This 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.

This activity has begun again, same two users: 151.224.250.165 ( talk) and Ron4563 ( talk · contribs). -- Redrose64 ( talk) 12:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Also at it, but in a different manner, are 86.145.250.209 ( talk) and David31584 ( talk · contribs) - who judging by this edit, are the same person. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 22:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Since the edit-warring has continued, I have applied one week's Full protection to five pages ( Shenfield railway station; Brentwood railway station; Harold Wood railway station; Gidea Park railway station; Romford railway station) because it is clear that there is a dispute over content which is not being resolved by discussion. This must stop. Hopefully we can arrive at a solution here which suits all articles on British railway stations.

Unfortunately it appears that in at least three cases (Brentwood, Harold Wood, Gidea Park) I protected the wrong version, since all three exhibit broken routeboxes, which means that I now need to seek consensus to fix these - perhaps by reverting to the last stable version. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 23:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Seven Kings is also under dispute. There is ONE Abellio train that calls at SK per day, yet it is being listed in the routebox. -- TBM10 ( talk) 05:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@ Redrose64: - I see no problem with the routeboxes in the three articles you mention insofar as the all display correctly. If a fix is needed, I see no reason that it can't be done. Re the inclusion of Sunday only services, that's the bit that needs to be discussed, isn't it? Mjroots ( talk) 06:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@ TBM10: - In that case I'd say it's actually more important that it go in the routebox. If we were talking a slightly odd stopping pattern by the main TOC that happens once a day I'd agree with excluding it, but if it's a different TOC entirely it should be included. - mattbuck ( Talk) 06:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@ Mjroots: They don't display correctly, for example at Brentwood railway station#External links, there is a superfluous narrow row which has a top border above "Preceding station" but not in the other four columns. This is due to David31584 ( talk · contribs) dropping a {{ rail start}} into the middle of the routebox.

@ TBM10: I didn't protect Seven Kings railway station because its last edit was at 21:12, 16 June 2015 - something like 108 minutes before I decided to act. The five that I decided to protect had all been edited within the previous four (Shenfield) to twelve (Romford) minutes. If an edit - any edit, by anyone - had been made to Seven Kings whilst I was protecting the others, dropping notes on their talk pages and posting here, rest assured that Seven Kings would have been treated in the same manner. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 09:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I've took out the {{ rail start}} from all three routeboxes. This is merely to fix the display issue flagged up above. It is NOT an endorsement of the current, or any previous, routebox. Mjroots ( talk) 10:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mjroots. You seem to have missed Gidea Park railway station#External links. Perhaps you got one of those "Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data" errors, but didn't notice it. They're a lot more common nowadays, I think that I get one about 10% of the time. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots ( talk) 10:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@ TBM10: - The thing I don't understand is the fact you keep reverting the edit to Seven Kings station, it should be shown because: The daily service that calls at Seven Kings is still operated by Abellio Greater Anglia, especially since the Shenfield Metro service recently transferred from AGA to TfL Rail, Seven Kings is still served by AGA, especially as Seven Kings is still shown on the AGA route map, also TfL Rail is under Crossrail and Abellio Greater Anglia is under National Rail so it should also be shown so people who are actually reading the article of Seven Kings station know the National Rail and Crossrail services that call here whether the service is one train per day or not! As Mattbuck said above if the daily service that calls at Seven Kings is operated by the same TOC that calls there frequently then I would agree in not showing the limited service, but as the daily service is a completely different TOC then I agree in showing in so people reading the article do not actually get confused! Ron4563 ( talk) 19:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

