |||
600 | yes | Decauville 600 | Narrow | |||
597 | yes | no | Narrow/Minimum | |||
578 | yes | no | Narrow/Minimum | |||
558 | yes | only Dominican Republic | Narrow/Minimum | |||
530 mm | yes | ? | Narrow/Minimum | |||
500 | no | yes | Decauville 500 | Narrow/Minimum | ||
483 | yes | no | only Isle of Man | Narrow/Minimum | ||
457 | yes | no | Narrow/Minimum | |||
400 | no | yes | Decauville 400 | Narrow/Minimum | ||
381 | yes | yes | Narrow/Minimum | |||
311 | yes | no | Narrow/Minimum | |||
305 | yes | no | Narrow/Minimum | |||
260 | ? | Narrow/Minimum | ||||
184 | yes | ? | Narrow/Minimum |
updated TrackConversion ( talk) 16:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
None of the above are set in stone, and all are open to discusson. Some of the above would be head categories, with subcategories by country, should the number of articles in each category justify subcategorization. Mjroots ( talk) 05:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |page=
has extra text (
help)) states that although the Portuguese and Spanish rail gauge is nominally 5ft 6in, they are in fact 1.665 and 1.674 metres respectively. A small number of vehicles were fitted with wheels with a special profile that enabled them to run on both systems, but the majority of vehicles were confined to their own system.
Mjroots (
talk)
11:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Note, that naming according to origin would mean that the new lines in India that are originally defined in mm, go into a category different from the old lines build before metrication in India. Same for other lines in South Asia, maybe except for Burma. TrackConversion ( talk) 14:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
From the above there is consensus to have imperial unit categories. Shall they be numerical or textual? Mjroots listed numerical first, EdJogg prefers numerical. The heavily used Template:RailGauge gives numerical output as standard output, that means it could be best to use that format. Maybe making automated categorization or at least checks of correctness in the future easier. Also readability might be better. On the other hand, what is more common? Currently used is textual. If using quarter values, would they be easier to represent textual? User Pencefn/Stewart prefers textual. I have no strong opinion. TrackConversion ( talk) 16:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I think quarter inch precision should be used, but the absolute minimum is to have inch precision. de WP and hu WP use millimeter and all other WPs will likely too since the native speakers there are used to metric values. This is also an issue for interwiki linking, but that is a technical problem. From a content point of view, non-metric en WP categories may have a disadvantage in precision if not using quarter inches. Those gauges that are defined in imperial units are mostly only distinguished by a quarter of an inch, so that would be precise enough. TrackConversion ( talk) 16:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1 International inch = 25.4 millimeter. Quarter of an international inch = 6.35 millimeter. So even with quarters the precision is lower than with millimeters, but that should be no problem, and should be precise enough. In fact the one defined in imperial units, may have been always defined to the full quarter. TrackConversion ( talk) 16:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Until we get to a consensus, can we call a halt to the creation of new categories. So far today the following categories have been created:
-- Stewart ( talk | edits) 16:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Reply
TrackConversion ( talk) 18:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
It think dispute is only related to content inside Category:Track gauge by size. TrackConversion ( talk) 00:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
RFC now at
Category talk:Track gauge by size
Mjroots (
talk)
I started an RfC at
Category talk:Track gauge. The proposal above is introducing inaccuracy. This makes WP less usable.
TrackConversion (
talk)
17:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
At
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Track gauge categories it is proposed
This is inaccurate. TrackConversion ( talk) 17:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
TrackConversion continues to press ahead changing railway articles as if his changes were agreed by this community when he knows they are not. I have yet to see a more blatant disregard of the need for consensus on Wikipedia. Can we reconsider a temporary ban whilst we discuss the way ahead? Otherwise we are just being steamrollered. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 18:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
It turns out that TC was another sock of a banned user. Therefore his edits may be reverted on sight. For this reason, I would suggest that we don't need to go via WP:CFD to create, delete or move categories in relation to the above discussion. There have been some good suggestions above about categorization of gauges, and these should continue to be looked at., see new section below. Mjroots ( talk) 09:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Units should use space per WP:UNIT. Also it reads:
International scope: Wikipedia is not country-specific; apart from some regional or historical topics, use the units in most widespread use worldwide for the type of measurement in question.
