![]() | 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. |
FYI. postdlf ( talk) 18:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, there will be changes to Manchester Metrolink's City Zone on 13 January 2019. It will be renamed Zone 1 and Cornbrook will now be in both Zone 1 and Zone 2. The change can be seen on the official map here. I'm not sure how to make this change on the following templates:
I would appreciate any help from those more skilled at this than me. Thanks, Del♉sion23 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
HUBlf-R
),
HUB-Rq
) and
HUBrf-L
) where the hub lines are all drawn offset to one edge of the square, so that on the RDT they are drawn around stations in order to group them together. I don't know of any that are drawn through the middle, with which we could indicate that Cornbrook lies in both zones.Thanks for the help and advice everyone. Del♉sion23 (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal to delete this at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 14#East Coast Main Line diagram. Useddenim ( talk) 05:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Just a friendly heads-up that I've defined Module:Adjacent stations/Amtrak for use with Template:Adjacent stations. For the moment this only affects Infobox station styling and perhaps line color display with {{ rail color box}}. If there's an outdated or missing alias there will be a big ugly LUA script module error. It's an easy fix; please drop me a line or comment at Module talk:Adjacent stations/Amtrak. I'll be watching Category:Pages with script errors as well. Best, Mackensen (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I am currently discussing with other people on Chinese Wikipedia. That user want to have standard on station list, and my suggestion is to make a template instead. Do we already have any templates for station list, so that I do not need to reinvent the wheel? If there is no such template, I will make one on the Chinese wikipedia as well as a module/template that can automatically generate a station list based on wikidata. -- VulpesVulpes825 ( Talk) 18:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Afternoon all. I am not particularly invested in rail as a project but came across a particularly determined IP a few years back pushing POV on multiple articles (associated with an original banned user like MerseyWaters or something like that). Anyway either the original user is back, or similarly belligerent end user is pushing the same POV edits. If anyone is able to contribute with a 3rd opinion over at Glasgow Subway it would be much appreciated. Bear in mind, IP gets quite personal with his attacks. Koncorde ( talk) 15:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Category:Stations along the proposed New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail Line, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Hartford Line stations. 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.
I don't know how to save searches on Pubmed anymore, so I created this RSS feed of Pubmed reviews on "Indian railway." [1] PMID 16649742 and PMC 5446373 seem interesting, as did PMID 27534355 and PMID 30146953. EllenCT ( talk) 19:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
If anyone is monitoring Category:Rail transport articles in need of updating and wondering why it has more articles in it, the sudden influx of 56 articles is because the template Update after has had it's category field fixed. - X201 ( talk) 10:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
There has been a seem to have been a complete takeover of nondescript tram stops from historic railway stations in Ireland. Since user Cuchullain moved Harcourt Street railway station to Harcourt Street station its become an excuse to a picture of the tram in the street. Is it only me who thinks like this ? Djm-leighpark ( talk) 18:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Template talk:Adjacent stations#Requested move 10 February 2019, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 18:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I redrew the diagram on the Réseau Albert. Can an editor with knowledge of the French rail system double check that the standard gauge lines shown open/closed are actually open/closed. I used the French wiki articles on the various stations as a basis for their status, but my French is limited. Mjroots ( talk) 07:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
India has 8,500 railway stations. Two thousand have stub articles. We need guidance for promotion to non-stub status. Conversely, we need criteria for a mass redirect of articles with no references or timetable-only references. Rhadow ( talk) 15:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Some objective standards for removal of the {{
India-railstation-stub}}
tag would help reduce the size of the category. These articles are often short because there is nothing to say. I think the stub tag should be removed when the following criteria are met:
I raised this previously at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Criteria_for_promotion_from_{India-railstation-stub}.
A railway station article is a candidate for redirect to and merger with its parent railway system when it has insufficient verifiable material to be considered a comprehensive article.
Many India-railstation-stubs, have no, one, or two sources. The typical article is a recitation in text of characteristics and numbers from the Indiarailinfo website. Likewise, references to NDTV are not press, but are recitations of a similar database. These articles add no value to the user. Many were edited by rote or programmatically. They share the same sentence structure with attendant errors in style. A list of the trains that pass the station is problematic. It provides insufficient information to a traveler (notwithstanding WP:NOTTIMETABLE and is likely to become stale in time anyway. Images of the station sign alone do not convey any useful information, except for the existence of the station.
There are 8,500 railway stations in India. It is not systemic or cultural bias to assert that they are not all notable. An article does not add value to a reader if it simply duplicates the information in NDTV or Indiarailinfo. This station is an example of a non-notable topic as described in Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations). There is no significant press coverage in English at least.
I suggest we develop a consensus to REDIRECT the these station articles to their parent rail line. If at such time as a particular station becomes notable and can support its own article, the original article text including infobox and photo of the station sign can be recovered from the REDIRECT history. Rhadow ( talk) 15:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I think the first step here should be to nail down the criteria for a railway station to be considered notable. I see that an essay already exists, which is a good starting point.
Second step would be to get it ratified as an actual policy, through an RfC at WP:VP.
Third step, compile a list of railway station articles that fail the notability criteria. Nominate them for redirect en-masse at AfD.
That's my two cents. This current RfC tries to be too many things at once, and this page is a rather small forum for a change of such magnitude. Cesdeva (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe this is a distinct policy issue which can be addressed in its own right.
Whether those sources are primary or secondary, or whether they are reliable or not, could be a matter for a different debate.
At it's most basic, the policy would only detail the notability guidelines, not instruct editors as to what is a reliable source or not.
You could have a separate debate on whether those sources are considered reliable. Cesdeva (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I haven't read the prior long discussion, but here's my two cents: I think the railway station articles shouldn't be excluded from the
WP:GNG, which is the most basic notability check. Currently, it is being argued that ALL stations are notable and somehow the station articles are above the
WP:GNG guideline. --
Tyw7 (
🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (
ping me)
16:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
-- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 23:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
This is precisely going nowhere and shut this down, please. And next time; write better proposals that target something more worthwile than what's the parameter for removing stub-template. Sigh. ∯WBG converse 07:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The Sousse–Kairouan Decauville railway article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 21:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion about this at Template talk:Gautrain route diagram. Comments are invited. (Pinging Amakuru, Cuchullain, Dicklyon, SMcCandlish who have participated on this topic before.) Useddenim ( talk) 20:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Zackmann08 (along with
Pppery) seem to be embarking on a campaign to
subst and delete single-use RDTs (
Template:Bakerloo line extension 2014 plan RDT and
Template:Brescia Metro, for example. You are invited to comment on these discussions.
Useddenim (
talk)
00:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Two navboxes, {{
Railway stations in Nottinghamshire}} and {{
Railway stations in the Borough of Scarborough}}, have been nominated for deletion by
user:Zackmann08. Please see the discussions at
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 1#Template:Railway stations in Nottinghamshire and
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 1#Railway stations in the Borough of Scarborough.
Thryduulf (
talk)
13:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to merge the Newark Light Rail and Hudson-Bergen Light Rail line templates into the main NJ Transit templates. The River LINE is already there (always has been), and they all belong to NJ Transit. No need to duplicate. I've converted Grove Street station (Newark Light Rail) as an example. Best, Mackensen (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I noticed an edit at
New Garia railway station which changed the coordinates infobox entry by replacing display=inline,title with display=inline. A discussion at
2013 archive pointed out that using title 'makes the article discoverable by the "nearby" function of our mobile app, and in things like Google's Wikipedia layer
'. The doc at {{
coord}} includes 'To ensure that coordinates are seen by these tools, one set should be displayed beside the title
'. It seems the particular article mentioned is just one where title has been removed. What is the current consensus regarding title?
Johnuniq (
talk)
03:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I've just stumbled on {{ Closed Lines stations}} and related templates. These apparently support a couple closed railway lines in the Sydney, New South Wales area. These should really be grouped under the appropriate former operators and not the generic "Closed Lines"; does anyone who edits Australian topics have insight as to the correct former operator? Mackensen (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I've observed use of Template:short description on a number of articles on from the set of DW&WR locomotives that were at AfD (Usually via the User talk:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper) and wonder if we are using them in an optimal and consistent way ... and absolutely no disrespect to any who have used them). I'll admit I haven't followed this through fully and am only picking up from observing results. Anyway what we seem to have ended up with includes:
Neither of these forms seems like a perfect description to me though combined they might be a little better. But:
I think it is beginning to dawn on me that the helper, that I have not used, is picking up things from the Infobox.