My issue is that the routeboxes should not be used to show every possible iteration of the current timetable, which itself is of course subject to change. I consider the purpose of the routebox to show which line the station is on (eg the GEML), and what the preceding and following stations are on that line. Take Seven Kings, the following station is not Gidea Park. Another example I saw recently was one person added to the Liverpool Street routebox that the following station was Norwich! Limited services that call at the station can be mentioned within the article, but should not be in the routebox. The fact is that the preceding station to Seven Kings is Ilford and the following station is Goodmayes. That's what the routebox should show. -- TBM10 ( talk) 11:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe the point is that if services are now run by TfL Rail, this needs to be shown. Why are these changes being reverted? Lamberhurst ( talk) 12:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly Lamberhurst I completely agree with you on that one, @ TBM10: as all other services that call at Seven Kings are now run by TfL Rail then the daily Abellio Greater Anglia should be shown, no one even cares whether the service that calls there is one train per day or not, the thing that people want is for it to be shown in the route box and especially as AGA is a National Rail service not that Crossrail service, thats TfL Rail thats a Crossrail service, I mean if the limited AGA service that calls at Seven Kings was a TfL Rail service then I would agree in not showing because it would not be the point as they would be the same TOC as I said before, but as there two completely different toc's then they have the right to be shown! Ilford and Goodmayes are the preceding/following stations for TfL Rail, but I'm not talking about TfL Rail, I'm talking about Abellio Greater Anglia, the preceding for AGA at Seven Kings is Stratford and next at Seven Kings for AGA is Gidea Park simple as! And people who are reading the article will now get confused because it is not shown! Whoever added Norwich as the next stop at Liverpool Street is a bit ridiculous, but at Seven Kings the preceding and following stop for AGA services is not Goodmayes or Ilford, because no AGA stops at Goodmayes or Ilford. -- Ron4563 ( talk) 12:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@ TBM10: by the way I have not showed every iteration of the timetable! Ron4563 13:00, 20 June 2015

OK guys really, there is no need to have taken it this far, you see before you did that I and Ron4563 had resolved any issues in regards to those pages. Now today I wanted to see if I could edit where the Sunday services were going (Between London Liverpool Street and Southend Victoria) but couldn't do that because all the pages were locked, again there wasn't any need for this. I'm sorry that I should have probably said something earlier to avoid the lock down, but honestly the issue had all ready been resolved. I wanted to include the limited Sunday services between Romford and Shenfield on Sundays that are operated by Abellio Greater Anglia, which proves that Gidea Park, Harold Wood and Brentwood stations also had National Rail services and thus they each needed a rail logo and not just a Crossrail one. Unfortunately t the time, Ron4563 was removing all my edits for fear that they 'Wouldn't be seen for long', I told him everything would stick, as long as nobody else tampered with the entry. I'm not 100% on how these articles were done, so I had to copy and paste a few things from other pages, such as the {{rail-start}} command since I needed it to let people know that this was a National Rail service and not a Crossrail service, so yeah I was going into it blind, but I didn't mean to make a load of mistakes as if I could, I would correct them. Anyway, I do hope that this has cleared things up on the issue. D31 ( talk) 16:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)David31684 D31 ( talk) 16:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It's long been established that routeboxes should not attempt to cover every different variation in service. This means that we need to exclude some services, and the logical ones to exclude are those that form only a small proportion of the timetable for a whole week. Sunday-only services are a good example of this, since they cannot comprise more than 14% of the timetable. Similarly, trains that only run in the peaks, or those at the start or end of the day which do not run the full length of the line. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 17:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@ David31584: thank you I do hope it will clear up the issue and don't worry about the mistakes to the route boxes it wasn't initial and you don't need to edit the Southend service in the service section it's allowed there, I just hope that the limited/Sunday Abellio Greater Anglia services can be shown in the route boxes because as you said above they should be shown to prove National Rail services still call there Ron4563 ( talk) 21:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Redrose64 you seem to be missing the point of what Wikipedia is, it's to inform people of these services. Take for example a very limited service that occurs daily on the London Overground between Wandworth Road and Battersea Park stations, one train calls there every day at an off peak time in the evening, however everyone agrees that the station still counts as a London Overground station, even if it is a limited service. It even shows up on the service boxes. Wear ever you like it or not these boxes are to inform people of what services are accessible from these stations, even limited ones, so removing limited services would actually not be a wise course of action and will just wind up with you having further disputes with other people. Ron4563 thanks again for your support, I may not be able to add wear the trains are going, but at least the actual service is now known to people, which is the important thing. Thanks again for your support. Once again I say that right now there is no need for those pages to have their edit options suspended as I said, the issue had been resolved. D31 ( talk) 12:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)David31584 D31 ( talk) 12:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@ David31584: its ok no problem. Ron4563 ( talk) 09:37. 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@ Redrose64: and @ TBM10:, I find it very unfair that you will not show the limited National Rail services in the route boxes at Seven Kings, Gidea Park, Harold Wood and Brentwood, here are the following reasons for why it should be shown:

1. Abellio Greater Anglia is a different TOC than TfL Rail.

2. Abellio Greater Anglia is a National Rail not a Crossrail service, TfL Rail is the Crossrail service.

3. More people agreed with me to shown the service and some people have additionally tried to shown these services in the route boxes at these stations.