Apply these guidelines when choosing the units for the measurements that come first:
TellSI ( talk) 12:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Note, TellSI is a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user. Da.squirrels ( talk) 18:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I asked this on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation, but nobody has been able or willing to answer me; Can anybody identify the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad locmotive shown here at Port Chester Station from the 1950's? It looks like an E7 diesel with drivers compartments at both ends. ---- DanTD ( talk) 00:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed that someone is shoehorning diagrams into infoboxes, resulting in them breaking up? I think people are creating separate RDT's and not watching whether they display properly in the articles. Any suggestions as to how we stop this happening? Britmax ( talk) 17:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Although by size it falls into Category:Russian gauge railways, I've included the Toronto rapid transit and streetcar lines into Category:4ft 10in gauge railways for two reasons:
(The historic reason given for this gauge was to prevent freight trains from running on city streets.) Useddenim ( talk) 01:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest that the break between Category:5ft gauge railways and Category:4ft 10in gauge railways be changed from 4' 10½" to 4' 11". I doesn't make any sense to me personally that the 4ft 10in category excludes a track gauge of 4' 10+fractional", and still won't exclude any Russian gauges that belong in the 5ft gauge category. Useddenim ( talk) 16:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, we've had some good suggestions above. Splitting the cats into 3 (Broad, standard and narrow) I'm suggesting the following Categories and scope (note that my preference for numerical categories does not mean that we cannot use the worded categories if that is what the consensus is):-
There are few variations once we get below 18" gauge, therfore I propose
There may be a few I've missed out, but the proposed structure above should make it clear where these would fall. Mjroots ( talk) 09:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
All other metric gauge categories created by TC to be deleted, with articles recategorized to imperial gauges. Mjroots ( talk) 11:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
It looks like a consensus is emerging for numerical categories. Down to specifics then.
Any other thoughts? Mjroots ( talk) 18:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
<<sockpuppet comments moved out of the way to allow constructive discussion to continue ( EdJogg ( talk) 20:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)) >>
Why use "railways"? Then the category:Standard gauge railways can not include the article Standard gauge, since a track gauge is not a railway. Also, does that include trams? TellSI ( talk) 19:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Note, TellSI is a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user. Da.squirrels ( talk) 19:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
A quick straw poll to see if there is preference for numerical or word gauge categories - i.e "Category:7¼ inch gauge railways" or "Category:Seven and a quarter inch gauge railways" Please state your preference. Mjroots ( talk) 09:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that enough has been said and a start should be made on creating the category trees. The least contentious is the Standard gauge railways category, which just needs splitting down by continent and then by country. Once that has been done, categories will need to be populated. You can help! Mjroots ( talk) 06:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I am migrating the articles to the redirected categories: I renamed Iberian Gauge... to Iberian gauge... Note that
List of track gauges by size has two columns that may be relevant, (imperial and metric) but should not link to categories, especially deleted or redirected categories. Note also that there is generally value in leaving plausible category redirects - although their own categorisation and other etceteras should probably be removed.
Rich
Farmbrough,
23:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC).
I've been doing some recategorizing of geography and transportation infoboxes, and so far I have found nearly 40 different train station infoboxes apart from the standard Template:Infobox station - see Category:Railway station infobox templates. I don't know much about trains, but I do know there are a lot of people who feel really passionate about them, so I don't really want to wade in and attempt to merge these all to one standard template myself. It seems as though Template:Infobox station could be used as a wrapper to make daughter templates where certain things should be standardized across a line - but it's crazy to have 40 different templates when there shouldn't be so much variation between these infoboxes! Hope you guys are interested in sorting this out! Best, Calliopejen1 ( talk) 22:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I am the creator of some of these infobox templates. Infobox station appears to have been devised originally for North American stations. Most of the others are specific to either a particular country or a particular system. Although it might be possible to consolidate these a little, each country or system has its own individual quirks, and that's why it makes some sense for them to have their own infoboxes. Also, the appearance of the infoboxes varies a lot, and some of them are tailor made to tie in with the logos, etc, of the individual country or system to which the infobox applies. I would suggest that they just be left as they are, at least for the time being. Bahnfrend ( talk) 13:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed an inconsistency in the definition of "Medium gauge railways" as used in the Narrow gauge railway and List of rail gauges articles.
The former used to read Railways built on gauges between slightly under a metre and 56.5, but still included 36 and 900.
So, this begs the question on whether or not medium gauge is a made-up name, and if it does exist, is there an industry definition? If the broad definitions of common carrier and high train speeds and capacity are taken as valid, then might it refer to a combination of rail gauge and loading gauge, perhaps with reference to being able to carry Intermodal containers? I note that several three-foot gauge railways appear to be able to transport containers, but I doubt if two-foot gauge railways could.
I note that this is probably original research, but I don't think the current article definitions are much better, and if it cannot be referenced after almost a year, both articles should be changed to eliminate that grouping. Tim PF ( talk) 10:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
A new sub-section about the seven-foot gauge harbour railway at Ponta Delgada (Azores) has recently been added by Axpde ( talk · contribs), who may have been selectively referencing web articles which quote the actual gauge as exactly 7 feet (2,134 mm), even though they may also quote it as Brunel gauge. I have added an additional citation which states 7 ft (2,134 mm), and to avoid an edit war, have left the article reading that the actual gauge is unclear.