Of course life in the article set is way more complex than one use case. Any thoughts? Djm-leighpark ( talk) 09:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I've put forward a proposal to completely reorganise the list of railway lines in France at the list's talk page. Comments there please. Mjroots ( talk) 20:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The "133. McGregor station (BC)" issue directed me here. User_talk:Mackensen#McGregor station (BC)
My question is whether a rarely used flag stop, which comprises merely an information post in the ground, qualifies to have its own Wiki page? A series of Via Rail flag stops each have their own stub articles that provide little useful information, and the contents range from misleading to largely inaccurate. A comprehensive "Railway" section exists within the respective Wiki articles for these mainly former towns. The stub articles attempt to duplicate a small part of this information.
To enhance the value of category searches and reduce duplication, the simple solution would be the elimination of these stub articles and the restoration of the railway category links to the town articles.
Do Wikipedia guidelines exist regarding such insignificant stub articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMBanks1 ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Can someone please take a look at the dispute between User:Moylesy98 and User:Tony May? It revolves around which photos to use, but gets rather heated and nasty, so some outside interference before this gets out of hand may be useful. I have been otherwise involved with one of them, so my opinion may not be welcome or helpful. User talk:Tony May is probably a good place to start. Fram ( talk) 09:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I cannot pay any attention to this until Tony May informs me what is important and what isn'twas inspired :) —— SerialNumber 54129 13:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Drama resumed, have take this to WP:ANI#User:Moylesy98 with a proposal to end this for once and for all. Mjroots ( talk) 13:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Eyeballs required at Talk:Multiple unit:
WP:NEOLOGISM seems to be an issue here. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I want to draw the WikiProject's attention to the editing by a person who has used the name NBTwain and a number of different IP addresses, including
They favour articles on different types of railway couplings, including
railway coupling itself. Their MO is to alter captions of images in four principal ways: capitalising words that are not normally capitalised; removing spaces so that words run together; altering descriptive phrases to obscure technical abbreviations; addition of <br>
tags where none should be necessary. The first two, when used together, create CamelCase words, causing the third way. Initially they usually left an edit summary of "CleanUp Image Formats" (note the CamelCase again) on an edit that usually left a mess behind. They have now stopped leaving edit summaries. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
07:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Someone's changed the build date in the article from September to November, which I was keen to switch back on grounds that its not in the given citation, however in a look in the citation it really isn't in the given citation. If anyone has information about the build date, could they add a source for the information for the rest of us? It'd be appreciated. TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
So, the First Transcontinental Railroad had the Golden spike completion at Promontory Point on May 10. If there is any interest or hope in getting a place on the Main Page say at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 10, the first two articles especially need some citation improvement/general copy edit. More importantly, aficionados here, would be doing the pedia and it's readers a good service, just getting this editing done. Thank you. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 12:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a circular argument going on at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Taiwan stations). Could someone knock a couple of heads together and help form a consensus? Useddenim ( talk) 02:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
consolidated from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport, User talk:Lost on Belmont & Talk:Purple Line (CTA)
C2A repeatedly insists on removing a reference to the East London line, claiming variously that "it no longer exists", it "is no longer part of the london underground [sic]", and "it was outdated". However, since the ELL was part of London Transport and predecessors' Underground network for over 140 years, I feel that it absolutely warrants inclusion. What is peculiarly odd is that C2A is only deleting that single piece of information (as opposed to, for instance, all stock that has been withdrawn). Am I correct in attempting to keep the historic record complete? Useddenim ( talk) 12:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I’ve noticed … a move … to leave only current [information]. This has always seemed like violating the spirit of WP:NOTGUIDE in its bias toward stations “you can use.” My understanding of Wikipedia is that it’s supposed to be as complete as possible. History is part of that completeness.
… While the station is (technically) gone, it was part of the Green Line service and the map gives a visual of where it was in relation to other stations and/or other related features.
Additionally, by including former stations or services … this gives an indication how how [things] have changed or developed over time. By showing the open *and* closed stations, there’s a more complete view of the service of what was and what is.
Hello! I'm a fellow Chicagoan who has been doing some editing work on routemaps, and I noticed that, unlike in other cities, Chicago's maps include stations and track sections that have been demolished. It makes sense in my view to have the stations that are closed included, but it seems like the inclusion of demolished stations and track sections exceeds the bounds of usefulness for a routemap in an infobox (it makes sense for them to stay in the routemaps of the individual branches, I suppose). It looks like you have done a lot of editing of these, so I wanted to check with you before I did anything. WMSR ( talk) 03:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Currently we have a difference of opinion on the inclusion of demolished stations on route maps for current "L" services. Per WP:BRD, I'm opening this up for discussion here (as opposed to the templates in question) because I believe there may be more visibility on the article.
The beginning of the discussion between myself and WMSR can be read here: CTA Routemaps.
In the last message in the previous iteration of this discussion, WMSR states three things: 1) the in maps of existing services are maps of current service, 2) no information is lost by the removal of demolished stations, and 3) the stations in question are retained on "historical maps."
I disagree with these points.
1) It is my belief that the maps are not (and should not be) illustrations of the current service, instead being depictions of the existing services. This may sound like semantics, but it is not. As it is, there are eight existing "L" services operated by CTA: Red, Blue, Brown, Green, Orange, Purple, Pink, and Yellow. The issue here (for me) is when each of these services originated:
With this in mind, the maps should reflect each service from its inception to present including stations that were in service after the start date, but have since been demolished.
2 and 3) Information is lost because there are no historical maps for the current services. For instance, there is no pre-rebuild Green Line map and there shouldn't be because it would be a waste of space as most information would be duplicated. Yes, all stations are listed on the branch maps, but the branch maps don't give any indication of service. By removing the station from the service map, there is only the information that the station existed on the branch because the context has been removed.
I'd appreciate everyone else's thoughts. Lost on Belmont 3200N1000W ( talk) 17:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@ WMSR: You claim that "a map of Chicago [would not] include the Morrison Hotel" and "London Underground, … Boston, and several other maps omit [demolished stations] entirely". On the contrary, an architectural history map of Chicago most certainly would include it (I remember seeing it noted on a walking tour guide a number of years ago), and {{ MBTA Red Line}} shows the gone-for-three-plus-decades Harvard Stadium branch. Citing London Transport is a straw man argument, as – with the exception of the Brill branch – some infrastructure (mostly in tunnel) exists for all "demolished" stations. Useddenim ( talk) 13:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, please provide examples for your claim that "rapid transit route maps for nearly every city exclude demolished stations". Useddenim ( talk) 13:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Help from an editor familiar with the El would be appreciated: please see Template talk:Douglas branch (CTA)#Station links. The list of former Chicago "L" stations may be useful but also contains some rogue links. Thanks, Certes ( talk) 10:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Hermann Park Railroad is currently a redirect to Hermann Park. Any project members interested in expanding the redirect into a short article?
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Should minor manufacturers of wooden toy trains on the BRIO system be kept, merged or deleted? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choo Choo Track & Toy Co (2nd nomination) Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Copenhagen Metro, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. HawkAussie ( talk) 05:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
This has been a somewhat contentious issue for a number of years at least going back to 2015 when it was also raised on this page, pointing to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sydney/Railway_stations#Transport_Links. With the opening of the Sydney Metro in the past week, the NSW Transport Info website has improved information to the point for the new stations and four existing stations where it appears unnecessary to list all bus routes which provide transport links at the station concerned. Hence this has again been raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sydney/Railway_stations#2019 where the current consensus appears to be that we should no longer list the transport links for each individual route but instead links to two different pages which provide all the required information - one page with a map and full details of the stands from which the routes operate and the other page with links to current timetables. Hence we have updated one of the new stations Rouse Hill railway station to show such links only. It is also believed that is less likely to be a contravention of the no travel guide rule and that the information for other stations will also be updated to the same level in due course. Any other comments would be welcome. Fleet Lists ( talk) 05:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Tram line diagrams (RDTs) linked from the Trams in Warsaw article have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 2#Template:Warsaw Tramways Line 1. Please comment in the linked discussion. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability#Train stations and comment on the RfC that you find there. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 19:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
It contains 20 Rail or Subway Lines. So we can't add Gimpo Goldline on this template.
Gimpo Goldline is scheduled to open in 27 July 2019.
This problem was mentioned in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2018#Problem of Template:Seoul Metropolitan Subway stations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:E199:301F:0:0:2A0A:20A1 ( talk) 07:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a requested move at Talk:WTC Cortlandt (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) that could benefit from your opinions. Please come and help out. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 16:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I am new. Very new to Wikipedia. I've been asked to update the various Kalmbach Media pages related to railroading and started in on Trains and the Kalmbach main Wiki entries before I realized the conflict of interest rule.