4. I have more reasons to prove why the service should be shown as you can see.

5. I am not showing every service from the timetable, I am only showing one service from TfL Rail and one from Abellio Greater Anglia, thats not every iteration of the timetable, there two completely TOC's! Also the following/preceeding stops for TfL Rail at Ilford/Goodmayes as I said, but not for Abellio Greater Anglia, the preceding/following for AGA at Seven Kings are Stratford/Gidea Park. NO AGA services stops at Goodmayes or Ilford.

6. An example like Seven Kings is Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street stations, Wandsworth Road has 5 National Rail Southeastern services per week that call there and Clapham High Street is also the same (5 National Rail Southeastern services per week that call here), but you let them show their National Rail services in the route boxes and let them show their National Rail roundel signs on the top of the page as well as the Overground services that call there to, but with Seven Kings its served by Abellio Greater Anglia National Rail and Crossrail services, but yet your not even letting me shown the National rail roundel on the top of the page and the national rail service in the route box, especially as Seven Kings is served by more National Rail services per week that Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street. A total of 6 National Rail services per week call at Seven Kings according to timetable.

7. An example like Gidea Park, Harold Wood and Brentwood is a good example David31584 said above and thats Battersea Park, that station has a total of 15 London Overground services per week that call there, but yet you allow them to be shown in the route box, but Gidea Park, Harold Wood and Brentwood have a much higher amount of Abellio Greater Anglia services that call there than compared to the amount of Overground services at Battersea Park, but you are preventing me from adding the National Rail route boxes at these three stations. Overall Gidea Park has 83 Abellio Greater Anglia services that call there per week according to timetable, Harold Wood and Brentwood have a total of 71 Abellio Greater Anglia services per week that call there according to timetable, but what I don't understand either is that the Overground roundel logo is allowed to be shown at Battersea Park as its a Overground station even if its limited. as well as frequent National Rail Southern services that call at Battersea Park. But as I said above Gidea Park, Harold Wood and Brentwood have way more National Rail services calling there than the amount of Overground services calling at Battersea Park, but yet you are preventing me from adding the National Rail roundels at Gidea Park, Harold Wood and Brentwood its just not fair!

8. If these National Rail services were shown people reading the articles will not get confused and would know the Crossrail and National Rail services calling there.

9. Finally every wiki railway article should be treated the same I am very disappointed!

Ron4563 ( talk) 10:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Please don't say that we "allow" or "let" things happen. Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS: a group of people discuss and agree some principles, which we are then encouraged to abide by. Consensus is not arrived at by re-adding when something that you added was reverted. I certainly never said that National Rail services couldn't be shown. As for other stations showing routeboxes in different ways - see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Finally: please indent your posts and be concise. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 12:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

What Abellio Greater Anglia Services?

I just want to ask this, why is there discussion about Abellio Greater Anglia services at Seven Kings? There isn't one. All services are transferred over to Crossrail and the Crossrail/TFL Rail Shenfield Metro. Abellio Greater Anglia services only call between Stratford and Romford and none of the stations in-between those locations. Perhaps in emergencies they could terminate at Seven Kings, but it isn't a regular or semi-regular service. D31 ( talk) 18:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)David31584 D31 ( talk) 18:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

We're talking about what in general is suitable for inclusion in a routebox. Once that has been agreed, specifics can be discussed on the talk page of the article concerned. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 18:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@ David31584: Trust me there is a Abellio Greater Anglia service that stops at Seven Kings because it is still shown on the route map, here is a link to prove https://www.abelliogreateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/journey-planning/network-map — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron4563 ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 22 June 2015