Axpde stated in one edit summary that Azores used 2134 mm ... and I doubt that Isambard Kingdom Brunel used "7 ft ¼ in"!. After I pointed out that Brunel originally specified exactly 7 feet (2,134 mm), but found that it had to be slightly widened by ¼ inch (6 mm), he replied that On German WP there are lot of talks conc. this topic. The problem is: Some users want to have one width per gauge, negating that sometimes a gauge changes slightly ... So Brunel Gauge is actually both 2134 mm and 2140 mm!.
Brunel's GWR broad gauge is usually referred to as "seven-foot", but quoted as "7 feet 0¼ inches", but it is unclear if these harbour railways actually used Brunel gauge, or an exact "7-foot" gauge. I certainly haven't found anything on the web that says that they used ex-GWR (or similar) locomotives, or anything that really speaks with authority one way or the other.
Whilst I'm on the subject, the Brunel gauge article was recently created by TC, has no references, and does not refer to Brunel's original intention of an exact "7-foot" gauge. Tim PF ( talk) 13:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikimedia UK have been approached by the National Railway Museum in York. The museum would like to collaborate in the creation of articles to support their new railway related art gallery. They have some skills, but they would appreciate the support of some volunteers. Ideally two of these would be in commutable distance of the museum. Others could assist on line. If you have an article that shows you can handle most wiki markup and you have some appreciation of how to load an image to commons (or can teach yourself before we ask!) then please sign below. The level of commitment would be by agreement to suit you and reasonable travel expenses are likely. Victuallers ( talk) 16:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC) (Chair of Wikimedia UK)
I've created the following additional track gauge categories as there didn't seem to be any existing categories. Feel free to add them to the master list (is it still the one on this page?) or adjust the categories to fit, or whatever. It seems like there are quite a few sui generis track gauges used by funicular railways - and I've only done the ones in the UK and those named "Castle Hill" so far. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
And some more:
Thryduulf ( talk) 15:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The five extant articles about railway lines in Jamaica (see Category:Railway lines in Jamaica) are all currently named in the format "Railways of Jamaica: X to Y", e.g. Railways of Jamaica: Bog Walk to Port Antonio.
This is an unusual naming scheme that looks more like a sub-article convention than is the standard on Wikipedia. I would suggest moving them to a more typical format "X to Y line" or "X to Y line (Jamaica)" if disambiguation is needed, although I don't think it will be in any of these five cases.
Please leave any comments you have at talk:Railways of Jamaica: Bog Walk to Port Antonio. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Several of the new track gauge categories have been nominated for deletion or merging at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 11, please leave your comments there. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
RFCs have been opened on the use of flagicons in lists and in infoboxes. Mjroots ( talk) 16:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Train photographer Richard Steinheimer died, there's a good obit in the LATimes. (probably in other places too). The article needs a makeover- I suspected the railfans would have already done it- guess not! tedder ( talk) 19:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I think List of locomotive builders is in a difficult position. It probably needs a lot of work (and is almost certainly rather incomplete). Should it be fixed up, or should it redirect? Any thoughts from the sages of WikiProject Trains? Can anyone assist? bobrayner ( talk) 20:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The List of railway stations is in a very poor state, so following no objections in nearly 6 months work will shortly start on converting it to a List of lists of railway stations. Discussion of practical matters relating to this are just starting on the talk page. Please come and help! Thryduulf ( talk) 14:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I was looking at Category:Railway stations by country, and I noticed that most of the subcategories have mainly subcategories and few articles. For instance, Category:Railway stations in France has 28 subcategories and no articles and Category:Railway stations in Norway has 55 subcategories and no articles. So, I was surprised to see that Category:Railway stations in Germany has 20 subcategories and 180 articles. Of these 180, five, namely Railway stations in Germany, German railway station categories (nothing to do with Wikipedia categories), List of Intercity-Express railway stations, Railway station types of Germany, and Template:German railway stations, cannot be included in any of the Category:Railway stations in Bundesland categories, and presumably therefore belong in this category. The other 175 are probably both in a Category:Railway stations in Bundesland category and in Category:Railway stations in Germany. To keep the categorisation consistent, the category Railway stations in Germany should therefore be removed from these articles. If nobody disagrees with this, I will go through these 175 articles and make that edit and any other necessary edits which I may notice when I read them. Coyets ( talk) 11:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Is the syntax of the title correct? I'd think "Train station in Holbrook, Arizona" sounds better. Raymie ( t • c) 04:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'm becoming doubtful that Amtrak ever served Holbrook. I'd appreciate some eyes on this article. Mackensen (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
When I added the standard gauge category to MetroLink (St. Louis), I saw categories there claiming that MetroLink operates on former Wabash Railroad, Louisville and Nashville Railroad, and Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad lines. Which stations were along these systems? I tried to ask this on the MetroLink page, but nobody could or would answer me. ---- DanTD ( talk) 19:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
See [2] and [3]. Those two sources seem to confirm the Wabash and the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis. Mackensen (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2011 (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. |
I've just finished creating a web page about the final Grand Canyon Limited...or, more precisely, its nameless successor (the train lost its name at some point between March and June of 1968). According to the Official Guide of the Railways for April 1971 and according to Keith L. Bryant Jr.'s History of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. it was the final Santa Fe passenger train to operate and in fact as far as published schedule is concerned (I don't have records of actual arrival times) was the last pre-Amtrak passenger train of any original Amtrak member railroad. However, when I checked the Wikipedia entry for the train, I see that it shows the train being discontinued in January 1970.