I'd like to suggest updates to the Wiki entries and am willing to help with Project Trains entries where I have no conflict. Please let me know how I may begin and with whom I need to communicate. Full disclosure: I am a full-time Kalmbach employee. Best — Kalmbach Digital Editor Kalmbach Digital Editor ( talk) 21:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I just read the rather short article, I inputted the cords into map app and it pops it right up next to Mill Hill Broadway train station, it doesn't say it in the article, but were the two stations connected to each other? It doesn't really describe it's exact location in any detail. I was just really interested about the station and wondered if anyone has more info to add. Govvy ( talk) 16:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
There was a discussion in 2018 about using state abbreviations in the infobox headers for Amtrak stations: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2018#Amtrak_infobox_headers. My sense of the discussion is that people agreed we shouldn't do this. MOS:INFOBOX says that the name field in an infobox should either be the common name or the full, official name. The postal abbreviation is neither. MOS:POSTABBR also says we shouldn't do this. Leaving the manual of style aside, I think it looks weird aesthetically, and it's inconsistent with any station Amtrak stops it which has a different styling (which is also arbitrary, but never mind). I think the abbreviations should come out, but I'd like to hear from other folks. Mackensen (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Please help to identify commons:Category:Southern Pacific 1258 by adding relevant categories. -- EugeneZelenko ( talk) 13:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks in advance. The Banner talk 08:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I recently removed travel-distance time information from MNRR articles, of which I assumed were out of line with WP:NOTTRAVEL. As brought up by User:Mackensen on my talk page, "Travel times are a function of timetabling and therefore can potentially run into problems of reliability, verifiability, and triviality." An example of said information as shown here is being upheld by User:Beyond My Ken simply because no discussion regarding consensus has been held before now. Is the information in question notable, or should it be removed? Cards84664 (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I concur with what I believe is the consensus view that Wikipedia articles should not include extensive timetable information, but the information that is being deleted by Cards84664 is on the order of "and travel time to Grand Central is about 51 minutes on local trains and 36 to 42 minutes on express/semi-express trains", which was removed from Irvington station (Metro-North). This single sentence is not in any way a violation of NOTTRAVEL in text or spirit, and provides the reader with a single relevant fact, which is not in any way the same as a timetable. As I noted on C84664's talk page, that travel time has been a near-constant for many decades, and is therefore a fairly inherent fact about the station. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should only list those that are actually in the city. If you do wish to help write a travel guide, your contributions would be welcome at our sister project, Wikivoyage.
Please see Talk:Harringay Green Lanes railway station#Distance from Harringay Station and comment there. This is in relation to HughJLF ( talk · contribs) adding this three times. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 13:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Please contribute to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_14#Category:Transport_in_Jelgava. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Could somebody take a look at Draft:Wellington, Grey and Bruce Railway and evaluate the sources? My take on them is that most look like blogs and thus fail WP:RS, but I'm not up on what the rail community considers to be good sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
There's an interesting slow-burning edit war going on with various Japanese train stations:
2406:3003:2004:6A0:1443:46B:9DA3:4F04 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) (possibly a sock of Calvinkulit ( talk · contribs)) keeps adding literal English translations to the leads of station articles for the station names. ( example and example)
2400:4051:1001:2E00:6538:B041:9CE3:66D1 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the latest ip to keep removing them. ( example, example, example)
I have no idea what to do about this, if this needs to go higher up just let me know. Cards84664 (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
So what happened here? Is it just that some Brits are much more into adding station info to Wikipedia? or is there a MOS guideline buried somewhere where we decided to use lower-case "station" and "railway station" in the names of all our articles? It's certainly jarring to most of our readers, so it'd be good to know if it's just a matter of WP:ENGVAR first-past-the-post or if there's actually a mandate somewhere to (mis)capitalize this way.
(If it's the latter, it'd be worth adding to your own MOS here so people could find it more easily.) — LlywelynII 04:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Question arising out of East Ventura station but applicable elsewhere: should we consider a station's opening date the date of the "grand opening" or similar ceremonies, or the date of the first regular service. For East Ventura (originally Montalvo) it's a question of November 8 (grand opening) vs November 11, 2002 (regular service). Both are attested to in reliable sources. Both are correct. In another case, Pomona station (California), regular service started on February 5, 2001, but the grand opening probably wasn't until early March. I think we should be consistent, pick one or the other, and document it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Style advice. Mackensen (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks everyone who participated, I've stubbed out Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Style advice#Articles about railway stations style guide. Mackensen (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The WMR Class 323s will be transferred to Scotland for use on ScotRail when they are replaced by Class 730 Aventras in 2020.
Northernrailwaysfan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northernrailwaysfan ( talk • contribs) 12:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Pi.1415926535: @ J4lambert: @ Oknazevad:
This obviously needs to be discussed. With templates like Template:MBTA Platform Layout Park Street, Oknazevad and I are for deletion and we moved the contents back to the mainspace, Pi.1415926535 and J4lambert are against leaving said templates in the mainspace. Cards84664 (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
There's a broad consensus, reinforced by hundreds of TFD discussions, far beyond station layout diagrams that templates should not be created for single-article use, unless it's for material that frequently changes (such as sport team rosters) to prevent edit histories being clogged up with a lot of edits. These layouts are not something that will change frequently (if ever) so there's no need to use a template. oknazevad ( talk) 00:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Links to prior discussions:
Article usage is inconsistent, but some systems have layouts for almost every station, even if it's a simple two-track station with an island platform. Mackensen (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
On the Thameslink Route Map Template:Thameslink, Luton Station has an accessible sign. According to National Rail, only platform 5 is accessible https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/LUT/details.html. Which symbol should be used for Luton and how do you code it in? Thameslinkrail ( talk) 09:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Liverpool Street station#Lead photo. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 22:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm currently working on a new "Services" section for Flinders Street railway station in a sandbox. I had a poke around for any discussion about an appropriate level of detail for these sections, but couldn't find anything conclusive. Would appreciate some input to clarify WP:NOTTIMETABLE, particularly on questions such as:
All this and more appreciated. My current version is based on FAs and GAs around the place, combining a table and prose, but I'd be happy to alter the balance. Triptothecottage ( talk) 02:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
The recent 2017-2018 Tyne & Metro usage figures have been published and they can be located on a spreadsheet on this link. I am adding the recent figures to all the Tyne & Wear Metro station articles. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 09:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone know what the ambiguous link to an indicator shelter in SR Lord Nelson Class 850 Lord Nelson might be referring to? Narky Blert ( talk) 10:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
As noted at Indicator diagram, an indicator is a measuring device that produces a chart on a piece of card or paper. These are used to evaluate how much useful work is done in the cylinder, and so determine efficiency. They are connected to the crosshead by mechanical linkage, and have tubes communicating with the ends of the cylinder to measure the internal pressure. These tubes need to be short to avoid a false reading due to pressure loss by condensation, so the indicator needs to be mounted close to the cylinder - at the front of the loco.
In a locomotive, indicators are not permanent equipment, they are only fitted to a loco when it is desired to test out that loco. An indicator needs constant attention from test staff, who will engage the apparatus at times when a reading is desired, and disengage it once the reading has been made. They also change the cards for each test. Each cylinder requires an individual indicator, and since it us usually beneficial to test all of the cylinders simultaneously, a four-cylinder loco like a Lord Nelson will need four indicators and four test staff. The apparatus cannot be operated remotely, hence the test staff need to be physically present at the front of the loco. Thus, they need protection both against wind (and possibly rain), and against falling off whilst the loco is in motion. So a kind of three-sided wooden hut (open at the rear) is built around the front of the loco, and the test staff crouch inside. This is the indicator shelter. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 08:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Two years ago, WT:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2017#Belgian_loco_naming, we agreed that Belgian locos on en:WP would be named SNCB Class 77 rather than NMBS/SNCB Class 77. Has this changed now? Re [2] and many others. @ Jan olieslagers: Andy Dingley ( talk) 20:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
This is a verry clear answer https://mobile.twitter.com/SNCB/status/1150779410141843461 83.81.132.223 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Gone quite silent, this discussion. Most reactions seem to agree that some kind of bilingual descriptor is in order. Can we leave it at that? Jan olieslagers ( talk) 15:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
What's the date of the first mainline diesel electric Co-Co (AAR: C-C) loco, with that wheel arrangement?
I'd always assumed that it was American and in the 1930s, but I can't find an example. They were mostly B-B and a few A1A-A1A (even a B-A1A). There are a few heavy freight electrics of Co-Co at this time, but the first diesels are the LMS pair post-war. Anything earlier? Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The Coronation of Queen Victoria article is up for good article review. Both the lead and the Public procession and crowds section have wording on the lines of the newly built railways were able to deliver huge numbers of people into London and it has been estimated that some 400,000 visitors arrived to swell the crowds.
