![]() | 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. |
Happy new year! I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community.
Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it, and I’d like to introduce it to your project! If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 ( talk) 19:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject Trains! Your input is welcome at this discussion: Talk:Siemens-Duewag_Supertram#Requested_move_25_December_2017. Thank you for your help! -- Aervanath ( talk) 21:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Locomotive #3018 was hauling the train that crashed near Kroonstad today. What class is it please? Mjroots ( talk) 19:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:2017 Washington train derailment#Requested move 21 December 2017, regarding a page related to this WikiProject. Your opinion and rationale are needed so a decision can be made. Thank you and Happy New Year to All! Paine Ellsworth put'r there 12:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed that most of the stations in Category:Railway stations in Portland, Oregon have capped Station. I presume these should be fixed; I moved a few. Anyone want to help? Dicklyon ( talk) 04:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in a similar RM affecting Chinese stations, at Talk:Aiguo Road Station. Certes ( talk) 14:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Akaike Station (Nagoya)#Requested move 5 January 2018, regarding a page related to this WikiProject. Your opinion and rationale are needed so a decision can be made. Thank you and Happy New Year to All! Paine Ellsworth put'r there 10:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Disneyland Resort Line#Requested move 6 January 2018, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Your opinion and rationale are needed so a decision can be made. Thank you and Happy New Year to All! Paine Ellsworth put'r there 16:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Template:Current UK TOCs has been
nominated for merging with
Template:Defunct UK TOCs. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. This also proposes merging
Template:Future UK TOCs - please see the Templates for discussion page for details. Thanks.
Cnbrb (
talk) 11:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
In Category:Railway stations located underground and its subcategories I've boldly added:
I'll wait some time, in case there is any opposition against this, and then I'll start removing the metro stations from these categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
45% of the system is actually underground in tunnels, though I expect the tunnels have more stations. Being an underground station (there's earth on top) and being an Underground Station (tube trains run there) are distinct qualities and there are plenty of stations in all four sections of the resulting Venn diagram. If the category is worth keeping then let's keep it independent of whether the station is part of a metro/tube/subway system so all four sections are clearly defined. Also, what would we do with places served by both tube and national rail trains, such as Old Street station? Certes ( talk) 12:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
What is the naming convention for pages on railway stations?
The majority of station pages seem to have the format "X station" (lower case) or "X railway station"; the only exceptions (why am I not surprised?) are the pages on French stations (which are in French) and German stations (in German) Is there a reason for making these exceptions?
Moonraker12 (
talk) 16:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Template talk:Infobox station#Optional separation of former and future services -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 12:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I would appreciate some uninvolved eyes on Oakland Coliseum station. Titanosaurus has added what I feel is an excessive level of detail about connecting bus routes, and continually reverts me when I remove it. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 05:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I've made
a proposal on the Commons BSicon renaming talk page to discontinue the CPIC root by renaming all CPIC icons to become XBHF, XACC and XINT (e.g.
(
heCPICr
) would become hXBHF-Re
). While icons are routinely renamed, this is an unusually wide-ranging change without precedent so it would be nice to have some more feedback there.
Jc86035 (
talk) 16:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
These all begin with 'Metro', for example Metro Olivos, should they not all be renamed to for example Olivos Station or Olivos (Mexico City Metro station) or something similar ? Thanks GrahamHardy ( talk) 08:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Please drop by here and give your view. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 20:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 20:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Should we be using Co′Co′ vs. Co'Co'?, Co′Co′ locomotives or Co'Co' locomotives?
See WT:Manual of Style#Primes and apostrophes? It's a sizable amount of work if we do change this. It affects Commons too. Andy Dingley ( talk) 16:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Prussian P 8 links to Class 17, which is a DAB page. (The corresponding German article does the same, so that's no help - and one of the locomotives on the German DAB page is Austrian.) The link has been {{ dn}} tagged for attention since September 2016. Can one of you experts help solve the problem? Narky Blert ( talk) 13:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
In Category:Stations of East Japan Railway Company, Category:Stations of Kitakinki Tango Railway, Category:Railway stations in Kōchi Prefecture, etc., I see all the "Xxx Station" titles have "Station" capped, unlike most in most countries. Probably other Japan station categories similarly. Any reason for caps on "Station" in Japan, versus other places that are (almost) all lowercase "station"? Dicklyon ( talk) 03:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
DR Class 119 links to hydrodynamic transmission, which is a redirect to a DAB page. The corresponding German article says "Leistungsübertragung: hydrodynamisch" ("Power transmission: hydrodynamic") which doesn't seem to help at all. Can any expert here help solve the problem? Narky Blert ( talk) 15:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
There is an RFC on the inclusion of lists transportation service destinations, including lists of rail stations. See WP:VPP#transportation lists BillHPike ( talk, contribs) 00:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked if a staton could be added to the {{ BS-table}} on the Leamside line article. I agree but am not familiar enough with the syntax to add it myself. See Talk: Leamside line#Two stations to add to RDT.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 21:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I started a discussion here: Category_talk:Railway_termini_in_Paris Cheers. N2e ( talk) 23:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backhead and comment there. Slambo (Speak) 23:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The CfD for Category:Railway stations served by London Midland has been relisted and is now at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 20#Category:Railway stations served by London Midland. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 19:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Passengertrainman ( talk · contribs) created a number of articles on passenger trains back in 2008. Many of these refer to a "Streamlined Passenger Trains of the United States & Canada" by Alan L. Pettet. Several editors throughout the years have been unable to find and verify this book (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Passenger trains task force#City of Memphis (train) - Need help with updating). From User talk:Passengertrainman#Copy and paste., it's clear why:
The items I am copying and pasting from is a proposed book that I personally wrote and all materials represent 40 years of personal research. If you would like a copy of the entire article before I add any additional material I will be happy to submit it to you it is about 256 pages.
— User:Passengertrainman
That's the definition of a self-published source, except that it's not even published. Googling around for Alan L. Pettet I find that Pettet is mentioned on a few pages of Streamliner Schedules, mostly for consists. He's posted on some forums. He's not an established expert. The articles he created were mostly consist lists with some front matter. Some have improved since them; some not so much. Seven credit him explicitly:
These articles don't credit him, but were started by him and in the same style:
These articles contains a substantial edit from him:
I think this should be treated the way we treat copyright violations. None of these additions are verifiable; they'll have to be substantiated in other sources (like Wayner, which is where they probably came from in the first place) or removed. There's a related question of whether the consist information in Streamliner Schedules is reliable, if we're citing it anywhere. I know I've used it for timetable information, but on the assumption that Eric H. Bowen was just referencing the Official Guide or other timetables. Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Project members are welcome to participate in this Good topic nomination, which involves the light rail stations of Seattle, Washington. Sounder Bruce 22:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
The accident lists (e.g. List of rail accidents (1900–29)) contain a mix of tense when referring to historical events. MOS:TENSE clearly states "do not use past tense except for dead subjects, past events,..." These are definitely past events and should be written about in the past tense. For example:
not
Using present tense give a breaking-news sensationalism (almost expected to be followed by "film at 11"). I know editors of these lists disagree; I would like to establish a consensus that the MOS be followed here. MB 15:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Most of the subcats of Category:Standard gauge railways by country are named Category:Standard gauge railways in Foo (e.g. Category:Standard gauge railways in Greece).
However a few African categories are named Category:4 ft 8 1⁄2 in gauge railways in Foo (e.g. Category:4 ft 8 1⁄2 in gauge railways in Rwanda and Category:4 ft 8 1⁄2 in gauge railways in Uganda; I just created the latter to fill a redlink).
Shouldn't these "4 ft 8 1⁄2 in" cats be speedily renamed per WP:CFDS to "Standard gauge"? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Andre Kritzinger:, you've done a lot of work on African railway articles, what are your thoughts on this proposal? Slambo (Speak) 12:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Template talk:Rail color box#Missing end tag for <small> for system=PLR line=Red Castle Shannon and discuss the issue there, not here. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 04:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/May 2018 .
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk) 16:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the NYC subway station naming convention at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Station naming convention#Unnecessary and overlong "disambiguation" parentheticals to station complexes. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 13:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
As brought up in the RfC above, there's a category of 22,000 articles without references under the umbrella of the Trains WikiProject. Having picked a few at random, it seems that these tags (part of the TWP template) are out of date, as the articles in the category have gained references over the years thanks to helpful editors.
Is there a bot or script that can be used to trim the category of articles that no longer qualify? We'll be able to get a decent headcount and focus our efforts on adding references and preventing the use of these articles in broad and sweeping deletion debates like the RfC above. Sounder Bruce 07:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
|unref=yes
parameter to be removed from certain instances of {{
WikiProject Trains}}
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 12:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
|unref=yes
to quite a few that were underreferenced or that did not have footnotes with page numbers, and I'm finding more almost daily that need this designation. I have found a few articles where I could remove the unref tag in the project banner and did so as needed. If there are more than a couple citation or page needed tags, I consider the article as underreferenced and appropriate to be included in the category. As mentioned above, checking the validity of this tag is not something that can easily be done by bots. One of the key factors that needs to be checked for articles in this category is whether the articles are using
reliable sources, if the data being referenced is
verifiable within those sources (including checking for archive versions of dead links), and finally if there are enough sources for the data within the article. I have a subscription to Newspapers.com and will find and verify newspaper references where possible. If I have time while I'm editing, I will do quick searches to find additional references, but that is more the rarity than the norm. This week I've been working on adding content and references to the
Stuart R. Knott article, mostly out of newspaper sources so far, but also using some genealogical sources and soon more book sources.
Slambo
(Speak) 15:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)|refimprove=
at
Template:WikiProject Trains/sandbox.
Slambo
(Speak) 14:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
The change to the banner is live. I've been recategorizing pages as appropriate. Slambo (Speak) 15:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Do any of you have sources for Pacerailer, a privately-funded prototype railbus that ran in the UK in the late 1960s and early 1970s? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
It contains 20 Rail Lines. So we can't add other lines on this template. Actually, Incheon Maglev is not a member of Seoul Metropolitan Subway Network. If we remove Incheon maglev, we can add Seohae Line in this template. However it would be a temporary expedition eventually. Gimpo Goldline will open in 2018. -- Urirnal ( talk) 03:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I got a note today through the Administrators' newsletter that there was a substantial update to the notability guidelines for organizations and companies. I have only skimmed the discussion, and will make a more thorough read of it soon, but the crux is that articles about companies (such as railway companies) must demonstrate notability by being well sourced to multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. No company or organization is inherently notable. This is significant for WikiProject Trains because a large number of articles within the scope of this project are about companies or organizations, and many of those articles are poorly referenced or completely unreferenced (There are still many articles listed in the unreferenced category that should be in the poorly referenced category; I have been recategorizing as I have time to do so.). I will grant that many of the articles listed there are about stations, rolling stock or other subjects related to rail transport and not about companies or organizations, but the combined count of these two categories is over 22,000 articles, and I've seen many poorly referenced articles just beginning with the letter A that are about companies in rail transport. We need to seriously step up our game on providing the source references as described in this updated guideline. Slambo (Speak) 03:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
|refimprove=
parameter was
provided, see
Cleanup of Category:Unreferenced rail transport articles above. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 15:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC) You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport/Peer review .
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk) 16:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Thoughts on this template being added to the main articles of metro systems? User:Tohaomg created this template and used User:TohaomgBot to add them to the bottom of the metro systems articles. First it should be "metro systems of the world" but that's not really the main issue. Would the articles benefit from something like this? Is this necessary? What about the categorization? Why are certain countries (presumably because they have a lot of metro systems) not ramped up with their continents? Heights (Want to talk?) 19:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
In our case, a metro system navbox is related to each of that five rules. 91.124.117.29 ( talk) 16:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
What are the thoughts on trains such as the Pacific Surfliner and Northeast Regional that have multiple trains a day, some stopping at different termini along the route (for the S-line succession templates)? Seems like the consensus for these articles is to just list the further-most options (NE Regional is listed as "Boston or Springfield" e.g. Washington Union Station). I noticed that there would a bunch of options listed for Solana Beach station; it would probably be best to stick to one standard. — GFOLEY FOUR!— 14:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Editors at this project might be interested in the discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals. Bermicourt ( talk) 08:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Coventry railway station (England)#Move. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
What should be done about the article title at Tacoma station (Amtrak, 1984–2017)? I originally moved it from Tacoma station (Amtrak) when the station closed on December 17, to be replaced by Tacoma Dome Station, but the station re-opened a day later due to the DuPont derailment. So now we have an awkwardly titled article that doesn't quite reflect the content.