I feel that my own references are pretty sound, but I do not have any of the references cited in the article to compare reliability of the source material. I could go ahead and change the article myself, of course, and I may just do that if I can't persuade anyone here to help. However, I would prefer to work with another editor, preferably someone with access to some of the reference material that I don't have. I can provide information from a pretty extensive collection of Official Guides of the Railways and a few other books such as Some Classic Trains and More Classic Trains.
Is anyone interested in working with me on this? If so, contact me via my talk page or by email—my email address is readily available on my web site, Streamliner Schedules (I check the email more frequently than the talk page). Thanks In Advance! Ehbowen ( talk) 00:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
What happened to the map at 8th Street (SEPTA station)? The image was in the PATCO Speedline chapter at this link, and had two descriptions; 1)"A map of the station layout on display across from the South Fare Gates," and 2)"A map of the station layout, shown below, is on display across from the South Fare Gates." Now it has a thumbnal with a missing link. ---- DanTD ( talk) 23:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm currently working as the
Wikipedian-in-Residence at
The Children's Museum of Indianapolis, where students recently created the article for the
Reuben Wells steam locomotive located there. I wanted to touch base with you all and ask that you check the article for any necessary clarifications. We were a DYK and some of you may have already come upon the article through that, as I mistakenly included an inaccurate generalization as the DYK hook (I know to triple check hooks, now!) We are about to post a QR code in the exhibit for this train and I thought it'd be helpful to check with you all, in addition to our curators, before that goes live. Thanks ahead of time! Let me know if you have any questions.
HstryQT (
talk)
17:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The Railway stations in Burundi article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 06:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a similar problem with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:VERIFY with the (non-existent) Railway stations in Rwanda and Rail transport in Rwanda duplicating similar content in Transport in Rwanda#Railways and about the same speculation and proposals for a possible railway to link Rwanda to the coast which just might get extended into Burundi. Tim PF ( talk) 09:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
As a general comment, editors here may wish to add Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation to their watchlists. AfD debates with relevance to this project should be (and normally are) listed on that page. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Now that Railway stations in Burundi and others have been deleted, should they be recreated as a simple redirects (eg to Transport in Burundi#Railways) or specifically left deleted?
I favour using redirects as there are other articles that use the Template:Railway stations in Africa (which can be edited to point directly to the "Transport in ..." articles), but also those "Rail transport in ..." which use the Template:Africa topic, which will show up as redlinks unless redirected, and may encourage recreation as articles.
The alternative to the latter would be to create a Template:Rail transport in Africa which can also pipe links to the "Transport in ..." articles. Similar for Asia, except that Template:Asia topic is used for both "Railway stations in ..." and "Rail transport in ...". Any thoughts? Tim PF ( talk) 09:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The Gare de la Bastille article needs to be reassessed please. Mjroots ( talk) 19:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Currently I have noticed that a lot of the foreign trains, for example the German ones, have infoboxes taken straight from the German language version of the wiki. Obviously when I see them, I add the conversion figures in, but should the English wiki have a standardized layout for ALL train infoboxes? I appreciate this is a lot of work but I'm myself fixing a heck of a lot of older train articles that lack conversion tables.