Looking at the company articles, the London and Southampton Railway was open between Nine Elms and Woking Common; the Great Western Railway between Paddington and Maidenhead while the London and Birmingham Railway was not finished in time for the coronation of Queen Victoria on 28 June 1838, but aware of the lucrative traffic the event would generate, the company opened the north end of the line, between Birmingham and Rugby, and the south end from London to a temporary station at Denbigh Hall near Bletchley with a stagecoach shuttle service linking the two parts to allow through journeys to London.
Were there any others? Could these have made much contribution to the 400,000 figure? There is a ref for the role of the railways and the 400k [3] but the current wording, putting both in the same sentence, feels a bit much. Cavrdg ( talk) 18:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
This archive may be useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Proposal to delete all portals
The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore ( talk) 07:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Assistance is requested at Talk:Caledonian Sleeper#Hotel on Wheels. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The station in Hudson, NY was added to the timetable for the LSL in June, but Hudson has not been added to the maps or station lists elsewhere on Amtrak's website. Cards84664 (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
I posted a comment on the Shenzhen metro talk page re the metro map on that page. Any help anyone can provide on that is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.162.90 ( talk) 03:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Original close |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
So, it appears that the general consensus here is that station maps should be removed in their entirety per NOTGUIDE. As a few editors noted, it may be better to have the layout in prose as opposed to markup, due to accessibility and maintenance issues, but for now I believe the general consensus is just to do away with the maps. Mgasparin ( talk) 22:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC) |
Should railway stations include station layout and exits? (ie these). – Dave | Davey2010 Talk 13:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
(adding) If you want an example of a station where the placement of the exits is notable, try Brookwood railway station, which has a discreet exit directly into the adjacent cemetery to allow mourners travelling from London to pass directly into and out of the cemetery without having to walk through the town. ‑ Iridescent 17:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
It seems everyone agrees that lists of exits should be removed as per NOTGUIDE. However what is the opinion of everyone on just having a platform layout for more complicated stations such as this or those found across the NYC Subway. Terramorphous ( talk) 01:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
It contains 20 Rail or Subway Lines. So we can't add Gimpo Goldline on this template.
Gimpo Goldline was opened in 28 September 2019.
This problem was mentioned in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2018#Problem of Template:Seoul Metropolitan Subway stations and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2019#Overcrowding Problem of Template:Seoul Metropolitan Subway stations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:216:F9A7:0:0:2E67:90A0 ( talk) 01:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
navbox}}
would allow |groupn=
/|listn=
parameters numbered up to 20, but no further. This limit was removed several years ago, most probably when
Toohool (
talk ·
contribs) converted it to Lua back in March 2013. No limit is mentioned in the template documentation. So if you want 21 rows, do it. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
22:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
We currently have, unless I am missing something, three main standards for metro / rapid transit stations: Akademicheskaya (Moscow Metro) (Moscow, not consistent throughout the system but works as an example), Axelsberg metro station (example from Stockholm), and Sundby Station (example from Copenhagen), as well as various deviations like for instance Metro Bellas Artes (Mexico City) or Českomoravská (Prague, also not consistent throughout the system). I am not proposing to unify them (which is I guess impossible anyway), but has the naming been discussed anywhere? Is this a result of some top-down or some bottom-up approach? For example, I am now creating articles on Santo Domingo metro, and there were zero articles before I started. I have chosen the ... (Santo Domingo Metro) standard, mainly because someone else has chosen the same standard for Panama before me. Is it ok, or would someone come to move all of them at some point?-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Shalingzi West railway station#Requested move 24 October 2019, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, comrade waddie96 ★ ( talk) 11:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm reviewing this edit. The Moscow Metro out-of-station interchange between Sevastopolskaya on Line 9 and Kakhovskaya on Line 11 is shown inconsistently. Do we have a standard for showing this sort of arrangement? There is a complication in that line 11 seems to have closed last month, and Kakhovskaya now seems to be on a temporarily diverted line 8A. Certes ( talk) 11:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I currently have a discussion going on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard regarding the use of fan sites as references as I feel that they tend not to meet the general criteria of reliable sources guideline for Wikipedia. Graywalls ( talk) 03:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The BBC reports that ten bullet trains are to be scrapped following flood damage sustained in Typhoon Hagibis. Can this info be assimilated into the relevant articles please? Mjroots ( talk) 06:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Greeting WikiProject Trains, Paptilian is interested in the improvement of Rail transport articles. I have user pages with ideas for improvement in outline formats with a standard set of sectional headings. Just for starters a look at Train disambiguation. Loaded with everything and needs cleaning up. The outline of the article is a bit random. improvements would include a more rational approach. Trains > short description with image of locomotive (steam), tender, passenger rail car, and a red caboose > First Section/ Locomotive (train) > (by era) /Locomotive (steam), Locomtive (Diesel), Locomotive (EMD), Locomotive by White classification - 0-4-0, > Rail infrastructure - rail types, wood, iron, plate, steel, other > Rail structures broad enough to have Rail structures (buildings), Rail construction, technical drawings, Bridges, tunnels; > Rail companies, how for must we go for a concise article on Trains? Train comes as a sub category of Rail transport, Trains are historic in steam era technology, and innovative in high-speed trains today, and everything in-between. This train article is trying to be more than it should be and many things inside have their own place in the mainspace. What should be simple to navigate is a nightmare. (if) you have been working for years on Rail transport then you may not see the confusion, some human desiring to learn something about Trains finds oneself lost and confused. Oh, but there are so many ways to get where you want to be inside the encyclopedia, and that also lends itself to confusion. I have more, and would like to contribute, however I am not interested in user-warring over some non-encyclopedic way of doing things. Please consider this my formal introduction to working with the WikiProject:Trains. Paptilian ( talk) 19:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
A question about the copyright implications of linking to operator manuals hosted on third-party sites has been raised at Talk:EMD F7#Operator manual. Mackensen (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 18#State Prison station the redirect State Prison station, which targets Joliet Correctional Center is being discussed. From that discussion it seems there was a station for the prison on the Alton Railroad (Illinois), but there is currently no content about it in the article. If you can add relevant content, or have other relevant comments, please comment on the linked RfD discussion. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Does any entity produce passenger data for train commuter transport? I am hoping to find a table that has yearly or monthly data saying how many ticketed or boarded passengers there were for each Amtrak origin and destination city pair. I have found this information for air commuter data from the Department of Transportation. E,g. in 2018, I can say that 187,748 passengers went from CLE to MDW or 502,414 went from ORD to DTW.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind my bumping this from the archive. Four new articles were created yesterday, none of which have any real content apart from the scheduled opening date, and I'm still not quite sure how to best handle them. Ymblanter's input is appreciated; it would be great to know if there are further opinions. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 09:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I just went through Category:BTS Skytrain stations and Category:MRT (Bangkok) stations and removed excessive detailed info including station diagrams, elevator counts, exit listings, connecting bus routes, etc., most of which was probably original research. What's left is mostly stubs that mention nothing apart from the stations' locations and dates of opening. I very much think that most of the stations are run-of-the-mill and should be redirected to the articles about their respective lines, due to the lack of content that could be covered individually. The station layouts are identical. Those in the same phase opened on the same date. The content describing the locations really belong in articles about the stations' respective neighbourhoods. (I'd also say they aren't notable, as there aren't in-depth third-party reliable sources that cover the individual stations themselves, but I've seen how AfDs tend to go with railway stations, so I'm not going to make that argument.)
I'm sure, though, that there are editors who would prefer an article existed for every station. For one thing, it would be impossible to browse articles sequentially through succession boxes if not all of them existed. I did redirect most of the BTS stations back in 2012. That lasted little over a year. I'd like to hear what WP Trains editors think would be the best approach. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 04:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
(Bumped from the archive.) -- Paul_012 ( talk) 09:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I tend to think that heavy rail systems are better served by a large number of stubs than one long list, if only for navigational purposes. Mackensen (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Does anybody else think the reformed three-car Class 158s with GWR are Class 158/9s? - Coradia175 ( talk) 22:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
My understanding is that it's a compilation of information by some dude based on what he heard, what he knows, what he gathered up and I don't believe that it meets our WP:RS standards. The discussion has been started at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#http://www.thedieselshop.us/_as_used_in_ALCO_PA Graywalls ( talk) 08:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Editors are invited to comment at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#trainweb.org based rail fanning sites used on train related pages, concerning the propriety of linking to Robert Sarberenyi's pages. Mackensen (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I would appreciate additional opinions here about whether logos should be used in the infoboxes of Amtrak routes. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 02:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Trains since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{ infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{ starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!