I need some opinions on what to name the article temporarily, until Tacoma Dome is re-instated as an Amtrak stop sometime this year, and for when the station is finally, permanently closed. Should disambiguation involve the year(s) of service at all? Sounder Bruce 07:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians! While fixing up some of the templates for the Metro-North Railroad, I noticed that many of the stations are named [[''name'' (Metro-North station)]] instead of the usual [[''name'' station]]. If I'm reading it correctly, and please let me know otherwise, parenthetical disambiguations should only exist if another article already exists with that name, per WP:USSTATION. I know many of the present Metro-North stations used to belong to other railroads, so that makes sense. However, some of the stations are fairly new, so why do they need the parenthetical disambiguation? I propose that the articles not needing disambiguation should be moved to the second way of naming above. Please discuss! Thanks! – Daybeers ( talk) 05:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
In cases where stations have ambiguous names, disambiguate them. Certes ( talk) 21:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Why was "Metro-North" chosen as the disambiguating term for all of these articles? Location-based disambiguators (state and/or city) would be better; "New York" and "Connecticut" are much more recognizable both nationally and internationally than "Metro-North", which only people familiar with the system would recognize. Some of the Connecticut stations had already used "Connecticut" as the disambiguator in a WP:USSTATION-compliant format for the past 2 years, while others were moved from "Connecticut" to "Metro-North" 2 days ago. Articles using a proper Metro-North disambiguator were in the minority (excluding all of the articles in the legacy "X (Metro-North station)" format). It doesn't look like any of the New York stations used WP:USSTATION-compliant article naming prior to 2 days ago. -- Scott Alter ( talk) 16:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Location-based disambiguators (state and/or city) would be betterNot really - look at it from the reader's point of view. Metro-North is a regional commuter rail service and is well-recognized within the service area. Most readers to these articles are likely from that service area. If you're a reader already in New York or Connecticut (regardless of whether you're a tourist or local), you would probably want confirmation in the title that this is a Metro-North station, rather than some generic station in that state. If not, there's likely little chance you'd be looking for the Metro-North station anyway. I don't think someone currently in London or Rome would be very much interested in a New York City-area commuter rail system, let alone its individual stations. Same goes with other commuter rail systems: potential readers would most likely be already in the area, making a Google search for "XXX station" on YYY system. There's no need for "national" or "international" recognition in most of these cases.On the other hand, national railroad services like Amtrak would benefit from a state-based disambiguator, since these stations are shared by other systems or duplicate the names of stations in other states. The main reason (Connecticut) was used as a disambiguator in MNRR articles was because the station was also shared by intercity or other services, such as Bridgeport station (Connecticut) (shared by Amtrak, Metro-North, and SLE), so saying "Bridgeport station (Metro-North)" would be wrong.Anyway, the "Metro-North" disambiguator is not in violation of USSTATION and I don't see any real reason to change that. It disadvantages our readers who are probably looking for a station within a certain system anyway, and it distracts us content creators from adding substantive information to these articles. epicgenius ( talk) 20:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think someone currently in London or Rome would be very much interested in a New York City-area commuter rail system, let alone its individual stations. Same goes with other commuter rail systems: potential readers would most likely be already in the area. You do not know the reason people look at Wikipedia pages. Articles should not be written or titled for a local audience. As I mentioned at Talk:Garrison (Metro-North station)#Requested move 12 April 2018, the purpose of disambiguation is to differentiate between two articles that should have the same title. There may be railroad stations that share the same name in 2 or more countries that need to be disambiguated from each other. From a reader's point of view, if they already know the system of a station (as you claim), then they would clearly also know the state (metro area or country) the station is in, and would therefore have no problem correctly identifying an article using a location-based disambiguator. However, the inverse is not true. If someone is looking for a specific railroad station in a city in New York, but have no idea what system the station is on, disambiguators of "Metro-North" versus "RTD" offer no assistance in providing meaningful disambiguation. To someone unfamiliar with the system (the majority of the world), "New York" is a much better disambiguator. You have moved all of these articles within the past few days. It's not like "Metro-North" has been a long-standing accepted disambiguator used in compliance with WP:USSTATION. -- Scott Alter ( talk) 01:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Readers are all over the world, not just in New York. While Metro-North may be well-recognized within the service area, most people in the world (and even in the US) have no idea what Metro-North is. This lack of wide-spread familiarity is a reason not to use "Metro-North" as a disambiguator.I'll say it again. Most readers of these particular articles will be within the service area (not necessarily locals, but people who are within the area at this exact time). Besides, it's not like the article doesn't mention that "XXX is a Metro-North station in New York/Connecticut". A decent article will mention that in the very first sentence, it's mandated per WP:LEAD.
You do not know the reason people look at Wikipedia pages. Articles should not be written or titled for a local audienceThis is technically true, but in practice, there are many other factors. Why would a non-local reader be looking at the article, unless it's to get information about the subject? They likely wouldn't, unless they were explicitly looking for the article. Railroad stations are generally low-viewership articles unless they are about major topics. This goes for the articles without disambiguators as well.
If someone is looking for a specific railroad station in a city in New York, but have no idea what system the station is on, disambiguators of "Metro-North" versus "RTD" offer no assistance in providing meaningful disambiguation. To someone unfamiliar with the system (the majority of the world), "New York" is a much better disambiguator.Again, I find it very highly improbable that they were looking for Garrison, New York station and they don't know what the Metro-North is. I think they would be looking for the system first, and it's more likely that they don't know the station's name or what line it's on. Like, "Take the... I don't know what system, but you have to get to the Garrison train station upstate somehow." I'm pretty sure this doesn't happen.
It's not like "Metro-North" has been a long-standing accepted disambiguator used in compliance with WP:USSTATION.Not necessarily true, "Metro-North" was the existing disambiguator in all of these articles, and obviously there was a consensus to use "Metro-North" instead of, say, "MNRR". I simply moved "station" out of the title. epicgenius ( talk) 02:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Context will determine the most suitable distinguishing term, so editors use their judgment depending on whether
the system is likely to be more recognizable for readers than the city, for instance when a major metropolitan area's transit system has stops in outlying communities(system) or whether these are
stations serving Amtrak and other intercity rail, especially when there are stations in multiple cities that have the same name(state). epicgenius ( talk) 18:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Is any former railway station (whether demolished or still standing) considered to be notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia? I'm asking because I would like to eventually write articles about the stations of the former Malta Railway. In some cases I have very little information to write about, so the articles might be stubs, however there are some other stations (eg. Birchircara and Museum Stations, which both still exist) where it shouldn't be that hard to find some good information. -- Xwejnusgozo ( talk) 12:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Is there a user box to put on your profile? A 10 fireplane ( talk) 15:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC) A 10 fireplane ( talk) 15:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
{{
User Trains WikiProject}}
, see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains#Templates. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 19:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion occurring regarding the naming of LIRR station articles. Please weigh in if you'd like to! Thanks! – Daybeers ( talk) 06:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
It has been proposed and can be found here : Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/US railroads. If you are interested, please add yourself in for support. If enough support is found, maybe we ditch make a North American rail transportation WikiProject instead. Thanks for reading. XXCooksterXx ( talk) 00:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC) XXCooksterXx ( talk) 00:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
https://www.google.com/maps/placelists/list/1sJA_MDk4oISH8ERPd8scBasGQ6Y?hl=en It is of Abandoned RR’s in South Dakota. IT IS NOT COMPLETE. IT IS ALSO NOT 100% ACCURATE, SOME PLACES REQUIRED AN EDUCATED GUESS. Here are a few things this map includes:
THIS IS INCOMPLETE. I REPEAT, INCOMPLETE. You can help me with this, but please keep in mind the following: Tracks between Platte and Napa are not abandoned Tracks between Rapid City and Kadoka/Mitchell is not abandoned Sioux Falls to Manly MN is not abandoned- they are rebuilding it Also: If the line goes outside of SD, just mark it at the border, do not follow the line outside of SD. Most importantly, MARK RAILROADS AND NOT ROADS/NOTHING. I may seem strict, but i want to make this a complete map for use for reference. Please go to my talk page if you want to help. Thanks, XXCooksterXx ❯❯❯ talk? 18:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC) P.S. I know that there are some markers on Dakota Southern (NOT ABANDONED) but please leave them. XXCooksterXx ❯❯❯ talk? 18:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I've proposed splitting up Kingston, New York railroad stations at Talk:Kingston, New York railroad stations#Split article?. This could really use the attention of someone familiar with that region. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone provide any info about the locomotive seen at commons:Category:Locomotive 3ա705-46, which I saw last week at Yerevan railway station, in Armenia? Presumably its a standard Soviet type? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion occurring regarding the format of the opening sentence of US station articles. Please weigh in if you'd like to! Thanks! – Daybeers ( talk) 17:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm going through Special:LintErrors, and I've found a almost 700 high-priority errors in articles tagged by this WikiProject. The wikitext parser is going to change in June, and any page with an error may display strangely.
What's needed right now is for someone to click these links and compare the side-by-side preview of the two parsers. If the "New" page looks okay, then something's maybe technically wrong with the HTML, but there's no immediate worry. If that column looks wrong, then it should be fixed.
The first, huge list is all "deletable table" errors. If you want to know more about how to fix these pages, then see mw:Help:Extension:Linter/deletable-table-tag.
Taking the first item as an example, the problem is in the infobox in the ==History== section (if you scroll down to the editing window, it'll highlight the likely source of the error). It has a nested copy of {{ Infobox RDT}} for the route map, and the table's closing in a different spot in the old vs new parsing system. This results in the "This diagram: view • talk • edit" line being visible outside the show/hide box.
There are 600+ pages with errors here, and it's possible that most of them have the same one or two errors, and that an update to the templates would fix this on all of them. With that in mind, I'm going to post the SQL query, so that if you update templates, then you can get an updated list.
Extended content
|
---|
select p1.page_title, p1.page_namespace, linter_cat,
concat('/info/en/?search=', p1.page_title, '?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=', linter_id) as url,
linter_params as more_info, linter_id as linter_id, linter_start as start_offset, linter_end as end_offset
from linter
join page p1 on p1.page_id = linter.linter_page and p1.page_namespace in (0, 12, 100, 118)
join page p2 on p2.page_title=p1.page_title and p2.page_namespace = p1.page_namespace + 1
join categorylinks on categorylinks.cl_from=p2.page_id and (categorylinks.cl_to='A-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='B-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='C-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='Stub-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='Start-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='GA-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='FA-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='Template-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='AL-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='BL-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='CL-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='FL-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='List-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='Unassessed-Class_rail_transport_articles')
where linter.linter_cat=7 or linter.linter_cat=12 order by linter_cat;
|
None
This second, much shorter list is "misnested tags". There are only 56 of these. See mw:Help:Extension:Linter/html5-misnesting for more information. This error often involves span tags or lists/line breaks inside infoboxes and similar templates. For the first article in this list, the highlighting indicates that the problem is in {{ Circle Line RDT}}. Something about the HTML is technically wrong in that template, but the side-by-side display looks the same, so I probably wouldn't worry about it right now.