Lukeno94 ( talk) 11:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure this never existed. There is a discussion at Talk:Stainby_railway_station#No_evidence. If anyone knows anything could they join there, else I will nominate for deletion. -- Robert EA Harvey ( talk) 17:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Should infoboxes use the term Weight or Mass? Separate, slightly different, but related, threads started at Template talk:Infobox locomotive#Recent changes: weight to mass and at Template talk:Infobox train#Recent change: weight to mass. Comments there are invited. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 14:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I am currently applying to ScotRail for permission to take photographs of all the stations on the Argyle Line for the purposes of illustrating their Wikipedia articles, where the current image is more than one year old. In my letter to them I have explained that my interest is to ensure all Wikipedia articles for stations on their network have relevant, up to date images which accurately depict the stations (for example, the Carluke railway station has changed quite a bit since the photo currently in use was taken in 1998). I have asked permission to photograph the Argyle Line because my local station lies on it and I wanted to focus on a small group at first. However, if there are any stations in Scotland which this project feels need photographs urgently, I will add them to my application. It will be sent to First ScotRail's Sponsorship and Events Manager on 26 April 2011 so I need any requested stations by them. Please note, Glasgow Central and Edinburgh Waverly are operated by Network Rail, who have more stringent security in place and give out permits to take photos less frequently (and generally also charge people for the privilege). -- Terryblack ( talk) 18:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Currently, there is an article which covers the 1913 locomotive, but there was also an older version. I propose a rename of the Class D article, for more see it's talk page. Lukeno94 ( talk) 10:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I have again proposed this for splitting but with further reasoning. Please see Talk:List of London Underground stations#Ah, that age old question. Simply south.... .. trying to improve for 5 years 17:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TrackConversion ( talk · contribs)
Massive and inappropriate metrication of gauge-related categories, also some bizarre renaming. Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Though it should be noted that there's nothing preventing us from having two parallel sets of categories, one imperial and one metric, and putting an article in both appropriate categories. That's something that categories can do that other items (such as titles, templates, and navboxes) can't do. oknazevad ( talk) 19:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The Rail gauge article actually redirects to Track gauge, but now Template:Rail gauges has now been retitled as "Track gauge" (although not yet moved to Template:Track gauge) by TrackConversion. I'm raising this as a sub-section here, as I think that the discussion is related but separate.
Just for the record, Rail gauge has an awful lot of links to it, and it is the term I would use. Whilst I am all for consistency, that is something that I would have raised here to identify the preferred term before changing it (or reverting edits / moves). Tim PF ( talk) 22:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
This is a list of track gauges by size.
The quarter inch is the smallest fraction shown for gauges defined in imperial units.
Gauge | imperial | metric | other unit | Name | Notes | Grouping |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2140 | yes | no | Brunel's broad gauge | UK, and other | Broad | |
1829 | yes | no | Broad | |||
1676 | yes | yes | Indian gauge | Broad | ||
1672 | yes, 6 Castilian feet | (historic) | Broad | |||
1668 | yes | Iberian gauge | Broad | |||
1664 | yes, 5 Portuguese feet | (historic) | Broad | |||
1600 | yes | yes | Irish gauge | Broad | ||
1588 | yes | no | Pennsylvania Trolley Gauge | Broad | ||
1581 | yes | no | Pennsylvania Trolley Gauge | (variant) | Broad | |
1524 | yes | yes | Russian gauge | original and Finnish gauge | Broad | |
1520 | yes | Russian gauge | redefinition in the 1960s | Broad | ||
1473 | yes | no | Broad | |||
1445 | no | yes | Italian broad gauge | Broad | ||
1435 | yes | yes | Standard gauge | Standard | ||
1422 | yes | no | Narrow/Medium | |||
1372 | yes | yes | Scotch gauge | Narrow/Medium | ||
1295 | yes | no | Narrow/Medium | |||
1270 | yes | no | Narrow/Medium | |||
1245 | yes | no | only UK (England) | Narrow/Medium | ||
1219 | yes | no | only UK and US | Narrow/Medium | ||
1100 | yes | only in Germany | Narrow/Medium | |||
1093 | yes | only one line in Sweden | Narrow/Medium | |||
1067 | yes | yes | Cape gauge | Narrow/Medium | ||
1000 | yes | Metre gauge | Narrow/Medium | |||
950 | yes | Italian metre gauge | Narrow | |||
914 | yes | no | Narrow | |||
891 | yes | yes, 3 Swedish feet | Swedish narrow gauge | only in Sweden | Narrow | |
838 | yes | no | Narrow | |||
802 | ? | only historic in Sweden | Narrow | |||
800 | yes | Narrow | ||||
785 | ? | Narrow | ||||
762 | yes | no | Narrow | |||
760 | no | yes | Bosnian gauge | Narrow | ||
750 | yes | Narrow | ||||
711 | ? | Narrow | ||||
700 | yes | Italian narrow gauge | Narrow | |||
686 | yes | no | Narrow | |||
622 | yes | no | Narrow | |||
610 | ? | Narrow | ||||
603 | yes | no | Narrow | |||
600 | yes | Decauville 600 | Narrow | |||
597 | yes | no | Narrow/Minimum | |||
578 | yes | no | Narrow/Minimum | |||
558 | yes | only Dominican Republic | Narrow/Minimum | |||
530 mm | yes | ? | Narrow/Minimum | |||
500 | no | yes | Decauville 500 | Narrow/Minimum | ||
483 | yes | no | only Isle of Man | Narrow/Minimum | ||
457 | yes | no | Narrow/Minimum | |||
400 | no | yes | Decauville 400 | Narrow/Minimum | ||
381 | yes | yes | Narrow/Minimum | |||
311 | yes | no | Narrow/Minimum | |||
305 | yes | no | Narrow/Minimum | |||
260 | ? | Narrow/Minimum | ||||
184 | yes | ? | Narrow/Minimum |
updated TrackConversion ( talk) 16:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
None of the above are set in stone, and all are open to discusson. Some of the above would be head categories, with subcategories by country, should the number of articles in each category justify subcategorization. Mjroots ( talk) 05:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |page=
has extra text (
help)) states that although the Portuguese and Spanish rail gauge is nominally 5ft 6in, they are in fact 1.665 and 1.674 metres respectively. A small number of vehicles were fitted with wheels with a special profile that enabled them to run on both systems, but the majority of vehicles were confined to their own system.