I'm assuming this is you Rob who has replied to my message, you were not specific on the day and/or service that the train calls at, also I looked at the National Rail services (on National Rail's main website) for tomorrow (Tuesday 23rd June 2015) and there is no early services calling at Seven Kings. However, there is one early service that does call at Gidea Park on it's way to Colchester, but nothing can be done about it, until the suspention on edits is lifted, which should be later this week. One other thing I noticed was that link you provided apparently shows that Gidea Park, Harold Wood and Brentwood are stations that Abellio Greater Anglia services call at seven days a week, which contradicts the Sunday Only service that has been established. D31 ( talk) 19:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)David31584 D31 ( talk) 19:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The link you gave was unavailable I'm afraid. D31 ( talk) 02:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)David31584 D31 ( talk) 02:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@ David31584: Hi I have the link here, this is the train that starts at Colchester and runs to Liverpool Street and it additionally calls at Gidea Park and Seven Kings (its the 0443 train right at the top of the page), check the link, then click on details on the 0443 to London and then click on calling points to see [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.224.250.165 ( talk) 08:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This is headcode 2F01, running Monday-Friday only, depart Colchester (platform 6) at 04:43, calls all stations to Shenfield (arr. platform 2 05:23, dep. 05:24) then at Gidea Park (dep. 05:31), Seven Kings (dep. 05:36), Stratford (platform 9, 05:42) and arriving Liverpool Street (platform 13) at 05:51. It runs at a time when very few people are awake, and is exactly the kind of infrequent start-of-day service that I refer to, the inclusion of which serves no encyclopedic purpose. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 12:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@ Redrose64: The thing is what platform does this service depart from at Gidea Park and Seven Kings, does it depart from the up fast line (platform 1) or the up slow line (platform 3), also a train service is a train service whether its a Sundays only or one a day service its a service and thats that. The other thing people need to know is the fact that its the only National Rail Abellio Greater Anglia service that calls at Seven Kings, whether it's one a day or early morning, it should be shown because it is a normal service not the type of service that operates during times of engineering work, also the service runs on Saturdays according to the timetable [2], I suppose the service does not need to be shown in the Gidea Park route box because it already shows the Abellio Greater Anglia services that call there and also shows the national rail logo roundel, but with Seven Kings, it only shows the Crossrail service route box and only shows the Crossrail logo roundel, if the national rail service route box and roundel was to be shown at Seven Kings as well, I'd be more than happy. Ron4563 ( talk) 12:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Considering as Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street are mainly served by London Oveground services, with a limited early morning weekday only Southeastern service, they both also have a national rail roundel on top of both of their pages and show their national rail services in the route box as well as their Overground route box, but the same should apply for Seven Kings, it should show the national rail roundel and the national rail route box, especially as Seven Kings is served by National Rail services 6 times a week and the other two stations are only served by 5 national rail services a week. Ron4563 ( talk) 13:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter which platform it uses, we do not construct routeboxes on that basis. But if you're that interested, the working timetable, Book LA01, shows (on pages 223-4, column 77) that it uses the "main" line (as opposed to the "electric" line) west of Shenfield. No platform numbers are given, other than those I gave above. The service does run on Saturdays, I made a mistake there - it's on pp. 347-8 col. 38. But that's not the point: the point is that we should not attempt to include every single train.

Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and is also not a railway timetable. If people want to know where trains stop, when, and on which platform, there are plenty of websites whose primary purpose is to give such information accurately. They are paid to keep this information up to date: we are not. Since it is not in our interest to ensure that pages are comprehensive, we have adopted the practice of showing a reduced amount of information for each station: which lines that the station is on, and which are the adjacent stations. If you have a ticket from Colchester to Seven Kings, and it is only valid on Abellio Greater Anglia services, that's honestly not our problem. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 13:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not trying to include every train timetable on wikipedia, I am only showing one limited westbound service that runs 6 times a week, the only thing i wanted to do was to show the national rail roundel at Seven Kings and the limited service from Colchester to Liverpool Street at Seven Kings in a national rail box, I'm not going to show anything about it at Stratford, Gidea Park or Shenfield because they already cover their National Rail services, I am only going to show just ONE services at Seven Kings, that is different to TfL Rail thats all, only just one iteration of TfL Rail and one iteration of Abellio Greater Anglia thats all, I will not include anything about platforms either. Ron4563 ( User talk:Ron4563) 14:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I take an inclusive approach to timetable information. While most of the article's description should go on the standard service, mention should be made of oddities such as the one CrossCountry train which calls at Filton Abbey Wood. - mattbuck ( Talk) 10:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

A mention of oddities in the prose is fine, but they do not belong in the routebox. The routebox should show only the standard stopping patterns of the majority of contemporary services (for currently open routes, disused ones are slightly different but off-topic for this discussion). Unusual and former routes should be shown only at junctions where they serve stations on different lines to main workings and only subject to local consensus. For example the single daily timetabled LO service from Wandsworth Road to Battersea Park could be included subject to local consensus (but I'd recommend against that one, instead the former service would be better included) but only because it runs on a different route not a different stopping pattern. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need all these variants? If we don't come to a firm decision, and get something written down that we can refer people back to, this will keep on happening over and over. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 23:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd say include the LO Battersea Park route, just note "limited service". - mattbuck ( Talk) 09:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Have we got a resolution yet? Otherwise, edits like this and this will doubtless continue. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 21:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