Sent on behalf of Trialpears ( talk) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
I've added a comment to the List of metro systems talk page with a proposal for discussion. Please contribute to the discussion on the proposal I added to that talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.148.221 ( talk) 03:06, 15 December 2019 (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. |
FYI. postdlf ( talk) 18:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, there will be changes to Manchester Metrolink's City Zone on 13 January 2019. It will be renamed Zone 1 and Cornbrook will now be in both Zone 1 and Zone 2. The change can be seen on the official map here. I'm not sure how to make this change on the following templates:
I would appreciate any help from those more skilled at this than me. Thanks, Del♉sion23 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
HUBlf-R
),
HUB-Rq
) and
HUBrf-L
) where the hub lines are all drawn offset to one edge of the square, so that on the RDT they are drawn around stations in order to group them together. I don't know of any that are drawn through the middle, with which we could indicate that Cornbrook lies in both zones.Thanks for the help and advice everyone. Del♉sion23 (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal to delete this at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 14#East Coast Main Line diagram. Useddenim ( talk) 05:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Just a friendly heads-up that I've defined Module:Adjacent stations/Amtrak for use with Template:Adjacent stations. For the moment this only affects Infobox station styling and perhaps line color display with {{ rail color box}}. If there's an outdated or missing alias there will be a big ugly LUA script module error. It's an easy fix; please drop me a line or comment at Module talk:Adjacent stations/Amtrak. I'll be watching Category:Pages with script errors as well. Best, Mackensen (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I am currently discussing with other people on Chinese Wikipedia. That user want to have standard on station list, and my suggestion is to make a template instead. Do we already have any templates for station list, so that I do not need to reinvent the wheel? If there is no such template, I will make one on the Chinese wikipedia as well as a module/template that can automatically generate a station list based on wikidata. -- VulpesVulpes825 ( Talk) 18:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Afternoon all. I am not particularly invested in rail as a project but came across a particularly determined IP a few years back pushing POV on multiple articles (associated with an original banned user like MerseyWaters or something like that). Anyway either the original user is back, or similarly belligerent end user is pushing the same POV edits. If anyone is able to contribute with a 3rd opinion over at Glasgow Subway it would be much appreciated. Bear in mind, IP gets quite personal with his attacks. Koncorde ( talk) 15:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Category:Stations along the proposed New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail Line, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Hartford Line stations. 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.
I don't know how to save searches on Pubmed anymore, so I created this RSS feed of Pubmed reviews on "Indian railway." [1] PMID 16649742 and PMC 5446373 seem interesting, as did PMID 27534355 and PMID 30146953. EllenCT ( talk) 19:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
If anyone is monitoring Category:Rail transport articles in need of updating and wondering why it has more articles in it, the sudden influx of 56 articles is because the template Update after has had it's category field fixed. - X201 ( talk) 10:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
There has been a seem to have been a complete takeover of nondescript tram stops from historic railway stations in Ireland. Since user Cuchullain moved Harcourt Street railway station to Harcourt Street station its become an excuse to a picture of the tram in the street. Is it only me who thinks like this ? Djm-leighpark ( talk) 18:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Template talk:Adjacent stations#Requested move 10 February 2019, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 18:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I redrew the diagram on the Réseau Albert. Can an editor with knowledge of the French rail system double check that the standard gauge lines shown open/closed are actually open/closed. I used the French wiki articles on the various stations as a basis for their status, but my French is limited. Mjroots ( talk) 07:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
India has 8,500 railway stations. Two thousand have stub articles. We need guidance for promotion to non-stub status. Conversely, we need criteria for a mass redirect of articles with no references or timetable-only references. Rhadow ( talk) 15:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Some objective standards for removal of the {{
India-railstation-stub}}
tag would help reduce the size of the category. These articles are often short because there is nothing to say. I think the stub tag should be removed when the following criteria are met:
I raised this previously at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Criteria_for_promotion_from_{India-railstation-stub}.
A railway station article is a candidate for redirect to and merger with its parent railway system when it has insufficient verifiable material to be considered a comprehensive article.
Many India-railstation-stubs, have no, one, or two sources. The typical article is a recitation in text of characteristics and numbers from the Indiarailinfo website. Likewise, references to NDTV are not press, but are recitations of a similar database. These articles add no value to the user. Many were edited by rote or programmatically. They share the same sentence structure with attendant errors in style. A list of the trains that pass the station is problematic. It provides insufficient information to a traveler (notwithstanding WP:NOTTIMETABLE and is likely to become stale in time anyway. Images of the station sign alone do not convey any useful information, except for the existence of the station.
There are 8,500 railway stations in India. It is not systemic or cultural bias to assert that they are not all notable. An article does not add value to a reader if it simply duplicates the information in NDTV or Indiarailinfo. This station is an example of a non-notable topic as described in Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations). There is no significant press coverage in English at least.
I suggest we develop a consensus to REDIRECT the these station articles to their parent rail line. If at such time as a particular station becomes notable and can support its own article, the original article text including infobox and photo of the station sign can be recovered from the REDIRECT history. Rhadow ( talk) 15:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I think the first step here should be to nail down the criteria for a railway station to be considered notable. I see that an essay already exists, which is a good starting point.
Second step would be to get it ratified as an actual policy, through an RfC at WP:VP.
Third step, compile a list of railway station articles that fail the notability criteria. Nominate them for redirect en-masse at AfD.
That's my two cents. This current RfC tries to be too many things at once, and this page is a rather small forum for a change of such magnitude. Cesdeva (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe this is a distinct policy issue which can be addressed in its own right.
Whether those sources are primary or secondary, or whether they are reliable or not, could be a matter for a different debate.
At it's most basic, the policy would only detail the notability guidelines, not instruct editors as to what is a reliable source or not.
You could have a separate debate on whether those sources are considered reliable. Cesdeva (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I haven't read the prior long discussion, but here's my two cents: I think the railway station articles shouldn't be excluded from the
WP:GNG, which is the most basic notability check. Currently, it is being argued that ALL stations are notable and somehow the station articles are above the
WP:GNG guideline. --
Tyw7 (
🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (
ping me)
16:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
-- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 23:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
This is precisely going nowhere and shut this down, please. And next time; write better proposals that target something more worthwile than what's the parameter for removing stub-template. Sigh. ∯WBG converse 07:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The Sousse–Kairouan Decauville railway article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 21:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion about this at Template talk:Gautrain route diagram. Comments are invited. (Pinging Amakuru, Cuchullain, Dicklyon, SMcCandlish who have participated on this topic before.) Useddenim ( talk) 20:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Zackmann08 (along with
Pppery) seem to be embarking on a campaign to
subst and delete single-use RDTs (
Template:Bakerloo line extension 2014 plan RDT and
Template:Brescia Metro, for example. You are invited to comment on these discussions.
Useddenim (
talk)
00:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Two navboxes, {{
Railway stations in Nottinghamshire}} and {{
Railway stations in the Borough of Scarborough}}, have been nominated for deletion by
user:Zackmann08. Please see the discussions at
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 1#Template:Railway stations in Nottinghamshire and
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 1#Railway stations in the Borough of Scarborough.
Thryduulf (
talk)
13:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to merge the Newark Light Rail and Hudson-Bergen Light Rail line templates into the main NJ Transit templates. The River LINE is already there (always has been), and they all belong to NJ Transit. No need to duplicate. I've converted Grove Street station (Newark Light Rail) as an example. Best, Mackensen (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I noticed an edit at
New Garia railway station which changed the coordinates infobox entry by replacing display=inline,title with display=inline. A discussion at
2013 archive pointed out that using title 'makes the article discoverable by the "nearby" function of our mobile app, and in things like Google's Wikipedia layer
'. The doc at {{
coord}} includes 'To ensure that coordinates are seen by these tools, one set should be displayed beside the title
'. It seems the particular article mentioned is just one where title has been removed. What is the current consensus regarding title?
Johnuniq (
talk)
03:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I've just stumbled on {{ Closed Lines stations}} and related templates. These apparently support a couple closed railway lines in the Sydney, New South Wales area. These should really be grouped under the appropriate former operators and not the generic "Closed Lines"; does anyone who edits Australian topics have insight as to the correct former operator? Mackensen (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I've observed use of Template:short description on a number of articles on from the set of DW&WR locomotives that were at AfD (Usually via the User talk:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper) and wonder if we are using them in an optimal and consistent way ... and absolutely no disrespect to any who have used them). I'll admit I haven't followed this through fully and am only picking up from observing results. Anyway what we seem to have ended up with includes:
Neither of these forms seems like a perfect description to me though combined they might be a little better. But:
I think it is beginning to dawn on me that the helper, that I have not used, is picking up things from the Infobox.