Mjroots (
talk)
11:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Note, that naming according to origin would mean that the new lines in India that are originally defined in mm, go into a category different from the old lines build before metrication in India. Same for other lines in South Asia, maybe except for Burma. TrackConversion ( talk) 14:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
From the above there is consensus to have imperial unit categories. Shall they be numerical or textual? Mjroots listed numerical first, EdJogg prefers numerical. The heavily used Template:RailGauge gives numerical output as standard output, that means it could be best to use that format. Maybe making automated categorization or at least checks of correctness in the future easier. Also readability might be better. On the other hand, what is more common? Currently used is textual. If using quarter values, would they be easier to represent textual? User Pencefn/Stewart prefers textual. I have no strong opinion. TrackConversion ( talk) 16:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I think quarter inch precision should be used, but the absolute minimum is to have inch precision. de WP and hu WP use millimeter and all other WPs will likely too since the native speakers there are used to metric values. This is also an issue for interwiki linking, but that is a technical problem. From a content point of view, non-metric en WP categories may have a disadvantage in precision if not using quarter inches. Those gauges that are defined in imperial units are mostly only distinguished by a quarter of an inch, so that would be precise enough. TrackConversion ( talk) 16:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1 International inch = 25.4 millimeter. Quarter of an international inch = 6.35 millimeter. So even with quarters the precision is lower than with millimeters, but that should be no problem, and should be precise enough. In fact the one defined in imperial units, may have been always defined to the full quarter. TrackConversion ( talk) 16:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Until we get to a consensus, can we call a halt to the creation of new categories. So far today the following categories have been created:
-- Stewart ( talk | edits) 16:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Reply
TrackConversion ( talk) 18:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
It think dispute is only related to content inside Category:Track gauge by size. TrackConversion ( talk) 00:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
RFC now at
Category talk:Track gauge by size
Mjroots (
talk)
I started an RfC at
Category talk:Track gauge. The proposal above is introducing inaccuracy. This makes WP less usable.
TrackConversion (
talk)
17:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
At
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Track gauge categories it is proposed
This is inaccurate. TrackConversion ( talk) 17:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
TrackConversion continues to press ahead changing railway articles as if his changes were agreed by this community when he knows they are not. I have yet to see a more blatant disregard of the need for consensus on Wikipedia. Can we reconsider a temporary ban whilst we discuss the way ahead? Otherwise we are just being steamrollered. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 18:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
It turns out that TC was another sock of a banned user. Therefore his edits may be reverted on sight. For this reason, I would suggest that we don't need to go via WP:CFD to create, delete or move categories in relation to the above discussion. There have been some good suggestions above about categorization of gauges, and these should continue to be looked at., see new section below. Mjroots ( talk) 09:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Units should use space per WP:UNIT. Also it reads:
International scope: Wikipedia is not country-specific; apart from some regional or historical topics, use the units in most widespread use worldwide for the type of measurement in question.