None
For more help, you can ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Linter. Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 18:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
{{
routemap}}
template. As you all know, I cannot handle this at all (for those of you who don't understand, try going to
Template:Circle line RDT and open it for editing. Now, how do you find the lint problems in lines that look like like {{BSsplit|[[District line]] &|[[Piccadilly line]]||i}}! !dCONTg blue\fdCONTg\\\\\
?). Therefore,
Jc86035 and
Useddenim, being the routemap enthusiasts here, please fix up some of the mess here. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 20:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)inline
parameter to the template before removing infobox rdt from the article.Done; the last run of the query showed no articles. The bulk of these were Indian stations which incorporated routemaps. Per @ Redrose64: the Circle line RDT problem was hard to find, but it wasn't an issue with the Routemap itself. Rather, a small tag was wrapping a list, which isn't valid. Wrapping each item individually is a little ungainly, but it worked. Mackensen (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi folks. I know nothing about locomotive categorisation, but I've come across Category:1′Eo1′ locomotives which was created by Andy Dingley last week and currently has only one category, Category:1′E1′ locomotives which is a red link in violation of WP:REDNOT. Can someone who knows more about this stuff work out the appropriate categorisation? Just seeing those apostrophes in a category name makes me nervous and there don't seem to be any corresponding articles. TIA Le Deluge ( talk) 09:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
There's another one at Category:1′C+C1′ locomotives Le Deluge ( talk) 16:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Most recently in reference to Category:Standard gauge electric locomotives of France, although this is a general issue.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that WP hates excess capitalisation, particularly in article names. Even when capitalisation (or enforced lowercase) is strongly imposed by the subject of an article, WP will hammer that article name into strict Sentence case, with no more than one capital, unless there is a signed note from both the OED and the Académie française agreeing to the contrary and conferring proper name status (and note the lowercase f in française).
So why are our loco articles mostly in Title Case? SNCF Class BB 12000, L&YR Class 28 etc? In both of those certainly, the word "Class" was never used by the original subjects, thus stretches our rules to be anywhere near a proper name. There are exceptions (of course): Commonwealth Railways CA class. For every LNWR Dreadnought Class there's a Furness Railway 115 class or a Furness Railway K1 and even a Furness Railway Class D5 0-6-0 (why include such an undistinguished and non-defining wheel arrangement?). Or aberrations like the unpluralised CGR class C1 and C1a. And then of course the anachronistic British Rail Class D3/7, built in the 1930s, let alone under British Railways and withdrawn before British Rail came along.
I propose the following:
I have no great wish to rename vast numbers of articles. But it would be good to clarify some of the goals before creating any more.
Thoughts? Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
As a representative of the non-train-geek community, I'd tend to prioritise the
key attributes of a name - Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness and Consistency. It's worth noting that Conciseness is equally important - The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Ed, you mention the
Central Intelligence Agency as a full article name - but when it's compounded into another article name it is usually (if not entirely consistently) abbreviated - see articles in
Category:CIA activities.
There's also the point that you may not know any of the CGRs were - but if I asked you to name a railway in colonial Sri Lanka, you wouldn't have been able to come up with the full name of the Ceylon Government Railway, so are you any better off if it's expanded? It's unlikely that a non-specialist publication would be mentioning it in the first place, so you don't lose much by abbreviating it. As an example that's maybe closer to home - your argument would say that
SMS Bayern should really be at
Seiner Majestät Schiff Bayern because casual readers won't know what SMS stands for in this context. But only a battleship geek would be reading that article in the first place.
If it was decided that some kind of split between "obvious" abbreviations and not was desirable, might I suggest looking at pageviews? I'd argue that the British Big Four would certainly count as "better-known-as-abbreviations" and looking at
their pageviewsthey're all at least 150/day whereas eg the LNWR is down at ~92/day, I'd suggest ~100/day is a reasonable threshold for "heard-of-ness".
Le Deluge (
talk) 22:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes) for related prior discussion. Mackensen (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Can we perhaps extend this discussion to include individual locomotives? Category:Individual locomotives reveals a real hodgepodge with no consistency even within some countries. Mackensen (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I've tried to distill this conversation into a proposed guideline: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (locomotives). Feedback appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I tagged this project on the talk page for Chicago Express Loop. I am not sure if it actually belongs because I am not sure if this counts as a train or rail transport. Feel free to change the categories in the article and its prose.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I opened a discussion here about whether there should be separate articles for each of the stations of the Las Vegas Monorail, that could use some input. Toohool ( talk) 18:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The lede of the Advanced Passenger Train article currently includes this statement:
with the British Rail Class 221, built by Bombardier Transportation. Its tilting system was originally licensed from the APT. Other features pioneered on APT, such as the hydrokinetic braking used to stop the train within existing separations, have not been adopted.
Bomber has its own active tilt system, originally developed for the LRC (train) starting in the 1960s and beginning hardware development in 1972. This system continues to be used on the Acela Express and a number of other designs.
So, does anyone know for sure what system the 221 uses? The ATP's system is currently owned by Fiat, and it seems unlikely that Bomber would license from Fiat when they have their own.
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 13:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
A Request for Comment on the use of chains in articles on railway lines and railway stations has been opened at WT:UKT#Chains RFC. Mjroots ( talk) 19:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
I am having a disagreement with
Avman89 about use of {{
start date and age}} in the infoboxes of rapid transit line articles - see
L Taraval for an example. It is used on a number of such articles, but use is inconsistent and I don't believe there is a broad consensus. I find the template utterly obnoxious except for ongoing events - it takes up space and clutters the infobox, while adding information that's not particularly relevant or useful. I also feel that it's confusing - the format of the template, where the 'x years ago' is separated by a semicolon, implies a list rather than a connection to a date. I feel that a line or station opened 87 years ago is vastly less important than that it opened in 1931 - if the age is important, it will be discussed in the text. Obviously there is disagreement with this - for example, Avman89 said The casual reader often is interested in how long a service has been in operation. Having to do the math every time to figure out the age (2018 - minus start year, then comparing months, is a lot of work).
I would appreciate some other opinions and perhaps we can find a consensus to consistently apply.
Pi.1415926535 (
talk) 07:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Again, I draw the following to this project's attention - Category:2′C3′ locomotives, Category:(1Bo)+(Bo1) locomotives and Category:(C1′)+(1′C) locomotives. Le Deluge ( talk) 11:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Good evening,
This project's name seems incorrect to me, and should be in my opinion renamed Wikiproject Railways. Indeed, this project takes action to a wider domain, than trains themselves, which, in addition of being informal, are restrictive to the rolling stock and may not include railway infrastructure. Do you oppose this request?
Yours sincerely,
Les Yeux Noirs (
talk) 19:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone suggest a reliable source for why / when BR got rid of them? Many thanks in advance to all who can help! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap sh*t room 16:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I've had a quick look at The Times archives - 2 hits for "Debbie Linsley" and 5 for "Deborah Linsley". At least we have a firm date - 23 March 1988. Suggest that issues of Rail from that date onwards might prove a fruitful hunting ground. Mjroots ( talk) 17:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Following the murderwhich sounds to me like journalese for "I want to imply causation but can't prove it". Certes ( talk) 09:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Scenic railroad and scenic railway redirect to roller coaster. I created Draft:Scenic railroad with a short intro and a start of a list of scenic railroads and scenic railways. Any help would be most welcome and a move into mainspace would be great. I have an editing restriction that precludes me from creating an article in mainspace but I think the current redirect setup is pretty messed up. I included a link to the roller coaster usage at the top of the draft. FloridaArmy ( talk) 02:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
the most common use of the term Scenic Railway in Britainis the railway with scenery, rather than the archaic fairground ride. Yes, this use is both archaic and obscure - but then so's the term. We have railways which are regarded as especially scenic, but no-one applies that term to them. The fairground though - as much as anyone ever discusses Edwardian fairgrounds - does use it, largely because it's sign-written on the side of them. Andy Dingley ( talk) 20:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to propose some standardization on state railroad templates. Looking just at New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway, there are three styles:
I went through Category:Railroads by U.S. state navigational boxes and did some tallies. There are 52 templates in that category: all 50 states plus DC and Puerto Rico. 47 templates use AAR codes instead of full names. 17 break out passenger carriers (plenty of states which do have multiple such carriers beyond Amtrak do not include them; it appears to be random). 29 list selected former railroads. One, Florida, lists stations. Michigan (and this is something I did ages ago) is more of a general "rail transport in x" template and lists individual passenger services and related articles. 11 list and/or distinguish non-common carrier private railroads.
I have a couple thoughts:
Looking forward to hearing from others on this. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Based on the above, I suggest the following:
-- Mackensen (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I have an announcement for the members of TWP;
Anyone who wants to work on the following projects for future articles;
Take them now. Some of them I'm stumped upon, and others I just don't feel like working on anymore. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk) 02:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Category:Northern Pacific Railway stations in Washington (state), which is within the scope of this wikiproject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mackensen (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Goat Canyon Trestle#Inaccuracies.
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk) 01:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Victorian Goldfields Railway links to the DAB page Victorian Railways W type carriage. The problem was first spotted in April 2017. Can any expert help solve it? (Search for "disam" in read mode or for "{{dn" in edit mode to find it.) Narky Blert ( talk) 13:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Yesterday, eight articles about railway stations suddenly appeared in Category:Articles with missing files. I can see no obvious reasons, e.g. any files having been deleted on Commons, but their commonality is that they transclude {{ Caledonian Railway (Carstairs to Carlisle) RDT}}. That template has not been edited for two weeks, so I don't know why the eight articles show up in MISSFILE now. The template seems to have an error, but my lack of experience with {{ routemap}} suggests this matter is more efficiently handled by you who have.
A few more train articles, new in MISSFILE today, where I fail to see what is wrong:
Please ping me, there's usually something to learn from these situations. Sam Sailor 08:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I am proposing a naming conventions for Taiwan stations for better consistency. Feedback welcomed at User talk:Szqecs/Naming conventions (Taiwan stations). Thanks. Szqecs ( talk) 08:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Truflip99 has asked for feedback on the MAX Blue Line article, before a possible Good article nomination, if any WikiProject Trains members are willing to take a look and leave feedback on the article's talk page. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ahmedabad Monorail is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmedabad Monorail until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nizil ( talk) 07:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, I have started work for a railway company not so long ago and as I used wikipedia to answer specific doubts and just to learn more about current technology, I realised the quality of content for modern technology is pretty poor. I assume this is because this is a very opaque sector that people outside the sector do not understand very well. I was pretty surprised by the low quality of the ETCS article, absence of digital interlocing and EULZNX, etc. Has anyone else had the same impression? Would this merit creating a task force for this? Cheers! Botatao ( talk) 13:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
A bunch of rail-station and airport articles have links to theairdb.com website, which apparently is some database with a page of details for each station. They are often listed as an IATA entry in the "Station code" section of the infobox, but sometimes in External links. The site is now dead and domain-squatted. Does anyone know a similar resource to use instead, or should these links all just be removed? As an added annoyance, it's all hand-coded in each page, not a central template to fix:( DMacks ( talk) 20:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Maybe www.gcmap.com? Anyway, it would be useful to template-ify this sort of thing (or even better have the infobox generate the extlink automatically) rather than hand-entering a link in each article? There are currently about 70 links to airdb.com from en.wp, but that site appears to be fairly comprehensive. DMacks ( talk) 20:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
{{
infobox GB station}}
or {{
infobox London station}}
, each of which has a parameter (|code=
and |railcode=
respectively) which if filled in (as with all stations open at the present time) adds some official links to the infobox that show station information - location, facilities, train times, etc. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 10:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)I opened up this discussion at WP:USSTATION a few months ago, but consensus was never reached. I'd like to revisit this issue with a larger audience. The first question is: in station articles, what should be bolded in the opening sentence: just the station name, or the station name and the word "station"? For example, "Hastings-on-Hudson station is a Metro-North Railroad station in Hastings-on-Hudson, New York." vs. "Hastings-on-Hudson is a Metro-North Railroad station in Hastings-on-Hudson, New York." The second question is that some station articles, particularly Metro-North Railroad ones, start with the word "The" and describe what it serves, ex. "The Yankees–East 153rd Street Metro-North Railroad station serves Yankee Stadium and Highbridge, the surrounding area in the New York City borough of The Bronx." I believe there should be consensus and standardization on this.