Of course life in the article set is way more complex than one use case. Any thoughts? Djm-leighpark ( talk) 09:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I've put forward a proposal to completely reorganise the list of railway lines in France at the list's talk page. Comments there please. Mjroots ( talk) 20:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The "133. McGregor station (BC)" issue directed me here. User_talk:Mackensen#McGregor station (BC)
My question is whether a rarely used flag stop, which comprises merely an information post in the ground, qualifies to have its own Wiki page? A series of Via Rail flag stops each have their own stub articles that provide little useful information, and the contents range from misleading to largely inaccurate. A comprehensive "Railway" section exists within the respective Wiki articles for these mainly former towns. The stub articles attempt to duplicate a small part of this information.
To enhance the value of category searches and reduce duplication, the simple solution would be the elimination of these stub articles and the restoration of the railway category links to the town articles.
Do Wikipedia guidelines exist regarding such insignificant stub articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMBanks1 ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Can someone please take a look at the dispute between User:Moylesy98 and User:Tony May? It revolves around which photos to use, but gets rather heated and nasty, so some outside interference before this gets out of hand may be useful. I have been otherwise involved with one of them, so my opinion may not be welcome or helpful. User talk:Tony May is probably a good place to start. Fram ( talk) 09:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I cannot pay any attention to this until Tony May informs me what is important and what isn'twas inspired :) —— SerialNumber 54129 13:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Drama resumed, have take this to WP:ANI#User:Moylesy98 with a proposal to end this for once and for all. Mjroots ( talk) 13:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Eyeballs required at Talk:Multiple unit:
WP:NEOLOGISM seems to be an issue here. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I want to draw the WikiProject's attention to the editing by a person who has used the name NBTwain and a number of different IP addresses, including
They favour articles on different types of railway couplings, including
railway coupling itself. Their MO is to alter captions of images in four principal ways: capitalising words that are not normally capitalised; removing spaces so that words run together; altering descriptive phrases to obscure technical abbreviations; addition of <br>
tags where none should be necessary. The first two, when used together, create CamelCase words, causing the third way. Initially they usually left an edit summary of "CleanUp Image Formats" (note the CamelCase again) on an edit that usually left a mess behind. They have now stopped leaving edit summaries. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
07:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Someone's changed the build date in the article from September to November, which I was keen to switch back on grounds that its not in the given citation, however in a look in the citation it really isn't in the given citation. If anyone has information about the build date, could they add a source for the information for the rest of us? It'd be appreciated. TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
So, the First Transcontinental Railroad had the Golden spike completion at Promontory Point on May 10. If there is any interest or hope in getting a place on the Main Page say at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 10, the first two articles especially need some citation improvement/general copy edit. More importantly, aficionados here, would be doing the pedia and it's readers a good service, just getting this editing done. Thank you. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 12:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a circular argument going on at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Taiwan stations). Could someone knock a couple of heads together and help form a consensus? Useddenim ( talk) 02:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
consolidated from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport, User talk:Lost on Belmont & Talk:Purple Line (CTA)
C2A repeatedly insists on removing a reference to the East London line, claiming variously that "it no longer exists", it "is no longer part of the london underground [sic]", and "it was outdated". However, since the ELL was part of London Transport and predecessors' Underground network for over 140 years, I feel that it absolutely warrants inclusion. What is peculiarly odd is that C2A is only deleting that single piece of information (as opposed to, for instance, all stock that has been withdrawn). Am I correct in attempting to keep the historic record complete? Useddenim ( talk) 12:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I’ve noticed … a move … to leave only current [information]. This has always seemed like violating the spirit of WP:NOTGUIDE in its bias toward stations “you can use.” My understanding of Wikipedia is that it’s supposed to be as complete as possible. History is part of that completeness.
… While the station is (technically) gone, it was part of the Green Line service and the map gives a visual of where it was in relation to other stations and/or other related features.
Additionally, by including former stations or services … this gives an indication how how [things] have changed or developed over time. By showing the open *and* closed stations, there’s a more complete view of the service of what was and what is.
Hello! I'm a fellow Chicagoan who has been doing some editing work on routemaps, and I noticed that, unlike in other cities, Chicago's maps include stations and track sections that have been demolished. It makes sense in my view to have the stations that are closed included, but it seems like the inclusion of demolished stations and track sections exceeds the bounds of usefulness for a routemap in an infobox (it makes sense for them to stay in the routemaps of the individual branches, I suppose). It looks like you have done a lot of editing of these, so I wanted to check with you before I did anything. WMSR ( talk) 03:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Currently we have a difference of opinion on the inclusion of demolished stations on route maps for current "L" services. Per WP:BRD, I'm opening this up for discussion here (as opposed to the templates in question) because I believe there may be more visibility on the article.
The beginning of the discussion between myself and WMSR can be read here: CTA Routemaps.
In the last message in the previous iteration of this discussion, WMSR states three things: 1) the in maps of existing services are maps of current service, 2) no information is lost by the removal of demolished stations, and 3) the stations in question are retained on "historical maps."
I disagree with these points.
1) It is my belief that the maps are not (and should not be) illustrations of the current service, instead being depictions of the existing services. This may sound like semantics, but it is not. As it is, there are eight existing "L" services operated by CTA: Red, Blue, Brown, Green, Orange, Purple, Pink, and Yellow. The issue here (for me) is when each of these services originated:
With this in mind, the maps should reflect each service from its inception to present including stations that were in service after the start date, but have since been demolished.
2 and 3) Information is lost because there are no historical maps for the current services. For instance, there is no pre-rebuild Green Line map and there shouldn't be because it would be a waste of space as most information would be duplicated. Yes, all stations are listed on the branch maps, but the branch maps don't give any indication of service. By removing the station from the service map, there is only the information that the station existed on the branch because the context has been removed.
I'd appreciate everyone else's thoughts. Lost on Belmont 3200N1000W ( talk) 17:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@ WMSR: You claim that "a map of Chicago [would not] include the Morrison Hotel" and "London Underground, … Boston, and several other maps omit [demolished stations] entirely". On the contrary, an architectural history map of Chicago most certainly would include it (I remember seeing it noted on a walking tour guide a number of years ago), and {{ MBTA Red Line}} shows the gone-for-three-plus-decades Harvard Stadium branch. Citing London Transport is a straw man argument, as – with the exception of the Brill branch – some infrastructure (mostly in tunnel) exists for all "demolished" stations. Useddenim ( talk) 13:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, please provide examples for your claim that "rapid transit route maps for nearly every city exclude demolished stations". Useddenim ( talk) 13:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Help from an editor familiar with the El would be appreciated: please see Template talk:Douglas branch (CTA)#Station links. The list of former Chicago "L" stations may be useful but also contains some rogue links. Thanks, Certes ( talk) 10:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Hermann Park Railroad is currently a redirect to Hermann Park. Any project members interested in expanding the redirect into a short article?
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Should minor manufacturers of wooden toy trains on the BRIO system be kept, merged or deleted? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choo Choo Track & Toy Co (2nd nomination) Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Copenhagen Metro, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. HawkAussie ( talk) 05:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
This has been a somewhat contentious issue for a number of years at least going back to 2015 when it was also raised on this page, pointing to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sydney/Railway_stations#Transport_Links. With the opening of the Sydney Metro in the past week, the NSW Transport Info website has improved information to the point for the new stations and four existing stations where it appears unnecessary to list all bus routes which provide transport links at the station concerned. Hence this has again been raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sydney/Railway_stations#2019 where the current consensus appears to be that we should no longer list the transport links for each individual route but instead links to two different pages which provide all the required information - one page with a map and full details of the stands from which the routes operate and the other page with links to current timetables. Hence we have updated one of the new stations Rouse Hill railway station to show such links only. It is also believed that is less likely to be a contravention of the no travel guide rule and that the information for other stations will also be updated to the same level in due course. Any other comments would be welcome. Fleet Lists ( talk) 05:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Tram line diagrams (RDTs) linked from the Trams in Warsaw article have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 2#Template:Warsaw Tramways Line 1. Please comment in the linked discussion. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability#Train stations and comment on the RfC that you find there. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 19:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
It contains 20 Rail or Subway Lines. So we can't add Gimpo Goldline on this template.
Gimpo Goldline is scheduled to open in 27 July 2019.
This problem was mentioned in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2018#Problem of Template:Seoul Metropolitan Subway stations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:E199:301F:0:0:2A0A:20A1 ( talk) 07:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a requested move at Talk:WTC Cortlandt (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) that could benefit from your opinions. Please come and help out. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 16:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I am new. Very new to Wikipedia. I've been asked to update the various Kalmbach Media pages related to railroading and started in on Trains and the Kalmbach main Wiki entries before I realized the conflict of interest rule.