151.227.129.136 ( talk) and TBM10 ( talk · contribs) are edit-warring over the routeboxes of stations on the same stretch of line, reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unhelpful IP edits. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 22:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Routeboxes

Could I please seek consensus from the more seasoned and respected contributors to UK Rail articles concerning 'routeboxes' on railway station articles? In my view, the purpose of the routebox is to tell the reader which line the station is on and which the preceding and following stations are on that line. The purpose is not to show every possible iteration of the current timetable, ie rare service patterns and oddities. This should be especially true if oddities are mentioned in the prose or shown in the table under the "Services" section of the article. WP is not a travel guide, and those seeking detailed timetable information can obtain it from a wealth of more appropriate websites. To that end, could we agree that "odd" service patterns any less frequent than 1 tph, or Sunday only services, should NOT get their own routebox and just be mentioned within the body of the article? Obviously smaller stations that regularly only see a train every 40 minutes ( Battlesbridge for example) should keep the appropriate routebox but the key is to weed out "irregular" oddities, such as the once-daily Norwich service that calls at Seven Kings. Thanks, -- TBM10 ( talk) 07:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't need to set a specific level of service, as some stations see less than 1 tph. For instance, Buckenham has trains at stopping weekends only, and there are a few stations that only see 1 tpw! By all means leave out the very irregular oddities, but lets not create rules for the sake of creating rules. Mjroots ( talk) 15:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm still in favour of them being used as service boxes. Frankly otherwise there's little point in highlighting which TOC runs it. - mattbuck ( Talk) 21:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

A large number of images of railway tickets are being nominated for deletion over at Commons, although the mass deletion request process has not been followed. To see which images have been nominated click here. Mjroots ( talk) 16:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

On Template:Waverley_Line I did change from light to dark red those sections that have been relaid and will re-open as Borders Railway next weekend. I got reverted. We'd appreciate some more opinions in the discussion at Template talk:Waverley Line. -- KlausFoehl ( talk) 14:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been editing Template:Birmingham-Worcester via Kidderminster. Specifically, I've tried to put hub ring icons around the two Kidderminster stations. But I can't work out how to complete it. Can someone who is more experienced at this help? G-13114 ( talk) 06:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You'd put |02=HUB30 instead of |O2=HUB30 -- Redrose64 ( talk) 08:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW I have requested at move at Talk:Croxley Rail Link. Simply south .... .. time, deparment skies for just 9 years 13:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I have been working on a template for the West Coast Main Line at my sandbox here: User:G-13114/sandbox No.2.

I was just wondering if anyone had any comments or suggestions about it, which would be helpful. G-13114 ( talk) 13:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@ G-13114: I would not call Tamworth, Lichfield or Nuneaton major WCML stations, and many of the stations you listed are not actually on the WCML at all (Manchester, Liverpool, Edinburgh, etc). I'd also bold the main WCML TOCs, as it seems a bit silly to give equal prominence to ATW, which touches the WCML, and VTWC which runs the entire distance. - mattbuck ( Talk) 09:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and don't call it the "Edinburgh Branch". - mattbuck ( Talk) 09:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to think of a worse or more ill-thought out category rename than this:

Category:Railway stations served by Great Western Railway https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pilning_railway_station&curid=2039308&diff=681868228&oldid=680040637 (et al)

Thoughts? Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

#FGW to GWR - mattbuck ( Talk) 09:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

FGW to GWR means we had to do something, but it shouldn't have been this. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Arguable perhaps that we waited too long to do something. This has been in the news for two days now and no agreement had been reached on template/category renamings etc, leaving the way open for a non-project member to intervene. Lamberhurst ( talk) 19:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

In September, First Great Western will be rebranding themselves as GWR. What is our plan to deal with this in terms of the following:

• Article names
• Routebox colours
• Commons categories
• Article content, particularly regarding station service provisions

Obviously this sort of thing has happened before, but I've never really noticed what goes on here. The only other major TOC I can think of which went through a major rename (rather than a change of franchise) is One into NXEA. - mattbuck ( Talk) 14:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

See also the discussion at talk:First Great Western. More opinions welcome there. Mjroots ( talk) 16:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be a consensus at Talk:First Great Western#Article name post September 2015 that the article should be renamed Great Western Railway (train operating company). Similar thing also happened when Greater Anglia became Abellio Greater Anglia.