I realize the first issue may be too widespread for a discussion in just one WikiProject: it may need a true RFC, as wouldn't this pertain to all other articles that repeat what they are in the bolded text and again when describing what it is in the opening sentence, such as on articles about high schools? Please refer to the linked discussion for the arguments that have already been stated, and add your thoughts and comments below. Thank you! – Daybeers ( talk) 04:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Today the Dutch city of Oss was struck by the severe train accident with a stint bicylce, which killed four children (4,4,6,8) and two more people very badly wounded in the hospital. Can someone explain me why this tragic events had turned into an article on Wikipedia? Oss_train_crash
It is very rude and irrelevant to do this. Can this page be removed?
-- Bigknor ( talk) 19:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Dear Morphenniel,
Safety improvements do not come by Wikipedian publications, they are created by the country itself, by the companies like NS, ProRail etcetera.
-- Bigknor ( talk) 09:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
No it is not. I am not personally involved. I object because of the bad timing and on the other hand because I do want to protect the rest about this theme. In The Netherlands everyone is in shock by this and all media are on this. They better wait until there is more rest as is with historiography.
-- Bigknor ( talk) 23:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I have started on adding and improving articles on railway stations in China but have had difficulty getting the s-line template to work properly, see for exaample Tianyang railway station. Any advice or help would be much appreciated. Johnkn63 ( talk) 08:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Templates in Category:Rail transport infobox templates have many common or similar parameters. For consistency and easier maintenance, they should be merged, at least some of them.
Szqecs ( talk) 08:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Should European and South American subway/metro stations be broadly renamed to have "station" in their titles, replacing the status quo of using the system name as a disambiguator (which was removed in this station's case)? I would file RMs for this but I don't have time right now (page names can be collected with PetScan; searching subcategories is often useful). Another issue is the discrepancy between use of "Gare de" and "railway station" in France, which I personally think would be solved by having all stations except for the Paris railway terminals use "railway station". Jc86035 ( talk) 14:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
To answer a help-me request, I added a station to {{ NSW TrainLink intercity stations}}. That template has a blank default. I noticed that {{ Template:Sydney Trains stations}} has a default that is not blank, even if the station is misspelled or does not exist. I think this latter approach is less mysterious to most users, but there may be philosophical reasons why someone might prefer to only select from a list of names rather than allow a red link to show up. I'm coming from the direction of someone who was mystified by a blank. I suspect only a fraction of our editors would know how the scheme works overall, but if adding a station was generally no more complicated than adding an article on the station, I think everyone's life would be easier. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I have made a change to template {{ NSW_Country_lines_stations}} which was incorrectly creating links for stations without a suffix, adding a suffix depending on which other stations names it did find. This has now been fixed but I am left with one new problem in that if there are any stations which correctly have a ,Sydney suffix it will not handle them correctly, other than Sydney Central which I have added as an individual item. Is there any way of finding out whether there are any other such stations which may need to be added, possibly by adding some tracking mechanism? And also see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_South_Wales/To-do there are possibly hundreds of railway stations listed for action. As a result of the two changes made so far, most of those stations which are redirects, no longer have any links to them and can potentially be removed.(does not necessarily apply to rail lines which may need to be investigated separately.) Fleet Lists ( talk) 23:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, can I have the opinion of the TWP members on wether Station layouts should be included in station articles? I know this may have been discussed before but I think it’s time to draw a line for the entire project. WikiProject Singapore have decided to remove station layouts from the Singapore stations articles, and so is the case with Taipei Metro (from when I last checked). Station layouts in my opinion are a violation of WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:TRIVIA, but are still seen on many station articles. Please voice your opinion on this matter so that we can get a consensus on this and set the matter straight. Thanks 1.02 editor ( C651 set 217/ 218) 11:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments! I will add this into the TWP MOS if there are no further comments. @ Windmemories: 1.02 editor ( C651 set 217/ 218) 06:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I've started (well, continued) a discussion at Talk:Spanish solution#Sources. I encourage anybody interested to participate. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Cleveland, OH | |
---|---|
Lakefront Station |
Over the past few days,
MrTrains227 and I have been adding the state abbreviations to to Amtrak station articles in a few states. I have picked up feedback from a few editors regarding official titles for the bigger Amtrak station buildings. Amtrak differentiates how certain stations are named, some stations on the official
timetable list an alternate name in smaller font (The name of the building itself), while some do not. In regards to the infobox header, how should we define when certain station names are used, when they are on building and platform signage, or just platform signage? (Example: The Amtrak sign for Cleveland says Cleveland, OH. The name of the building is Cleveland Lakefront Station. Doesn't that mean we should default to the platform signage for infobox headers, since the platform name compliments the Amtrak style template we created? If that's the case, the title of the article should be the official building name, while the infobox header should display the name given on Amtrak's official signage.
@
Secondarywaltz: @
Pi.1415926535: @
TomCat4680: @
RickyCourtney: @
Bigturtle: @
Mackensen:
Cards84664
(talk) 01:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a timetable nor a travel guide. The kind of inconsistency described above, where sometimes the infobox parrots an Amtrak timetable and sometimes it doesn't, will confuse everyone. We were better off when the infobox drew its name from the article title, which is the common practice with these things. Mackensen (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Adding the state abbreviation may look nice, but I agree this is a question of consistency. We need to come to a consensus on this. I do agree that the common name or full official name should be used. – Daybeers ( talk) 04:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Briancua and I have been arguing on Endicott station about whether including lists of pedestrian strikes in station articles is reasonable. Pedestrian strikes are sadly common on railroads, especially at stations; I believe that noting them in articles (unless the high frequency is covered in the press, or the person killed was themselves notable) is undue weight and not useful. I would appreciate additional opinions at Talk:Endicott station. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 00:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I have started a discussion about the naming of articles about transportation accidents and incidents in the United States, specifically about whether or not to include the name of the state, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Naming of articles about transportation accidents and incidents in the United States. As this proposal includes articles related to incidents relevant to this WikiProject, your comments are invited. Please comment there rather than here to discussion in one place. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I've started a proposal for a new guideline for Irish railway stations, WP:IRLSTATION. It's intended to make articles on Irish stations more consistent in titling and disambiguation, as has been done with other station articles. I wrote it to reflect the way most Irish stations are titled anyway with some guidance to increase consistency, and the text is based on the current conventions at WP:UKSTATION, WP:USSTATION, and WP:CANSTATION. Feedback is welcome.-- Cúchullain t/ c 18:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Before this evolves into an edit war, could I please get some uninvolved input from you on this re-addition of a train schedule? To me it is exactly what WP:NOTTIMETABLE (as an extension of the WP:NOTDIR policy regarding "current schedules") says should not be included in encyclopedic articles, right? -- HyperGaruda ( talk) 11:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
As I understand it, it is standard practice to use abbreviations in locomotive article titles. Please refer to talk:USATC S160 Class for more discussion with someone who apparently wants to expand all locomotive, and is being rather unhelpful.
Also United States Army Transportation Corps class S100 (which is wrong) --> USATC S100 Class.
Tony May ( talk) 10:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Currently there are four accepted naming conventions for stations:
and three proposed:
There has been a failed attempt to unify station titles in all countries ( Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations)).
Often during discussions on naming stations, users would refer to consensus established in the four accepted pages when they were not written with the rest of the world in mind. Therefore I propose that all station naming conventions be merged into a single page, with a review of consensus for and against each system. That way, titles of stations in other countries can be better thought out. Szqecs ( talk) 15:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Dear WikiProject members, I have proposed that the Seikan Tunnel Tappi Shakō Line page be merged into the Kaikyō Line page. Please participate in the discussion if you would like to give a say. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
If anyone is interested in a geodata challenge, you might want to take a look at
Category:Pomeranian Voivodeship articles missing geocoordinate data,
where there are about 100 railway station articles missing coordinates. -- The Anome ( talk) 15:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Project members are invited to participate in a discussion at Talk:Washington Park station (Portland) re: article titles for TriMet stations in Portland, Oregon. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
See Template_talk:Infobox_station#"line"_being_confused_with_"services".
I thought this merited general comment so I am posting here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
An IP editor has been making a lot of small changes to railroad articles, with no sources or even edit comments to back up the changes. Could somebody familiar with the field please review Special:Contributions/69.118.168.191 and verify if these changes are legitimate or not. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
There's an RfC on adopting the proposed guideline for transport stations, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Irish stations), here. Interested editors are asked to weigh in.-- Cúchullain t/ c 13:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
This is a reminder that there's an open RfC on adopting Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Irish stations). Please weigh in here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Irish_stations)#Request for Comment on adopting Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Irish stations).-- Cúchullain t/ c 14:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I encourage other editors to have a look at this discussion about the application of the MOS to railway station infobox headers. That discussion specifically concerns the MBTA, but may have broader implications to this project. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 00:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
There appears to be inconsistency with the
Amtrak route diagram templates, specifically whether stations are assigned a large icon (
(
BHF
) or a small icon (
(
HST
). Does consensus exist regarding the icon size for Amtrak stations, such as the number of passengers, key station features, etc.? If not, let's establish it here. As an example, the threshold between having a large or small icon could be whether the station had 25,000 passengers or more, per the most recent statistics.
Jackdude101
talk
cont 00:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
BHF
for >1,000,000 passengers a year (so generally all metro and heavy-rail rapid transit stations), commuter/regional rail stations with hourly or better service throughout the day, and other stations served by multiple routes. Note that branch line termini are not automatically "major".
Useddenim (
talk) 15:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)I have just uploaded to Commons 395 images from a Flickr user called "Dining Car", who travels on and photographs dining cars, and views from them, all over Europe: c:Category:Images by 'Dining Car from Wien'. Please assist me in adding categories and descriptions, and using the images in articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone identify the train involved in the Ankara train collision? The locomotive class has been identified, but not the passenger train. Photos on referenced websites. Mjroots ( talk) 18:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The above two pages seems to be similar. If yes, do merge them together! Thanks -- Xaiver0510 ( talk) 05:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful to discuss the presence of fleet rosters in articles. These can take (usually) three forms:
As far as I know there's never been a general discussion about these lists, save Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2008, 3#Should locomotive rosters be included?, which was perfunctory and also ten years ago. To state the obvious, there's a good deal of interest in the railfan community in locomotive rosters. They're regularly published in magazines like Trains and can also be found in published secondary sources. Railfan websites track these things minutely. Some of this information is verifiable and reliable; some of it isn't. For the purposes of this discussion I'd like to focus on the latter two examples.
I think a starting point is a question of how and to what degree a fleet roster can or cannot be reconciled with WP:SUMMARY, particularly WP:DETAIL. For a locomotive model, a roster can indicate which companies bought a model, and how many. That's useful, though an exhaustive list may overwhelm. Are individual fleet numbers useful to the reader? Are they encyclopedic? How about the inevitable "Notes" column found in EMD SD40-2#Original owners, which has various (unsourced) details on disposition and minor changes in design. Is the detail that some or all Conrail-owned EMD SD40-2s had Flexicoil trucks encyclopedic? Does it belong in a table?
For company rosters, it's relevant at some level what equipment a transport company owns and operates. Again, how far does this go? Are fleet numbers useful? Are the details about which locomotives were renumbered, and when, an example of writing in summary style? Should individual locomotives ever be listed, assuming such information could be reliably referenced? See New York and Atlantic Railway#Equipment for an example of listing individual units, referenced to railfan picture websites. Mackensen (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment: I would think that one of the most common uses of fleet rosters would be someone trying to find out exactly just what “number 000 of Xyz Railway” is, which is certainly part of what an encyclopedia should do. Also FWIW, I think that there should be some sort of standardized format for fleet lists to keep them consistent. Useddenim ( talk) 18:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Boylston Street Subway that would benefit from your input. Please come and help! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 16:51, 24 December 2018 (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. |
Happy new year! I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community.
Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it, and I’d like to introduce it to your project! If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 ( talk) 19:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject Trains! Your input is welcome at this discussion: Talk:Siemens-Duewag_Supertram#Requested_move_25_December_2017. Thank you for your help! -- Aervanath ( talk) 21:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Locomotive #3018 was hauling the train that crashed near Kroonstad today. What class is it please? Mjroots ( talk) 19:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:2017 Washington train derailment#Requested move 21 December 2017, regarding a page related to this WikiProject. Your opinion and rationale are needed so a decision can be made. Thank you and Happy New Year to All! Paine Ellsworth put'r there 12:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed that most of the stations in Category:Railway stations in Portland, Oregon have capped Station. I presume these should be fixed; I moved a few. Anyone want to help? Dicklyon ( talk) 04:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in a similar RM affecting Chinese stations, at Talk:Aiguo Road Station. Certes ( talk) 14:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Akaike Station (Nagoya)#Requested move 5 January 2018, regarding a page related to this WikiProject. Your opinion and rationale are needed so a decision can be made. Thank you and Happy New Year to All! Paine Ellsworth put'r there 10:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Disneyland Resort Line#Requested move 6 January 2018, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Your opinion and rationale are needed so a decision can be made. Thank you and Happy New Year to All! Paine Ellsworth put'r there 16:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Template:Current UK TOCs has been
nominated for merging with
Template:Defunct UK TOCs. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. This also proposes merging
Template:Future UK TOCs - please see the Templates for discussion page for details. Thanks.
Cnbrb (
talk) 11:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
In Category:Railway stations located underground and its subcategories I've boldly added:
I'll wait some time, in case there is any opposition against this, and then I'll start removing the metro stations from these categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
45% of the system is actually underground in tunnels, though I expect the tunnels have more stations. Being an underground station (there's earth on top) and being an Underground Station (tube trains run there) are distinct qualities and there are plenty of stations in all four sections of the resulting Venn diagram. If the category is worth keeping then let's keep it independent of whether the station is part of a metro/tube/subway system so all four sections are clearly defined. Also, what would we do with places served by both tube and national rail trains, such as Old Street station? Certes ( talk) 12:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
What is the naming convention for pages on railway stations?
The majority of station pages seem to have the format "X station" (lower case) or "X railway station"; the only exceptions (why am I not surprised?) are the pages on French stations (which are in French) and German stations (in German) Is there a reason for making these exceptions?
Moonraker12 (
talk) 16:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Template talk:Infobox station#Optional separation of former and future services -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 12:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I would appreciate some uninvolved eyes on Oakland Coliseum station. Titanosaurus has added what I feel is an excessive level of detail about connecting bus routes, and continually reverts me when I remove it. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 05:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I've made
a proposal on the Commons BSicon renaming talk page to discontinue the CPIC root by renaming all CPIC icons to become XBHF, XACC and XINT (e.g.
(
heCPICr
) would become hXBHF-Re
). While icons are routinely renamed, this is an unusually wide-ranging change without precedent so it would be nice to have some more feedback there.
Jc86035 (
talk) 16:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
These all begin with 'Metro', for example Metro Olivos, should they not all be renamed to for example Olivos Station or Olivos (Mexico City Metro station) or something similar ? Thanks GrahamHardy ( talk) 08:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Please drop by here and give your view. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 20:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 20:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Should we be using Co′Co′ vs. Co'Co'?, Co′Co′ locomotives or Co'Co' locomotives?
See WT:Manual of Style#Primes and apostrophes? It's a sizable amount of work if we do change this. It affects Commons too. Andy Dingley ( talk) 16:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Prussian P 8 links to Class 17, which is a DAB page. (The corresponding German article does the same, so that's no help - and one of the locomotives on the German DAB page is Austrian.) The link has been {{ dn}} tagged for attention since September 2016. Can one of you experts help solve the problem? Narky Blert ( talk) 13:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
In Category:Stations of East Japan Railway Company, Category:Stations of Kitakinki Tango Railway, Category:Railway stations in Kōchi Prefecture, etc., I see all the "Xxx Station" titles have "Station" capped, unlike most in most countries. Probably other Japan station categories similarly. Any reason for caps on "Station" in Japan, versus other places that are (almost) all lowercase "station"? Dicklyon ( talk) 03:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
DR Class 119 links to hydrodynamic transmission, which is a redirect to a DAB page. The corresponding German article says "Leistungsübertragung: hydrodynamisch" ("Power transmission: hydrodynamic") which doesn't seem to help at all. Can any expert here help solve the problem? Narky Blert ( talk) 15:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
There is an RFC on the inclusion of lists transportation service destinations, including lists of rail stations. See WP:VPP#transportation lists BillHPike ( talk, contribs) 00:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked if a staton could be added to the {{ BS-table}} on the Leamside line article. I agree but am not familiar enough with the syntax to add it myself. See Talk: Leamside line#Two stations to add to RDT.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 21:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I started a discussion here: Category_talk:Railway_termini_in_Paris Cheers. N2e ( talk) 23:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backhead and comment there. Slambo (Speak) 23:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The CfD for Category:Railway stations served by London Midland has been relisted and is now at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 20#Category:Railway stations served by London Midland. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 19:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Passengertrainman ( talk · contribs) created a number of articles on passenger trains back in 2008. Many of these refer to a "Streamlined Passenger Trains of the United States & Canada" by Alan L. Pettet. Several editors throughout the years have been unable to find and verify this book (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Passenger trains task force#City of Memphis (train) - Need help with updating). From User talk:Passengertrainman#Copy and paste., it's clear why:
The items I am copying and pasting from is a proposed book that I personally wrote and all materials represent 40 years of personal research. If you would like a copy of the entire article before I add any additional material I will be happy to submit it to you it is about 256 pages.
— User:Passengertrainman
That's the definition of a self-published source, except that it's not even published. Googling around for Alan L. Pettet I find that Pettet is mentioned on a few pages of Streamliner Schedules, mostly for consists. He's posted on some forums. He's not an established expert. The articles he created were mostly consist lists with some front matter. Some have improved since them; some not so much. Seven credit him explicitly:
These articles don't credit him, but were started by him and in the same style:
These articles contains a substantial edit from him:
I think this should be treated the way we treat copyright violations. None of these additions are verifiable; they'll have to be substantiated in other sources (like Wayner, which is where they probably came from in the first place) or removed. There's a related question of whether the consist information in Streamliner Schedules is reliable, if we're citing it anywhere. I know I've used it for timetable information, but on the assumption that Eric H. Bowen was just referencing the Official Guide or other timetables. Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Project members are welcome to participate in this Good topic nomination, which involves the light rail stations of Seattle, Washington. Sounder Bruce 22:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
The accident lists (e.g. List of rail accidents (1900–29)) contain a mix of tense when referring to historical events. MOS:TENSE clearly states "do not use past tense except for dead subjects, past events,..." These are definitely past events and should be written about in the past tense. For example:
not
Using present tense give a breaking-news sensationalism (almost expected to be followed by "film at 11"). I know editors of these lists disagree; I would like to establish a consensus that the MOS be followed here. MB 15:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Most of the subcats of Category:Standard gauge railways by country are named Category:Standard gauge railways in Foo (e.g. Category:Standard gauge railways in Greece).
However a few African categories are named Category:4 ft 8 1⁄2 in gauge railways in Foo (e.g. Category:4 ft 8 1⁄2 in gauge railways in Rwanda and Category:4 ft 8 1⁄2 in gauge railways in Uganda; I just created the latter to fill a redlink).
Shouldn't these "4 ft 8 1⁄2 in" cats be speedily renamed per WP:CFDS to "Standard gauge"? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Andre Kritzinger:, you've done a lot of work on African railway articles, what are your thoughts on this proposal? Slambo (Speak) 12:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Template talk:Rail color box#Missing end tag for <small> for system=PLR line=Red Castle Shannon and discuss the issue there, not here. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 04:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/May 2018 .
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk) 16:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the NYC subway station naming convention at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Station naming convention#Unnecessary and overlong "disambiguation" parentheticals to station complexes. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 13:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
As brought up in the RfC above, there's a category of 22,000 articles without references under the umbrella of the Trains WikiProject. Having picked a few at random, it seems that these tags (part of the TWP template) are out of date, as the articles in the category have gained references over the years thanks to helpful editors.
Is there a bot or script that can be used to trim the category of articles that no longer qualify? We'll be able to get a decent headcount and focus our efforts on adding references and preventing the use of these articles in broad and sweeping deletion debates like the RfC above. Sounder Bruce 07:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
|unref=yes
parameter to be removed from certain instances of {{
WikiProject Trains}}
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 12:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
|unref=yes
to quite a few that were underreferenced or that did not have footnotes with page numbers, and I'm finding more almost daily that need this designation. I have found a few articles where I could remove the unref tag in the project banner and did so as needed. If there are more than a couple citation or page needed tags, I consider the article as underreferenced and appropriate to be included in the category. As mentioned above, checking the validity of this tag is not something that can easily be done by bots. One of the key factors that needs to be checked for articles in this category is whether the articles are using
reliable sources, if the data being referenced is
verifiable within those sources (including checking for archive versions of dead links), and finally if there are enough sources for the data within the article. I have a subscription to Newspapers.com and will find and verify newspaper references where possible. If I have time while I'm editing, I will do quick searches to find additional references, but that is more the rarity than the norm. This week I've been working on adding content and references to the
Stuart R. Knott article, mostly out of newspaper sources so far, but also using some genealogical sources and soon more book sources.
Slambo
(Speak) 15:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)|refimprove=
at
Template:WikiProject Trains/sandbox.
Slambo
(Speak) 14:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
The change to the banner is live. I've been recategorizing pages as appropriate. Slambo (Speak) 15:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Do any of you have sources for Pacerailer, a privately-funded prototype railbus that ran in the UK in the late 1960s and early 1970s? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
It contains 20 Rail Lines. So we can't add other lines on this template. Actually, Incheon Maglev is not a member of Seoul Metropolitan Subway Network. If we remove Incheon maglev, we can add Seohae Line in this template. However it would be a temporary expedition eventually. Gimpo Goldline will open in 2018. -- Urirnal ( talk) 03:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I got a note today through the Administrators' newsletter that there was a substantial update to the notability guidelines for organizations and companies. I have only skimmed the discussion, and will make a more thorough read of it soon, but the crux is that articles about companies (such as railway companies) must demonstrate notability by being well sourced to multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. No company or organization is inherently notable. This is significant for WikiProject Trains because a large number of articles within the scope of this project are about companies or organizations, and many of those articles are poorly referenced or completely unreferenced (There are still many articles listed in the unreferenced category that should be in the poorly referenced category; I have been recategorizing as I have time to do so.). I will grant that many of the articles listed there are about stations, rolling stock or other subjects related to rail transport and not about companies or organizations, but the combined count of these two categories is over 22,000 articles, and I've seen many poorly referenced articles just beginning with the letter A that are about companies in rail transport. We need to seriously step up our game on providing the source references as described in this updated guideline. Slambo (Speak) 03:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
|refimprove=
parameter was
provided, see
Cleanup of Category:Unreferenced rail transport articles above. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 15:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC) You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport/Peer review .
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk) 16:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Thoughts on this template being added to the main articles of metro systems? User:Tohaomg created this template and used User:TohaomgBot to add them to the bottom of the metro systems articles. First it should be "metro systems of the world" but that's not really the main issue. Would the articles benefit from something like this? Is this necessary? What about the categorization? Why are certain countries (presumably because they have a lot of metro systems) not ramped up with their continents? Heights (Want to talk?) 19:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
In our case, a metro system navbox is related to each of that five rules. 91.124.117.29 ( talk) 16:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
What are the thoughts on trains such as the Pacific Surfliner and Northeast Regional that have multiple trains a day, some stopping at different termini along the route (for the S-line succession templates)? Seems like the consensus for these articles is to just list the further-most options (NE Regional is listed as "Boston or Springfield" e.g. Washington Union Station). I noticed that there would a bunch of options listed for Solana Beach station; it would probably be best to stick to one standard. — GFOLEY FOUR!— 14:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Editors at this project might be interested in the discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals. Bermicourt ( talk) 08:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Coventry railway station (England)#Move. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
What should be done about the article title at Tacoma station (Amtrak, 1984–2017)? I originally moved it from Tacoma station (Amtrak) when the station closed on December 17, to be replaced by Tacoma Dome Station, but the station re-opened a day later due to the DuPont derailment. So now we have an awkwardly titled article that doesn't quite reflect the content.