I'd like to suggest updates to the Wiki entries and am willing to help with Project Trains entries where I have no conflict. Please let me know how I may begin and with whom I need to communicate. Full disclosure: I am a full-time Kalmbach employee. Best — Kalmbach Digital Editor Kalmbach Digital Editor ( talk) 21:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I just read the rather short article, I inputted the cords into map app and it pops it right up next to Mill Hill Broadway train station, it doesn't say it in the article, but were the two stations connected to each other? It doesn't really describe it's exact location in any detail. I was just really interested about the station and wondered if anyone has more info to add. Govvy ( talk) 16:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
There was a discussion in 2018 about using state abbreviations in the infobox headers for Amtrak stations: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2018#Amtrak_infobox_headers. My sense of the discussion is that people agreed we shouldn't do this. MOS:INFOBOX says that the name field in an infobox should either be the common name or the full, official name. The postal abbreviation is neither. MOS:POSTABBR also says we shouldn't do this. Leaving the manual of style aside, I think it looks weird aesthetically, and it's inconsistent with any station Amtrak stops it which has a different styling (which is also arbitrary, but never mind). I think the abbreviations should come out, but I'd like to hear from other folks. Mackensen (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Please help to identify commons:Category:Southern Pacific 1258 by adding relevant categories. -- EugeneZelenko ( talk) 13:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks in advance. The Banner talk 08:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I recently removed travel-distance time information from MNRR articles, of which I assumed were out of line with WP:NOTTRAVEL. As brought up by User:Mackensen on my talk page, "Travel times are a function of timetabling and therefore can potentially run into problems of reliability, verifiability, and triviality." An example of said information as shown here is being upheld by User:Beyond My Ken simply because no discussion regarding consensus has been held before now. Is the information in question notable, or should it be removed? Cards84664 (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I concur with what I believe is the consensus view that Wikipedia articles should not include extensive timetable information, but the information that is being deleted by Cards84664 is on the order of "and travel time to Grand Central is about 51 minutes on local trains and 36 to 42 minutes on express/semi-express trains", which was removed from Irvington station (Metro-North). This single sentence is not in any way a violation of NOTTRAVEL in text or spirit, and provides the reader with a single relevant fact, which is not in any way the same as a timetable. As I noted on C84664's talk page, that travel time has been a near-constant for many decades, and is therefore a fairly inherent fact about the station. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should only list those that are actually in the city. If you do wish to help write a travel guide, your contributions would be welcome at our sister project, Wikivoyage.
Please see Talk:Harringay Green Lanes railway station#Distance from Harringay Station and comment there. This is in relation to HughJLF ( talk · contribs) adding this three times. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 13:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Please contribute to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_14#Category:Transport_in_Jelgava. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Could somebody take a look at Draft:Wellington, Grey and Bruce Railway and evaluate the sources? My take on them is that most look like blogs and thus fail WP:RS, but I'm not up on what the rail community considers to be good sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
There's an interesting slow-burning edit war going on with various Japanese train stations:
2406:3003:2004:6A0:1443:46B:9DA3:4F04 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) (possibly a sock of Calvinkulit ( talk · contribs)) keeps adding literal English translations to the leads of station articles for the station names. ( example and example)
2400:4051:1001:2E00:6538:B041:9CE3:66D1 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the latest ip to keep removing them. ( example, example, example)
I have no idea what to do about this, if this needs to go higher up just let me know. Cards84664 (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
So what happened here? Is it just that some Brits are much more into adding station info to Wikipedia? or is there a MOS guideline buried somewhere where we decided to use lower-case "station" and "railway station" in the names of all our articles? It's certainly jarring to most of our readers, so it'd be good to know if it's just a matter of WP:ENGVAR first-past-the-post or if there's actually a mandate somewhere to (mis)capitalize this way.
(If it's the latter, it'd be worth adding to your own MOS here so people could find it more easily.) — LlywelynII 04:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Question arising out of East Ventura station but applicable elsewhere: should we consider a station's opening date the date of the "grand opening" or similar ceremonies, or the date of the first regular service. For East Ventura (originally Montalvo) it's a question of November 8 (grand opening) vs November 11, 2002 (regular service). Both are attested to in reliable sources. Both are correct. In another case, Pomona station (California), regular service started on February 5, 2001, but the grand opening probably wasn't until early March. I think we should be consistent, pick one or the other, and document it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Style advice. Mackensen (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks everyone who participated, I've stubbed out Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Style advice#Articles about railway stations style guide. Mackensen (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The WMR Class 323s will be transferred to Scotland for use on ScotRail when they are replaced by Class 730 Aventras in 2020.
Northernrailwaysfan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northernrailwaysfan ( talk • contribs) 12:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Pi.1415926535: @ J4lambert: @ Oknazevad:
This obviously needs to be discussed. With templates like Template:MBTA Platform Layout Park Street, Oknazevad and I are for deletion and we moved the contents back to the mainspace, Pi.1415926535 and J4lambert are against leaving said templates in the mainspace. Cards84664 (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
There's a broad consensus, reinforced by hundreds of TFD discussions, far beyond station layout diagrams that templates should not be created for single-article use, unless it's for material that frequently changes (such as sport team rosters) to prevent edit histories being clogged up with a lot of edits. These layouts are not something that will change frequently (if ever) so there's no need to use a template. oknazevad ( talk) 00:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Links to prior discussions:
Article usage is inconsistent, but some systems have layouts for almost every station, even if it's a simple two-track station with an island platform. Mackensen (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
On the Thameslink Route Map Template:Thameslink, Luton Station has an accessible sign. According to National Rail, only platform 5 is accessible https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/LUT/details.html. Which symbol should be used for Luton and how do you code it in? Thameslinkrail ( talk) 09:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Liverpool Street station#Lead photo. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 22:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm currently working on a new "Services" section for Flinders Street railway station in a sandbox. I had a poke around for any discussion about an appropriate level of detail for these sections, but couldn't find anything conclusive. Would appreciate some input to clarify WP:NOTTIMETABLE, particularly on questions such as:
All this and more appreciated. My current version is based on FAs and GAs around the place, combining a table and prose, but I'd be happy to alter the balance. Triptothecottage ( talk) 02:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
The recent 2017-2018 Tyne & Metro usage figures have been published and they can be located on a spreadsheet on this link. I am adding the recent figures to all the Tyne & Wear Metro station articles. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 09:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone know what the ambiguous link to an indicator shelter in SR Lord Nelson Class 850 Lord Nelson might be referring to? Narky Blert ( talk) 10:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
As noted at Indicator diagram, an indicator is a measuring device that produces a chart on a piece of card or paper. These are used to evaluate how much useful work is done in the cylinder, and so determine efficiency. They are connected to the crosshead by mechanical linkage, and have tubes communicating with the ends of the cylinder to measure the internal pressure. These tubes need to be short to avoid a false reading due to pressure loss by condensation, so the indicator needs to be mounted close to the cylinder - at the front of the loco.
In a locomotive, indicators are not permanent equipment, they are only fitted to a loco when it is desired to test out that loco. An indicator needs constant attention from test staff, who will engage the apparatus at times when a reading is desired, and disengage it once the reading has been made. They also change the cards for each test. Each cylinder requires an individual indicator, and since it us usually beneficial to test all of the cylinders simultaneously, a four-cylinder loco like a Lord Nelson will need four indicators and four test staff. The apparatus cannot be operated remotely, hence the test staff need to be physically present at the front of the loco. Thus, they need protection both against wind (and possibly rain), and against falling off whilst the loco is in motion. So a kind of three-sided wooden hut (open at the rear) is built around the front of the loco, and the test staff crouch inside. This is the indicator shelter. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 08:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Two years ago, WT:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2017#Belgian_loco_naming, we agreed that Belgian locos on en:WP would be named SNCB Class 77 rather than NMBS/SNCB Class 77. Has this changed now? Re [2] and many others. @ Jan olieslagers: Andy Dingley ( talk) 20:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
This is a verry clear answer https://mobile.twitter.com/SNCB/status/1150779410141843461 83.81.132.223 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Gone quite silent, this discussion. Most reactions seem to agree that some kind of bilingual descriptor is in order. Can we leave it at that? Jan olieslagers ( talk) 15:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
What's the date of the first mainline diesel electric Co-Co (AAR: C-C) loco, with that wheel arrangement?
I'd always assumed that it was American and in the 1930s, but I can't find an example. They were mostly B-B and a few A1A-A1A (even a B-A1A). There are a few heavy freight electrics of Co-Co at this time, but the first diesels are the LMS pair post-war. Anything earlier? Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The Coronation of Queen Victoria article is up for good article review. Both the lead and the Public procession and crowds section have wording on the lines of the newly built railways were able to deliver huge numbers of people into London and it has been estimated that some 400,000 visitors arrived to swell the crowds.