All stations in the category Railway stations served by First Great Western should be amended to Railway stations served by Great Western Railway and the category then renamed.

While it may be possible for a blanket search and replace, this could cause problems as articles on historical events up until now may be better off remaining as FGW. So probably just a case of going through each article and replacing as and where needed. Notice the new name has already been set up as a redirect so no reason editors who want to get in early can't make a start. Pointtwo ( talk) 06:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Two points, Pointtwo The category name you suggest will cause confusion. The WP:PRIMARY use of Great Western Railway is the company that lasted until 31 December 1947. Secondly, no changes to categories should be made before the TOC is renamed. Mjroots ( talk) 13:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Good point, so the category will need another name. Pointtwo ( talk) 21:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, category name changes need to be agreed at WP:CFR before being carried out. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 23:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Redrose64: - An undiscussed change seems to have taken place. We now have Category:Railway stations served by Great Western Railway, which suggests to me that the station is served by a company that was nationalized on 1 January 1948. Mjroots ( talk) 05:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed that too, and the TOC article page has been moved back to FGW! - mattbuck ( Talk) 07:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@ Mjroots: I had the same impression. Is there any way of reverting this move without initiating a formal discussion or manually moving everything back? It's a pity that a new user with such few contributions could make such a change. Lamberhurst ( talk) 09:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Most of the moves that I've seen were by Ser Amantio di Nicolao ( talk · contribs) who is hardly a new user, and far from having "few contributions", has actually made more non-bot edits (1,304,977 as of 23:59, 19 September) than anybody else apart from Koavf ( talk · contribs). -- Redrose64 ( talk) 09:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I've moved the article back to the new title, as the new name came into effect today. Article now move-protected at admin level. This will allow us to concentrate on dealing with the name for the category. Mjroots ( talk) 09:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a pretty easy fix, actually - it can be effected very quickly. My apologies if I did something wrong - I looked at the articles and tried to figure out what was going on, but I might have gotten my wires crossed somewhere in the middle. Probably did - it's been an odd couple of days, and apparently I'm not quite as recovered as I'd hoped. Just tell me what you need and I can do it. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao ^{Che dicono a Signa?} _{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

As using WP:CFD will take a week or more, I suggest we invoke WP:IAR and thrash the issue out here.

Suggest the new category is Category:Stations served by Great Western Railway (train operating company), in line with the article of the TOC. Mjroots ( talk) 09:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. - mattbuck ( Talk) 09:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Given where I am and what time it is, I have to toddle off to bed. But I can look at this in the morning - and if there are any category moves that require admin tools, please let me know; I'd be happy to do the requisite work. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao ^{Che dicono a Signa?} _{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Or, since TOCs come and go but the area covered by Greater Western franchise is reasonably stable, cut out the whole TOC thing and use Category:Greater Western franchise railway stations. Compare Greater Anglia franchise which gives us Category:Greater Anglia franchise railway stations - see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 September 14#Category:Railway stations served by Greater Anglia for the reasoning. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@ Redrose64: I was thinking of Superalbs ( talk · contribs · count) who moved the category at 00:37, nearly two hours before User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao's edits, which were - I presume - to clear up the mess left by the first user. Lamberhurst ( talk) 10:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

We've also had IPs altering {{ FGW colour}} to {{ GWR colour}} which is just wrong. They should be left alone, and the colour value of {{ FGW colour}} amended. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Now thay're altering {{ FGW colour}} to {{ BR(S) colour}} which is worse. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 21:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw someone change it to {{ GNR colour}} at one point. So what should the new colour be? - mattbuck ( Talk) 11:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Can we move the template to, say, {{ GWR (toc) colour}}? Would that work? Mjroots ( talk) 16:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

If a new colour is needed, then the template name I suggested could be used. Mjroots ( talk) 17:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

For info, there is a dissenter to the move to the new name and my move protection (which was to prevent a move war) - See user talk:Mjroots#Who do you think you are?. I've closed the discussion as it was not going anywhere constructive. There was prior consensus that the move would be done at the appropriate time, which is what happened. Mjroots ( talk) 17:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I would support {{ GWR (toc) colour}}. If there are no objections, it would be good to have the new template in place soon. As a side point, I find it odd that whereas template/category moves on Commons by non-administrators are not possible, here on a more visible platform anyone can do it. Lamberhurst ( talk) 19:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the lower case "toc", but "GWR (TOC)" does look a bit odd.