I need some opinions on what to name the article temporarily, until Tacoma Dome is re-instated as an Amtrak stop sometime this year, and for when the station is finally, permanently closed. Should disambiguation involve the year(s) of service at all? Sounder Bruce 07:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians! While fixing up some of the templates for the Metro-North Railroad, I noticed that many of the stations are named [[''name'' (Metro-North station)]] instead of the usual [[''name'' station]]. If I'm reading it correctly, and please let me know otherwise, parenthetical disambiguations should only exist if another article already exists with that name, per WP:USSTATION. I know many of the present Metro-North stations used to belong to other railroads, so that makes sense. However, some of the stations are fairly new, so why do they need the parenthetical disambiguation? I propose that the articles not needing disambiguation should be moved to the second way of naming above. Please discuss! Thanks! – Daybeers ( talk) 05:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
In cases where stations have ambiguous names, disambiguate them. Certes ( talk) 21:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Why was "Metro-North" chosen as the disambiguating term for all of these articles? Location-based disambiguators (state and/or city) would be better; "New York" and "Connecticut" are much more recognizable both nationally and internationally than "Metro-North", which only people familiar with the system would recognize. Some of the Connecticut stations had already used "Connecticut" as the disambiguator in a WP:USSTATION-compliant format for the past 2 years, while others were moved from "Connecticut" to "Metro-North" 2 days ago. Articles using a proper Metro-North disambiguator were in the minority (excluding all of the articles in the legacy "X (Metro-North station)" format). It doesn't look like any of the New York stations used WP:USSTATION-compliant article naming prior to 2 days ago. -- Scott Alter ( talk) 16:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Location-based disambiguators (state and/or city) would be betterNot really - look at it from the reader's point of view. Metro-North is a regional commuter rail service and is well-recognized within the service area. Most readers to these articles are likely from that service area. If you're a reader already in New York or Connecticut (regardless of whether you're a tourist or local), you would probably want confirmation in the title that this is a Metro-North station, rather than some generic station in that state. If not, there's likely little chance you'd be looking for the Metro-North station anyway. I don't think someone currently in London or Rome would be very much interested in a New York City-area commuter rail system, let alone its individual stations. Same goes with other commuter rail systems: potential readers would most likely be already in the area, making a Google search for "XXX station" on YYY system. There's no need for "national" or "international" recognition in most of these cases.On the other hand, national railroad services like Amtrak would benefit from a state-based disambiguator, since these stations are shared by other systems or duplicate the names of stations in other states. The main reason (Connecticut) was used as a disambiguator in MNRR articles was because the station was also shared by intercity or other services, such as Bridgeport station (Connecticut) (shared by Amtrak, Metro-North, and SLE), so saying "Bridgeport station (Metro-North)" would be wrong.Anyway, the "Metro-North" disambiguator is not in violation of USSTATION and I don't see any real reason to change that. It disadvantages our readers who are probably looking for a station within a certain system anyway, and it distracts us content creators from adding substantive information to these articles. epicgenius ( talk) 20:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think someone currently in London or Rome would be very much interested in a New York City-area commuter rail system, let alone its individual stations. Same goes with other commuter rail systems: potential readers would most likely be already in the area. You do not know the reason people look at Wikipedia pages. Articles should not be written or titled for a local audience. As I mentioned at Talk:Garrison (Metro-North station)#Requested move 12 April 2018, the purpose of disambiguation is to differentiate between two articles that should have the same title. There may be railroad stations that share the same name in 2 or more countries that need to be disambiguated from each other. From a reader's point of view, if they already know the system of a station (as you claim), then they would clearly also know the state (metro area or country) the station is in, and would therefore have no problem correctly identifying an article using a location-based disambiguator. However, the inverse is not true. If someone is looking for a specific railroad station in a city in New York, but have no idea what system the station is on, disambiguators of "Metro-North" versus "RTD" offer no assistance in providing meaningful disambiguation. To someone unfamiliar with the system (the majority of the world), "New York" is a much better disambiguator. You have moved all of these articles within the past few days. It's not like "Metro-North" has been a long-standing accepted disambiguator used in compliance with WP:USSTATION. -- Scott Alter ( talk) 01:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Readers are all over the world, not just in New York. While Metro-North may be well-recognized within the service area, most people in the world (and even in the US) have no idea what Metro-North is. This lack of wide-spread familiarity is a reason not to use "Metro-North" as a disambiguator.I'll say it again. Most readers of these particular articles will be within the service area (not necessarily locals, but people who are within the area at this exact time). Besides, it's not like the article doesn't mention that "XXX is a Metro-North station in New York/Connecticut". A decent article will mention that in the very first sentence, it's mandated per WP:LEAD.
You do not know the reason people look at Wikipedia pages. Articles should not be written or titled for a local audienceThis is technically true, but in practice, there are many other factors. Why would a non-local reader be looking at the article, unless it's to get information about the subject? They likely wouldn't, unless they were explicitly looking for the article. Railroad stations are generally low-viewership articles unless they are about major topics. This goes for the articles without disambiguators as well.
If someone is looking for a specific railroad station in a city in New York, but have no idea what system the station is on, disambiguators of "Metro-North" versus "RTD" offer no assistance in providing meaningful disambiguation. To someone unfamiliar with the system (the majority of the world), "New York" is a much better disambiguator.Again, I find it very highly improbable that they were looking for Garrison, New York station and they don't know what the Metro-North is. I think they would be looking for the system first, and it's more likely that they don't know the station's name or what line it's on. Like, "Take the... I don't know what system, but you have to get to the Garrison train station upstate somehow." I'm pretty sure this doesn't happen.
It's not like "Metro-North" has been a long-standing accepted disambiguator used in compliance with WP:USSTATION.Not necessarily true, "Metro-North" was the existing disambiguator in all of these articles, and obviously there was a consensus to use "Metro-North" instead of, say, "MNRR". I simply moved "station" out of the title. epicgenius ( talk) 02:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Context will determine the most suitable distinguishing term, so editors use their judgment depending on whether
the system is likely to be more recognizable for readers than the city, for instance when a major metropolitan area's transit system has stops in outlying communities(system) or whether these are
stations serving Amtrak and other intercity rail, especially when there are stations in multiple cities that have the same name(state). epicgenius ( talk) 18:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Is any former railway station (whether demolished or still standing) considered to be notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia? I'm asking because I would like to eventually write articles about the stations of the former Malta Railway. In some cases I have very little information to write about, so the articles might be stubs, however there are some other stations (eg. Birchircara and Museum Stations, which both still exist) where it shouldn't be that hard to find some good information. -- Xwejnusgozo ( talk) 12:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Is there a user box to put on your profile? A 10 fireplane ( talk) 15:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC) A 10 fireplane ( talk) 15:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
{{
User Trains WikiProject}}
, see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains#Templates. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 19:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion occurring regarding the naming of LIRR station articles. Please weigh in if you'd like to! Thanks! – Daybeers ( talk) 06:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
It has been proposed and can be found here : Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/US railroads. If you are interested, please add yourself in for support. If enough support is found, maybe we ditch make a North American rail transportation WikiProject instead. Thanks for reading. XXCooksterXx ( talk) 00:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC) XXCooksterXx ( talk) 00:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
https://www.google.com/maps/placelists/list/1sJA_MDk4oISH8ERPd8scBasGQ6Y?hl=en It is of Abandoned RR’s in South Dakota. IT IS NOT COMPLETE. IT IS ALSO NOT 100% ACCURATE, SOME PLACES REQUIRED AN EDUCATED GUESS. Here are a few things this map includes:
THIS IS INCOMPLETE. I REPEAT, INCOMPLETE. You can help me with this, but please keep in mind the following: Tracks between Platte and Napa are not abandoned Tracks between Rapid City and Kadoka/Mitchell is not abandoned Sioux Falls to Manly MN is not abandoned- they are rebuilding it Also: If the line goes outside of SD, just mark it at the border, do not follow the line outside of SD. Most importantly, MARK RAILROADS AND NOT ROADS/NOTHING. I may seem strict, but i want to make this a complete map for use for reference. Please go to my talk page if you want to help. Thanks, XXCooksterXx ❯❯❯ talk? 18:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC) P.S. I know that there are some markers on Dakota Southern (NOT ABANDONED) but please leave them. XXCooksterXx ❯❯❯ talk? 18:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I've proposed splitting up Kingston, New York railroad stations at Talk:Kingston, New York railroad stations#Split article?. This could really use the attention of someone familiar with that region. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone provide any info about the locomotive seen at commons:Category:Locomotive 3ա705-46, which I saw last week at Yerevan railway station, in Armenia? Presumably its a standard Soviet type? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion occurring regarding the format of the opening sentence of US station articles. Please weigh in if you'd like to! Thanks! – Daybeers ( talk) 17:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm going through Special:LintErrors, and I've found a almost 700 high-priority errors in articles tagged by this WikiProject. The wikitext parser is going to change in June, and any page with an error may display strangely.
What's needed right now is for someone to click these links and compare the side-by-side preview of the two parsers. If the "New" page looks okay, then something's maybe technically wrong with the HTML, but there's no immediate worry. If that column looks wrong, then it should be fixed.
The first, huge list is all "deletable table" errors. If you want to know more about how to fix these pages, then see mw:Help:Extension:Linter/deletable-table-tag.
Taking the first item as an example, the problem is in the infobox in the ==History== section (if you scroll down to the editing window, it'll highlight the likely source of the error). It has a nested copy of {{ Infobox RDT}} for the route map, and the table's closing in a different spot in the old vs new parsing system. This results in the "This diagram: view • talk • edit" line being visible outside the show/hide box.
There are 600+ pages with errors here, and it's possible that most of them have the same one or two errors, and that an update to the templates would fix this on all of them. With that in mind, I'm going to post the SQL query, so that if you update templates, then you can get an updated list.
Extended content
|
---|
select p1.page_title, p1.page_namespace, linter_cat,
concat('/info/en/?search=', p1.page_title, '?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=', linter_id) as url,
linter_params as more_info, linter_id as linter_id, linter_start as start_offset, linter_end as end_offset
from linter
join page p1 on p1.page_id = linter.linter_page and p1.page_namespace in (0, 12, 100, 118)
join page p2 on p2.page_title=p1.page_title and p2.page_namespace = p1.page_namespace + 1
join categorylinks on categorylinks.cl_from=p2.page_id and (categorylinks.cl_to='A-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='B-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='C-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='Stub-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='Start-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='GA-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='FA-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='Template-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='AL-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='BL-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='CL-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='FL-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='List-Class_rail_transport_articles' or categorylinks.cl_to='Unassessed-Class_rail_transport_articles')
where linter.linter_cat=7 or linter.linter_cat=12 order by linter_cat;
|
None
This second, much shorter list is "misnested tags". There are only 56 of these. See mw:Help:Extension:Linter/html5-misnesting for more information. This error often involves span tags or lists/line breaks inside infoboxes and similar templates. For the first article in this list, the highlighting indicates that the problem is in {{ Circle Line RDT}}. Something about the HTML is technically wrong in that template, but the side-by-side display looks the same, so I probably wouldn't worry about it right now.