Looking at the company articles, the London and Southampton Railway was open between Nine Elms and Woking Common; the Great Western Railway between Paddington and Maidenhead while the London and Birmingham Railway was not finished in time for the coronation of Queen Victoria on 28 June 1838, but aware of the lucrative traffic the event would generate, the company opened the north end of the line, between Birmingham and Rugby, and the south end from London to a temporary station at Denbigh Hall near Bletchley with a stagecoach shuttle service linking the two parts to allow through journeys to London.
Were there any others? Could these have made much contribution to the 400,000 figure? There is a ref for the role of the railways and the 400k [3] but the current wording, putting both in the same sentence, feels a bit much. Cavrdg ( talk) 18:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
This archive may be useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Proposal to delete all portals
The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore ( talk) 07:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Assistance is requested at Talk:Caledonian Sleeper#Hotel on Wheels. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The station in Hudson, NY was added to the timetable for the LSL in June, but Hudson has not been added to the maps or station lists elsewhere on Amtrak's website. Cards84664 (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
I posted a comment on the Shenzhen metro talk page re the metro map on that page. Any help anyone can provide on that is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.162.90 ( talk) 03:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Original close |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
So, it appears that the general consensus here is that station maps should be removed in their entirety per NOTGUIDE. As a few editors noted, it may be better to have the layout in prose as opposed to markup, due to accessibility and maintenance issues, but for now I believe the general consensus is just to do away with the maps. Mgasparin ( talk) 22:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC) |
Should railway stations include station layout and exits? (ie these). – Dave | Davey2010 Talk 13:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
(adding) If you want an example of a station where the placement of the exits is notable, try Brookwood railway station, which has a discreet exit directly into the adjacent cemetery to allow mourners travelling from London to pass directly into and out of the cemetery without having to walk through the town. ‑ Iridescent 17:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
It seems everyone agrees that lists of exits should be removed as per NOTGUIDE. However what is the opinion of everyone on just having a platform layout for more complicated stations such as this or those found across the NYC Subway. Terramorphous ( talk) 01:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
It contains 20 Rail or Subway Lines. So we can't add Gimpo Goldline on this template.
Gimpo Goldline was opened in 28 September 2019.
This problem was mentioned in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2018#Problem of Template:Seoul Metropolitan Subway stations and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2019#Overcrowding Problem of Template:Seoul Metropolitan Subway stations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:216:F9A7:0:0:2E67:90A0 ( talk) 01:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
navbox}}
would allow |groupn=
/|listn=
parameters numbered up to 20, but no further. This limit was removed several years ago, most probably when
Toohool (
talk ·
contribs) converted it to Lua back in March 2013. No limit is mentioned in the template documentation. So if you want 21 rows, do it. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
22:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
We currently have, unless I am missing something, three main standards for metro / rapid transit stations: Akademicheskaya (Moscow Metro) (Moscow, not consistent throughout the system but works as an example), Axelsberg metro station (example from Stockholm), and Sundby Station (example from Copenhagen), as well as various deviations like for instance Metro Bellas Artes (Mexico City) or Českomoravská (Prague, also not consistent throughout the system). I am not proposing to unify them (which is I guess impossible anyway), but has the naming been discussed anywhere? Is this a result of some top-down or some bottom-up approach? For example, I am now creating articles on Santo Domingo metro, and there were zero articles before I started. I have chosen the ... (Santo Domingo Metro) standard, mainly because someone else has chosen the same standard for Panama before me. Is it ok, or would someone come to move all of them at some point?-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Shalingzi West railway station#Requested move 24 October 2019, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, comrade waddie96 ★ ( talk) 11:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm reviewing this edit. The Moscow Metro out-of-station interchange between Sevastopolskaya on Line 9 and Kakhovskaya on Line 11 is shown inconsistently. Do we have a standard for showing this sort of arrangement? There is a complication in that line 11 seems to have closed last month, and Kakhovskaya now seems to be on a temporarily diverted line 8A. Certes ( talk) 11:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I currently have a discussion going on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard regarding the use of fan sites as references as I feel that they tend not to meet the general criteria of reliable sources guideline for Wikipedia. Graywalls ( talk) 03:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The BBC reports that ten bullet trains are to be scrapped following flood damage sustained in Typhoon Hagibis. Can this info be assimilated into the relevant articles please? Mjroots ( talk) 06:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Greeting WikiProject Trains, Paptilian is interested in the improvement of Rail transport articles. I have user pages with ideas for improvement in outline formats with a standard set of sectional headings. Just for starters a look at Train disambiguation. Loaded with everything and needs cleaning up. The outline of the article is a bit random. improvements would include a more rational approach. Trains > short description with image of locomotive (steam), tender, passenger rail car, and a red caboose > First Section/ Locomotive (train) > (by era) /Locomotive (steam), Locomtive (Diesel), Locomotive (EMD), Locomotive by White classification - 0-4-0, > Rail infrastructure - rail types, wood, iron, plate, steel, other > Rail structures broad enough to have Rail structures (buildings), Rail construction, technical drawings, Bridges, tunnels; > Rail companies, how for must we go for a concise article on Trains? Train comes as a sub category of Rail transport, Trains are historic in steam era technology, and innovative in high-speed trains today, and everything in-between. This train article is trying to be more than it should be and many things inside have their own place in the mainspace. What should be simple to navigate is a nightmare. (if) you have been working for years on Rail transport then you may not see the confusion, some human desiring to learn something about Trains finds oneself lost and confused. Oh, but there are so many ways to get where you want to be inside the encyclopedia, and that also lends itself to confusion. I have more, and would like to contribute, however I am not interested in user-warring over some non-encyclopedic way of doing things. Please consider this my formal introduction to working with the WikiProject:Trains. Paptilian ( talk) 19:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
A question about the copyright implications of linking to operator manuals hosted on third-party sites has been raised at Talk:EMD F7#Operator manual. Mackensen (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 18#State Prison station the redirect State Prison station, which targets Joliet Correctional Center is being discussed. From that discussion it seems there was a station for the prison on the Alton Railroad (Illinois), but there is currently no content about it in the article. If you can add relevant content, or have other relevant comments, please comment on the linked RfD discussion. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Does any entity produce passenger data for train commuter transport? I am hoping to find a table that has yearly or monthly data saying how many ticketed or boarded passengers there were for each Amtrak origin and destination city pair. I have found this information for air commuter data from the Department of Transportation. E,g. in 2018, I can say that 187,748 passengers went from CLE to MDW or 502,414 went from ORD to DTW.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind my bumping this from the archive. Four new articles were created yesterday, none of which have any real content apart from the scheduled opening date, and I'm still not quite sure how to best handle them. Ymblanter's input is appreciated; it would be great to know if there are further opinions. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 09:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I just went through Category:BTS Skytrain stations and Category:MRT (Bangkok) stations and removed excessive detailed info including station diagrams, elevator counts, exit listings, connecting bus routes, etc., most of which was probably original research. What's left is mostly stubs that mention nothing apart from the stations' locations and dates of opening. I very much think that most of the stations are run-of-the-mill and should be redirected to the articles about their respective lines, due to the lack of content that could be covered individually. The station layouts are identical. Those in the same phase opened on the same date. The content describing the locations really belong in articles about the stations' respective neighbourhoods. (I'd also say they aren't notable, as there aren't in-depth third-party reliable sources that cover the individual stations themselves, but I've seen how AfDs tend to go with railway stations, so I'm not going to make that argument.)
I'm sure, though, that there are editors who would prefer an article existed for every station. For one thing, it would be impossible to browse articles sequentially through succession boxes if not all of them existed. I did redirect most of the BTS stations back in 2012. That lasted little over a year. I'd like to hear what WP Trains editors think would be the best approach. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 04:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
(Bumped from the archive.) -- Paul_012 ( talk) 09:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I tend to think that heavy rail systems are better served by a large number of stubs than one long list, if only for navigational purposes. Mackensen (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Does anybody else think the reformed three-car Class 158s with GWR are Class 158/9s? - Coradia175 ( talk) 22:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
My understanding is that it's a compilation of information by some dude based on what he heard, what he knows, what he gathered up and I don't believe that it meets our WP:RS standards. The discussion has been started at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#http://www.thedieselshop.us/_as_used_in_ALCO_PA Graywalls ( talk) 08:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Editors are invited to comment at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#trainweb.org based rail fanning sites used on train related pages, concerning the propriety of linking to Robert Sarberenyi's pages. Mackensen (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I would appreciate additional opinions here about whether logos should be used in the infoboxes of Amtrak routes. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 02:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Trains since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{ infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{ starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!
Sent on behalf of Trialpears ( talk) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
I've added a comment to the List of metro systems talk page with a proposal for discussion. Please contribute to the discussion on the proposal I added to that talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.148.221 ( talk) 03:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)