Apply these guidelines when choosing the units for the measurements that come first:
TellSI ( talk) 12:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Note, TellSI is a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user. Da.squirrels ( talk) 18:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I asked this on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation, but nobody has been able or willing to answer me; Can anybody identify the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad locmotive shown here at Port Chester Station from the 1950's? It looks like an E7 diesel with drivers compartments at both ends. ---- DanTD ( talk) 00:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed that someone is shoehorning diagrams into infoboxes, resulting in them breaking up? I think people are creating separate RDT's and not watching whether they display properly in the articles. Any suggestions as to how we stop this happening? Britmax ( talk) 17:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Although by size it falls into Category:Russian gauge railways, I've included the Toronto rapid transit and streetcar lines into Category:4ft 10in gauge railways for two reasons:
(The historic reason given for this gauge was to prevent freight trains from running on city streets.) Useddenim ( talk) 01:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest that the break between Category:5ft gauge railways and Category:4ft 10in gauge railways be changed from 4' 10½" to 4' 11". I doesn't make any sense to me personally that the 4ft 10in category excludes a track gauge of 4' 10+fractional", and still won't exclude any Russian gauges that belong in the 5ft gauge category. Useddenim ( talk) 16:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, we've had some good suggestions above. Splitting the cats into 3 (Broad, standard and narrow) I'm suggesting the following Categories and scope (note that my preference for numerical categories does not mean that we cannot use the worded categories if that is what the consensus is):-
There are few variations once we get below 18" gauge, therfore I propose
There may be a few I've missed out, but the proposed structure above should make it clear where these would fall. Mjroots ( talk) 09:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
All other metric gauge categories created by TC to be deleted, with articles recategorized to imperial gauges. Mjroots ( talk) 11:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
It looks like a consensus is emerging for numerical categories. Down to specifics then.
Any other thoughts? Mjroots ( talk) 18:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
<<sockpuppet comments moved out of the way to allow constructive discussion to continue ( EdJogg ( talk) 20:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)) >>
Why use "railways"? Then the category:Standard gauge railways can not include the article Standard gauge, since a track gauge is not a railway. Also, does that include trams? TellSI ( talk) 19:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Note, TellSI is a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user. Da.squirrels ( talk) 19:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
A quick straw poll to see if there is preference for numerical or word gauge categories - i.e "Category:7¼ inch gauge railways" or "Category:Seven and a quarter inch gauge railways" Please state your preference. Mjroots ( talk) 09:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that enough has been said and a start should be made on creating the category trees. The least contentious is the Standard gauge railways category, which just needs splitting down by continent and then by country. Once that has been done, categories will need to be populated. You can help! Mjroots ( talk) 06:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I am migrating the articles to the redirected categories: I renamed Iberian Gauge... to Iberian gauge... Note that
List of track gauges by size has two columns that may be relevant, (imperial and metric) but should not link to categories, especially deleted or redirected categories. Note also that there is generally value in leaving plausible category redirects - although their own categorisation and other etceteras should probably be removed.
Rich
Farmbrough,
23:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC).
I've been doing some recategorizing of geography and transportation infoboxes, and so far I have found nearly 40 different train station infoboxes apart from the standard Template:Infobox station - see Category:Railway station infobox templates. I don't know much about trains, but I do know there are a lot of people who feel really passionate about them, so I don't really want to wade in and attempt to merge these all to one standard template myself. It seems as though Template:Infobox station could be used as a wrapper to make daughter templates where certain things should be standardized across a line - but it's crazy to have 40 different templates when there shouldn't be so much variation between these infoboxes! Hope you guys are interested in sorting this out! Best, Calliopejen1 ( talk) 22:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I am the creator of some of these infobox templates. Infobox station appears to have been devised originally for North American stations. Most of the others are specific to either a particular country or a particular system. Although it might be possible to consolidate these a little, each country or system has its own individual quirks, and that's why it makes some sense for them to have their own infoboxes. Also, the appearance of the infoboxes varies a lot, and some of them are tailor made to tie in with the logos, etc, of the individual country or system to which the infobox applies. I would suggest that they just be left as they are, at least for the time being. Bahnfrend ( talk) 13:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed an inconsistency in the definition of "Medium gauge railways" as used in the Narrow gauge railway and List of rail gauges articles.
The former used to read Railways built on gauges between slightly under a metre and 56.5, but still included 36 and 900.
So, this begs the question on whether or not medium gauge is a made-up name, and if it does exist, is there an industry definition? If the broad definitions of common carrier and high train speeds and capacity are taken as valid, then might it refer to a combination of rail gauge and loading gauge, perhaps with reference to being able to carry Intermodal containers? I note that several three-foot gauge railways appear to be able to transport containers, but I doubt if two-foot gauge railways could.
I note that this is probably original research, but I don't think the current article definitions are much better, and if it cannot be referenced after almost a year, both articles should be changed to eliminate that grouping. Tim PF ( talk) 10:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
A new sub-section about the seven-foot gauge harbour railway at Ponta Delgada (Azores) has recently been added by Axpde ( talk · contribs), who may have been selectively referencing web articles which quote the actual gauge as exactly 7 feet (2,134 mm), even though they may also quote it as Brunel gauge. I have added an additional citation which states 7 ft (2,134 mm), and to avoid an edit war, have left the article reading that the actual gauge is unclear.