None
For more help, you can ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Linter. Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 18:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
{{
routemap}}
template. As you all know, I cannot handle this at all (for those of you who don't understand, try going to
Template:Circle line RDT and open it for editing. Now, how do you find the lint problems in lines that look like like {{BSsplit|[[District line]] &|[[Piccadilly line]]||i}}! !dCONTg blue\fdCONTg\\\\\
?). Therefore,
Jc86035 and
Useddenim, being the routemap enthusiasts here, please fix up some of the mess here. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 20:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)inline
parameter to the template before removing infobox rdt from the article.Done; the last run of the query showed no articles. The bulk of these were Indian stations which incorporated routemaps. Per @ Redrose64: the Circle line RDT problem was hard to find, but it wasn't an issue with the Routemap itself. Rather, a small tag was wrapping a list, which isn't valid. Wrapping each item individually is a little ungainly, but it worked. Mackensen (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi folks. I know nothing about locomotive categorisation, but I've come across Category:1′Eo1′ locomotives which was created by Andy Dingley last week and currently has only one category, Category:1′E1′ locomotives which is a red link in violation of WP:REDNOT. Can someone who knows more about this stuff work out the appropriate categorisation? Just seeing those apostrophes in a category name makes me nervous and there don't seem to be any corresponding articles. TIA Le Deluge ( talk) 09:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
There's another one at Category:1′C+C1′ locomotives Le Deluge ( talk) 16:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Most recently in reference to Category:Standard gauge electric locomotives of France, although this is a general issue.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that WP hates excess capitalisation, particularly in article names. Even when capitalisation (or enforced lowercase) is strongly imposed by the subject of an article, WP will hammer that article name into strict Sentence case, with no more than one capital, unless there is a signed note from both the OED and the Académie française agreeing to the contrary and conferring proper name status (and note the lowercase f in française).
So why are our loco articles mostly in Title Case? SNCF Class BB 12000, L&YR Class 28 etc? In both of those certainly, the word "Class" was never used by the original subjects, thus stretches our rules to be anywhere near a proper name. There are exceptions (of course): Commonwealth Railways CA class. For every LNWR Dreadnought Class there's a Furness Railway 115 class or a Furness Railway K1 and even a Furness Railway Class D5 0-6-0 (why include such an undistinguished and non-defining wheel arrangement?). Or aberrations like the unpluralised CGR class C1 and C1a. And then of course the anachronistic British Rail Class D3/7, built in the 1930s, let alone under British Railways and withdrawn before British Rail came along.
I propose the following:
I have no great wish to rename vast numbers of articles. But it would be good to clarify some of the goals before creating any more.
Thoughts? Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
As a representative of the non-train-geek community, I'd tend to prioritise the
key attributes of a name - Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness and Consistency. It's worth noting that Conciseness is equally important - The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Ed, you mention the
Central Intelligence Agency as a full article name - but when it's compounded into another article name it is usually (if not entirely consistently) abbreviated - see articles in
Category:CIA activities.
There's also the point that you may not know any of the CGRs were - but if I asked you to name a railway in colonial Sri Lanka, you wouldn't have been able to come up with the full name of the Ceylon Government Railway, so are you any better off if it's expanded? It's unlikely that a non-specialist publication would be mentioning it in the first place, so you don't lose much by abbreviating it. As an example that's maybe closer to home - your argument would say that
SMS Bayern should really be at
Seiner Majestät Schiff Bayern because casual readers won't know what SMS stands for in this context. But only a battleship geek would be reading that article in the first place.
If it was decided that some kind of split between "obvious" abbreviations and not was desirable, might I suggest looking at pageviews? I'd argue that the British Big Four would certainly count as "better-known-as-abbreviations" and looking at
their pageviewsthey're all at least 150/day whereas eg the LNWR is down at ~92/day, I'd suggest ~100/day is a reasonable threshold for "heard-of-ness".
Le Deluge (
talk) 22:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes) for related prior discussion. Mackensen (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Can we perhaps extend this discussion to include individual locomotives? Category:Individual locomotives reveals a real hodgepodge with no consistency even within some countries. Mackensen (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I've tried to distill this conversation into a proposed guideline: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (locomotives). Feedback appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I tagged this project on the talk page for Chicago Express Loop. I am not sure if it actually belongs because I am not sure if this counts as a train or rail transport. Feel free to change the categories in the article and its prose.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I opened a discussion here about whether there should be separate articles for each of the stations of the Las Vegas Monorail, that could use some input. Toohool ( talk) 18:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The lede of the Advanced Passenger Train article currently includes this statement:
with the British Rail Class 221, built by Bombardier Transportation. Its tilting system was originally licensed from the APT. Other features pioneered on APT, such as the hydrokinetic braking used to stop the train within existing separations, have not been adopted.
Bomber has its own active tilt system, originally developed for the LRC (train) starting in the 1960s and beginning hardware development in 1972. This system continues to be used on the Acela Express and a number of other designs.
So, does anyone know for sure what system the 221 uses? The ATP's system is currently owned by Fiat, and it seems unlikely that Bomber would license from Fiat when they have their own.
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 13:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
A Request for Comment on the use of chains in articles on railway lines and railway stations has been opened at WT:UKT#Chains RFC. Mjroots ( talk) 19:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
I am having a disagreement with
Avman89 about use of {{
start date and age}} in the infoboxes of rapid transit line articles - see
L Taraval for an example. It is used on a number of such articles, but use is inconsistent and I don't believe there is a broad consensus. I find the template utterly obnoxious except for ongoing events - it takes up space and clutters the infobox, while adding information that's not particularly relevant or useful. I also feel that it's confusing - the format of the template, where the 'x years ago' is separated by a semicolon, implies a list rather than a connection to a date. I feel that a line or station opened 87 years ago is vastly less important than that it opened in 1931 - if the age is important, it will be discussed in the text. Obviously there is disagreement with this - for example, Avman89 said The casual reader often is interested in how long a service has been in operation. Having to do the math every time to figure out the age (2018 - minus start year, then comparing months, is a lot of work).
I would appreciate some other opinions and perhaps we can find a consensus to consistently apply.
Pi.1415926535 (
talk) 07:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Again, I draw the following to this project's attention - Category:2′C3′ locomotives, Category:(1Bo)+(Bo1) locomotives and Category:(C1′)+(1′C) locomotives. Le Deluge ( talk) 11:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Good evening,
This project's name seems incorrect to me, and should be in my opinion renamed Wikiproject Railways. Indeed, this project takes action to a wider domain, than trains themselves, which, in addition of being informal, are restrictive to the rolling stock and may not include railway infrastructure. Do you oppose this request?
Yours sincerely,
Les Yeux Noirs (
talk) 19:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone suggest a reliable source for why / when BR got rid of them? Many thanks in advance to all who can help! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap sh*t room 16:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I've had a quick look at The Times archives - 2 hits for "Debbie Linsley" and 5 for "Deborah Linsley". At least we have a firm date - 23 March 1988. Suggest that issues of Rail from that date onwards might prove a fruitful hunting ground. Mjroots ( talk) 17:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Following the murderwhich sounds to me like journalese for "I want to imply causation but can't prove it". Certes ( talk) 09:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Scenic railroad and scenic railway redirect to roller coaster. I created Draft:Scenic railroad with a short intro and a start of a list of scenic railroads and scenic railways. Any help would be most welcome and a move into mainspace would be great. I have an editing restriction that precludes me from creating an article in mainspace but I think the current redirect setup is pretty messed up. I included a link to the roller coaster usage at the top of the draft. FloridaArmy ( talk) 02:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
the most common use of the term Scenic Railway in Britainis the railway with scenery, rather than the archaic fairground ride. Yes, this use is both archaic and obscure - but then so's the term. We have railways which are regarded as especially scenic, but no-one applies that term to them. The fairground though - as much as anyone ever discusses Edwardian fairgrounds - does use it, largely because it's sign-written on the side of them. Andy Dingley ( talk) 20:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to propose some standardization on state railroad templates. Looking just at New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway, there are three styles:
I went through Category:Railroads by U.S. state navigational boxes and did some tallies. There are 52 templates in that category: all 50 states plus DC and Puerto Rico. 47 templates use AAR codes instead of full names. 17 break out passenger carriers (plenty of states which do have multiple such carriers beyond Amtrak do not include them; it appears to be random). 29 list selected former railroads. One, Florida, lists stations. Michigan (and this is something I did ages ago) is more of a general "rail transport in x" template and lists individual passenger services and related articles. 11 list and/or distinguish non-common carrier private railroads.
I have a couple thoughts:
Looking forward to hearing from others on this. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Based on the above, I suggest the following:
-- Mackensen (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I have an announcement for the members of TWP;
Anyone who wants to work on the following projects for future articles;
Take them now. Some of them I'm stumped upon, and others I just don't feel like working on anymore. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk) 02:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Category:Northern Pacific Railway stations in Washington (state), which is within the scope of this wikiproject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mackensen (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Goat Canyon Trestle#Inaccuracies.
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk) 01:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Victorian Goldfields Railway links to the DAB page Victorian Railways W type carriage. The problem was first spotted in April 2017. Can any expert help solve it? (Search for "disam" in read mode or for "{{dn" in edit mode to find it.) Narky Blert ( talk) 13:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Yesterday, eight articles about railway stations suddenly appeared in Category:Articles with missing files. I can see no obvious reasons, e.g. any files having been deleted on Commons, but their commonality is that they transclude {{ Caledonian Railway (Carstairs to Carlisle) RDT}}. That template has not been edited for two weeks, so I don't know why the eight articles show up in MISSFILE now. The template seems to have an error, but my lack of experience with {{ routemap}} suggests this matter is more efficiently handled by you who have.
A few more train articles, new in MISSFILE today, where I fail to see what is wrong:
Please ping me, there's usually something to learn from these situations. Sam Sailor 08:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I am proposing a naming conventions for Taiwan stations for better consistency. Feedback welcomed at User talk:Szqecs/Naming conventions (Taiwan stations). Thanks. Szqecs ( talk) 08:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Truflip99 has asked for feedback on the MAX Blue Line article, before a possible Good article nomination, if any WikiProject Trains members are willing to take a look and leave feedback on the article's talk page. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ahmedabad Monorail is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmedabad Monorail until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nizil ( talk) 07:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, I have started work for a railway company not so long ago and as I used wikipedia to answer specific doubts and just to learn more about current technology, I realised the quality of content for modern technology is pretty poor. I assume this is because this is a very opaque sector that people outside the sector do not understand very well. I was pretty surprised by the low quality of the ETCS article, absence of digital interlocing and EULZNX, etc. Has anyone else had the same impression? Would this merit creating a task force for this? Cheers! Botatao ( talk) 13:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
A bunch of rail-station and airport articles have links to theairdb.com website, which apparently is some database with a page of details for each station. They are often listed as an IATA entry in the "Station code" section of the infobox, but sometimes in External links. The site is now dead and domain-squatted. Does anyone know a similar resource to use instead, or should these links all just be removed? As an added annoyance, it's all hand-coded in each page, not a central template to fix:( DMacks ( talk) 20:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Maybe www.gcmap.com? Anyway, it would be useful to template-ify this sort of thing (or even better have the infobox generate the extlink automatically) rather than hand-entering a link in each article? There are currently about 70 links to airdb.com from en.wp, but that site appears to be fairly comprehensive. DMacks ( talk) 20:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
{{
infobox GB station}}
or {{
infobox London station}}
, each of which has a parameter (|code=
and |railcode=
respectively) which if filled in (as with all stations open at the present time) adds some official links to the infobox that show station information - location, facilities, train times, etc. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 10:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)I opened up this discussion at WP:USSTATION a few months ago, but consensus was never reached. I'd like to revisit this issue with a larger audience. The first question is: in station articles, what should be bolded in the opening sentence: just the station name, or the station name and the word "station"? For example, "Hastings-on-Hudson station is a Metro-North Railroad station in Hastings-on-Hudson, New York." vs. "Hastings-on-Hudson is a Metro-North Railroad station in Hastings-on-Hudson, New York." The second question is that some station articles, particularly Metro-North Railroad ones, start with the word "The" and describe what it serves, ex. "The Yankees–East 153rd Street Metro-North Railroad station serves Yankee Stadium and Highbridge, the surrounding area in the New York City borough of The Bronx." I believe there should be consensus and standardization on this.
I realize the first issue may be too widespread for a discussion in just one WikiProject: it may need a true RFC, as wouldn't this pertain to all other articles that repeat what they are in the bolded text and again when describing what it is in the opening sentence, such as on articles about high schools? Please refer to the linked discussion for the arguments that have already been stated, and add your thoughts and comments below. Thank you! – Daybeers ( talk) 04:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Today the Dutch city of Oss was struck by the severe train accident with a stint bicylce, which killed four children (4,4,6,8) and two more people very badly wounded in the hospital. Can someone explain me why this tragic events had turned into an article on Wikipedia? Oss_train_crash
It is very rude and irrelevant to do this. Can this page be removed?
-- Bigknor ( talk) 19:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Dear Morphenniel,
Safety improvements do not come by Wikipedian publications, they are created by the country itself, by the companies like NS, ProRail etcetera.
-- Bigknor ( talk) 09:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
No it is not. I am not personally involved. I object because of the bad timing and on the other hand because I do want to protect the rest about this theme. In The Netherlands everyone is in shock by this and all media are on this. They better wait until there is more rest as is with historiography.
-- Bigknor ( talk) 23:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I have started on adding and improving articles on railway stations in China but have had difficulty getting the s-line template to work properly, see for exaample Tianyang railway station. Any advice or help would be much appreciated. Johnkn63 ( talk) 08:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Templates in Category:Rail transport infobox templates have many common or similar parameters. For consistency and easier maintenance, they should be merged, at least some of them.
Szqecs ( talk) 08:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Should European and South American subway/metro stations be broadly renamed to have "station" in their titles, replacing the status quo of using the system name as a disambiguator (which was removed in this station's case)? I would file RMs for this but I don't have time right now (page names can be collected with PetScan; searching subcategories is often useful). Another issue is the discrepancy between use of "Gare de" and "railway station" in France, which I personally think would be solved by having all stations except for the Paris railway terminals use "railway station". Jc86035 ( talk) 14:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
To answer a help-me request, I added a station to {{ NSW TrainLink intercity stations}}. That template has a blank default. I noticed that {{ Template:Sydney Trains stations}} has a default that is not blank, even if the station is misspelled or does not exist. I think this latter approach is less mysterious to most users, but there may be philosophical reasons why someone might prefer to only select from a list of names rather than allow a red link to show up. I'm coming from the direction of someone who was mystified by a blank. I suspect only a fraction of our editors would know how the scheme works overall, but if adding a station was generally no more complicated than adding an article on the station, I think everyone's life would be easier. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I have made a change to template {{ NSW_Country_lines_stations}} which was incorrectly creating links for stations without a suffix, adding a suffix depending on which other stations names it did find. This has now been fixed but I am left with one new problem in that if there are any stations which correctly have a ,Sydney suffix it will not handle them correctly, other than Sydney Central which I have added as an individual item. Is there any way of finding out whether there are any other such stations which may need to be added, possibly by adding some tracking mechanism? And also see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_South_Wales/To-do there are possibly hundreds of railway stations listed for action. As a result of the two changes made so far, most of those stations which are redirects, no longer have any links to them and can potentially be removed.(does not necessarily apply to rail lines which may need to be investigated separately.) Fleet Lists ( talk) 23:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, can I have the opinion of the TWP members on wether Station layouts should be included in station articles? I know this may have been discussed before but I think it’s time to draw a line for the entire project. WikiProject Singapore have decided to remove station layouts from the Singapore stations articles, and so is the case with Taipei Metro (from when I last checked). Station layouts in my opinion are a violation of WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:TRIVIA, but are still seen on many station articles. Please voice your opinion on this matter so that we can get a consensus on this and set the matter straight. Thanks 1.02 editor ( C651 set 217/ 218) 11:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments! I will add this into the TWP MOS if there are no further comments. @ Windmemories: 1.02 editor ( C651 set 217/ 218) 06:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I've started (well, continued) a discussion at Talk:Spanish solution#Sources. I encourage anybody interested to participate. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Cleveland, OH | |
---|---|
Lakefront Station |
Over the past few days,
MrTrains227 and I have been adding the state abbreviations to to Amtrak station articles in a few states. I have picked up feedback from a few editors regarding official titles for the bigger Amtrak station buildings. Amtrak differentiates how certain stations are named, some stations on the official
timetable list an alternate name in smaller font (The name of the building itself), while some do not. In regards to the infobox header, how should we define when certain station names are used, when they are on building and platform signage, or just platform signage? (Example: The Amtrak sign for Cleveland says Cleveland, OH. The name of the building is Cleveland Lakefront Station. Doesn't that mean we should default to the platform signage for infobox headers, since the platform name compliments the Amtrak style template we created? If that's the case, the title of the article should be the official building name, while the infobox header should display the name given on Amtrak's official signage.
@
Secondarywaltz: @
Pi.1415926535: @
TomCat4680: @
RickyCourtney: @
Bigturtle: @
Mackensen:
Cards84664
(talk) 01:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a timetable nor a travel guide. The kind of inconsistency described above, where sometimes the infobox parrots an Amtrak timetable and sometimes it doesn't, will confuse everyone. We were better off when the infobox drew its name from the article title, which is the common practice with these things. Mackensen (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Adding the state abbreviation may look nice, but I agree this is a question of consistency. We need to come to a consensus on this. I do agree that the common name or full official name should be used. – Daybeers ( talk) 04:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Briancua and I have been arguing on Endicott station about whether including lists of pedestrian strikes in station articles is reasonable. Pedestrian strikes are sadly common on railroads, especially at stations; I believe that noting them in articles (unless the high frequency is covered in the press, or the person killed was themselves notable) is undue weight and not useful. I would appreciate additional opinions at Talk:Endicott station. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 00:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I have started a discussion about the naming of articles about transportation accidents and incidents in the United States, specifically about whether or not to include the name of the state, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Naming of articles about transportation accidents and incidents in the United States. As this proposal includes articles related to incidents relevant to this WikiProject, your comments are invited. Please comment there rather than here to discussion in one place. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I've started a proposal for a new guideline for Irish railway stations, WP:IRLSTATION. It's intended to make articles on Irish stations more consistent in titling and disambiguation, as has been done with other station articles. I wrote it to reflect the way most Irish stations are titled anyway with some guidance to increase consistency, and the text is based on the current conventions at WP:UKSTATION, WP:USSTATION, and WP:CANSTATION. Feedback is welcome.-- Cúchullain t/ c 18:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Before this evolves into an edit war, could I please get some uninvolved input from you on this re-addition of a train schedule? To me it is exactly what WP:NOTTIMETABLE (as an extension of the WP:NOTDIR policy regarding "current schedules") says should not be included in encyclopedic articles, right? -- HyperGaruda ( talk) 11:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
As I understand it, it is standard practice to use abbreviations in locomotive article titles. Please refer to talk:USATC S160 Class for more discussion with someone who apparently wants to expand all locomotive, and is being rather unhelpful.
Also United States Army Transportation Corps class S100 (which is wrong) --> USATC S100 Class.
Tony May ( talk) 10:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Currently there are four accepted naming conventions for stations:
and three proposed:
There has been a failed attempt to unify station titles in all countries ( Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations)).
Often during discussions on naming stations, users would refer to consensus established in the four accepted pages when they were not written with the rest of the world in mind. Therefore I propose that all station naming conventions be merged into a single page, with a review of consensus for and against each system. That way, titles of stations in other countries can be better thought out. Szqecs ( talk) 15:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Dear WikiProject members, I have proposed that the Seikan Tunnel Tappi Shakō Line page be merged into the Kaikyō Line page. Please participate in the discussion if you would like to give a say. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
If anyone is interested in a geodata challenge, you might want to take a look at
Category:Pomeranian Voivodeship articles missing geocoordinate data,
where there are about 100 railway station articles missing coordinates. -- The Anome ( talk) 15:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Project members are invited to participate in a discussion at Talk:Washington Park station (Portland) re: article titles for TriMet stations in Portland, Oregon. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
See Template_talk:Infobox_station#"line"_being_confused_with_"services".
I thought this merited general comment so I am posting here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
An IP editor has been making a lot of small changes to railroad articles, with no sources or even edit comments to back up the changes. Could somebody familiar with the field please review Special:Contributions/69.118.168.191 and verify if these changes are legitimate or not. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
There's an RfC on adopting the proposed guideline for transport stations, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Irish stations), here. Interested editors are asked to weigh in.-- Cúchullain t/ c 13:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
This is a reminder that there's an open RfC on adopting Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Irish stations). Please weigh in here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Irish_stations)#Request for Comment on adopting Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Irish stations).-- Cúchullain t/ c 14:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I encourage other editors to have a look at this discussion about the application of the MOS to railway station infobox headers. That discussion specifically concerns the MBTA, but may have broader implications to this project. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 00:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
There appears to be inconsistency with the
Amtrak route diagram templates, specifically whether stations are assigned a large icon (
(
BHF
) or a small icon (
(
HST
). Does consensus exist regarding the icon size for Amtrak stations, such as the number of passengers, key station features, etc.? If not, let's establish it here. As an example, the threshold between having a large or small icon could be whether the station had 25,000 passengers or more, per the most recent statistics.
Jackdude101
talk
cont 00:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
BHF
for >1,000,000 passengers a year (so generally all metro and heavy-rail rapid transit stations), commuter/regional rail stations with hourly or better service throughout the day, and other stations served by multiple routes. Note that branch line termini are not automatically "major".
Useddenim (
talk) 15:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)I have just uploaded to Commons 395 images from a Flickr user called "Dining Car", who travels on and photographs dining cars, and views from them, all over Europe: c:Category:Images by 'Dining Car from Wien'. Please assist me in adding categories and descriptions, and using the images in articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone identify the train involved in the Ankara train collision? The locomotive class has been identified, but not the passenger train. Photos on referenced websites. Mjroots ( talk) 18:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The above two pages seems to be similar. If yes, do merge them together! Thanks -- Xaiver0510 ( talk) 05:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful to discuss the presence of fleet rosters in articles. These can take (usually) three forms:
As far as I know there's never been a general discussion about these lists, save Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2008, 3#Should locomotive rosters be included?, which was perfunctory and also ten years ago. To state the obvious, there's a good deal of interest in the railfan community in locomotive rosters. They're regularly published in magazines like Trains and can also be found in published secondary sources. Railfan websites track these things minutely. Some of this information is verifiable and reliable; some of it isn't. For the purposes of this discussion I'd like to focus on the latter two examples.
I think a starting point is a question of how and to what degree a fleet roster can or cannot be reconciled with WP:SUMMARY, particularly WP:DETAIL. For a locomotive model, a roster can indicate which companies bought a model, and how many. That's useful, though an exhaustive list may overwhelm. Are individual fleet numbers useful to the reader? Are they encyclopedic? How about the inevitable "Notes" column found in EMD SD40-2#Original owners, which has various (unsourced) details on disposition and minor changes in design. Is the detail that some or all Conrail-owned EMD SD40-2s had Flexicoil trucks encyclopedic? Does it belong in a table?
For company rosters, it's relevant at some level what equipment a transport company owns and operates. Again, how far does this go? Are fleet numbers useful? Are the details about which locomotives were renumbered, and when, an example of writing in summary style? Should individual locomotives ever be listed, assuming such information could be reliably referenced? See New York and Atlantic Railway#Equipment for an example of listing individual units, referenced to railfan picture websites. Mackensen (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment: I would think that one of the most common uses of fleet rosters would be someone trying to find out exactly just what “number 000 of Xyz Railway” is, which is certainly part of what an encyclopedia should do. Also FWIW, I think that there should be some sort of standardized format for fleet lists to keep them consistent. Useddenim ( talk) 18:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Boylston Street Subway that would benefit from your input. Please come and help! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 16:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)