Axpde stated in one edit summary that Azores used 2134 mm ... and I doubt that Isambard Kingdom Brunel used "7 ft ¼ in"!. After I pointed out that Brunel originally specified exactly 7 feet (2,134 mm), but found that it had to be slightly widened by ¼ inch (6 mm), he replied that On German WP there are lot of talks conc. this topic. The problem is: Some users want to have one width per gauge, negating that sometimes a gauge changes slightly ... So Brunel Gauge is actually both 2134 mm and 2140 mm!.
Brunel's GWR broad gauge is usually referred to as "seven-foot", but quoted as "7 feet 0¼ inches", but it is unclear if these harbour railways actually used Brunel gauge, or an exact "7-foot" gauge. I certainly haven't found anything on the web that says that they used ex-GWR (or similar) locomotives, or anything that really speaks with authority one way or the other.
Whilst I'm on the subject, the Brunel gauge article was recently created by TC, has no references, and does not refer to Brunel's original intention of an exact "7-foot" gauge. Tim PF ( talk) 13:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikimedia UK have been approached by the National Railway Museum in York. The museum would like to collaborate in the creation of articles to support their new railway related art gallery. They have some skills, but they would appreciate the support of some volunteers. Ideally two of these would be in commutable distance of the museum. Others could assist on line. If you have an article that shows you can handle most wiki markup and you have some appreciation of how to load an image to commons (or can teach yourself before we ask!) then please sign below. The level of commitment would be by agreement to suit you and reasonable travel expenses are likely. Victuallers ( talk) 16:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC) (Chair of Wikimedia UK)
I've created the following additional track gauge categories as there didn't seem to be any existing categories. Feel free to add them to the master list (is it still the one on this page?) or adjust the categories to fit, or whatever. It seems like there are quite a few sui generis track gauges used by funicular railways - and I've only done the ones in the UK and those named "Castle Hill" so far. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
And some more:
Thryduulf ( talk) 15:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The five extant articles about railway lines in Jamaica (see Category:Railway lines in Jamaica) are all currently named in the format "Railways of Jamaica: X to Y", e.g. Railways of Jamaica: Bog Walk to Port Antonio.
This is an unusual naming scheme that looks more like a sub-article convention than is the standard on Wikipedia. I would suggest moving them to a more typical format "X to Y line" or "X to Y line (Jamaica)" if disambiguation is needed, although I don't think it will be in any of these five cases.
Please leave any comments you have at talk:Railways of Jamaica: Bog Walk to Port Antonio. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Several of the new track gauge categories have been nominated for deletion or merging at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 11, please leave your comments there. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
RFCs have been opened on the use of flagicons in lists and in infoboxes. Mjroots ( talk) 16:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Train photographer Richard Steinheimer died, there's a good obit in the LATimes. (probably in other places too). The article needs a makeover- I suspected the railfans would have already done it- guess not! tedder ( talk) 19:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I think List of locomotive builders is in a difficult position. It probably needs a lot of work (and is almost certainly rather incomplete). Should it be fixed up, or should it redirect? Any thoughts from the sages of WikiProject Trains? Can anyone assist? bobrayner ( talk) 20:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The List of railway stations is in a very poor state, so following no objections in nearly 6 months work will shortly start on converting it to a List of lists of railway stations. Discussion of practical matters relating to this are just starting on the talk page. Please come and help! Thryduulf ( talk) 14:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I was looking at Category:Railway stations by country, and I noticed that most of the subcategories have mainly subcategories and few articles. For instance, Category:Railway stations in France has 28 subcategories and no articles and Category:Railway stations in Norway has 55 subcategories and no articles. So, I was surprised to see that Category:Railway stations in Germany has 20 subcategories and 180 articles. Of these 180, five, namely Railway stations in Germany, German railway station categories (nothing to do with Wikipedia categories), List of Intercity-Express railway stations, Railway station types of Germany, and Template:German railway stations, cannot be included in any of the Category:Railway stations in Bundesland categories, and presumably therefore belong in this category. The other 175 are probably both in a Category:Railway stations in Bundesland category and in Category:Railway stations in Germany. To keep the categorisation consistent, the category Railway stations in Germany should therefore be removed from these articles. If nobody disagrees with this, I will go through these 175 articles and make that edit and any other necessary edits which I may notice when I read them. Coyets ( talk) 11:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Is the syntax of the title correct? I'd think "Train station in Holbrook, Arizona" sounds better. Raymie ( t • c) 04:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'm becoming doubtful that Amtrak ever served Holbrook. I'd appreciate some eyes on this article. Mackensen (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
When I added the standard gauge category to MetroLink (St. Louis), I saw categories there claiming that MetroLink operates on former Wabash Railroad, Louisville and Nashville Railroad, and Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad lines. Which stations were along these systems? I tried to ask this on the MetroLink page, but nobody could or would answer me. ---- DanTD ( talk) 19:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
See [2] and [3]. Those two sources seem to confirm the Wabash and the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis. Mackensen (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)