As for what the new colour should be, I suggest something along the lines of #114411. - mattbuck ( Talk) 08:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That colour looks on the right lines. Maybe User:JaJaWa could indicate which colour is used in File:GreaterWesternRailway.svg? Lamberhurst ( talk) 10:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It's very easy to work out the colours in a SVG file, you don't need any tools other than a modern browser. Go to the file description page, click on the image itself, and invoke the "View source" feature of your browser. Then look for fill and stroke. Doing that for File:GreaterWesternRailway.svg, I find the attribute fill="#0A493E" three times. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 19:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That is #0A493E, which looks good to me. - mattbuck ( Talk) 10:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems Cloudbound has changed {{ FGW colour}} to #003006. That seems a bit too dark to me - it's pretty much black. - mattbuck ( Talk) 12:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It looked like a good shade of dark green to me at the time, but I prefer #0A493E now you've suggested it. With regard to the template name, the current name works well enough as far as I'm concerned. Cloudbound ( talk) 17:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Dark colours are always annoying. I've modified it to 0a493e. The name should be changed at some point, but so long as it's green we should be safe from people changing it for a while. - mattbuck ( Talk) 19:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks better. Just an idea in terms of naming: why not rename the article as GWR (train operating company)? It would avoid the confusion with the original Great Western Railway and I dare say could become the name the company is most commonly known by. It may already be so. The company logo suggests to me that it might. Just an idea though. Cloudbound ( talk) 20:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe they're operating as Great Western Railway, and all the publicity refers to it as such. - mattbuck ( Talk) 20:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Cloudbound ( talk) 21:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

My ticket receipt today says "GWR" in huge letters at the top, and "www.GWR.com" in normal type at the bottom. No mention of "Great", "Western" or "Railway". -- Redrose64 ( talk) 22:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Their website's news page says Great Western Railway - https://www.gwr.com/about-us/media-centre/news/2015/september/first-great-western-becomes-great-western-railway-as-part-of-historic-re-brand - mattbuck ( Talk) 07:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Recently, the article St Andrews Rail Link was moved by Felix Sylvestris Alba ( talk · contribs) to St Andrews Rail Link (StARLink) Campaign. Over the last two weeks, it had become borderline soapbox (compare the current version with that from a month ago), and despite my efforts to bring a touch of WP:NPOV, the page move means that it has now reached the point of being blatantly promotional. Felix Sylvestris Alba also insists that it was not a Beeching closure, despite it being shown on p. 102 of the Beeching Report as "Thornton-Crail-Dundee". The article The St. Andrews Railway could also do with checking for neutrality. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 08:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The article is now at St Andrews Rail Link Campaign, but Felix Sylvestris Alba ( talk · contribs) continues in the same vein. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 11:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Felix Sylvestris Alba ( talk) 12:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The reference 'Thornton-Crail-Dundee' in the (1963) Beeching report refers to services on the two-part Fife Coast line comprised of two historical sub-lines, 'Thornton-Leven-Anstruther' and 'Anstruther - St Andrews'; it does not refer to the Leuchars - St Andrews branch line, an explanation already imparted. It has also been explained that Dr Beeching was appointed to oversee the branch line cull by a conservative Minister for Transport (Ernest Marples) and subsequently served under two conservative Prime Ministers (Harold Macmillan and Sir Alec Douglas-Home); Dr Beeching demitted his secondment to the British Railways Board in 1965 and returned to his substantive post at ICI, never to return. Whilst the majority of railway line closures in the 1960s were attributable to Dr Beeching (including some immediately sequel to his departure, scheduled prior to his departure), the St Andrews Railway was not - it was closed by a Labour Minister for Transport (Richard Marsh) four years sequel to Dr Beeching's departure, three years into a Labour administration alarmed by a looming financial crises that ultimately morphed into the dystopian era of extreme industrial and economic turbulence that was the 1970s.

Baron Marsh's predecessor, Baroness Castle, had indicated her favour for retaining the Leuchars - St Andrews line, but her successor (whom, unlike the Noble Baroness, was a keen motorist and, ergo, less rail-orientated) ordered that the line should be closed.

Whether due to lack of research, cognitive rigidity or ignorance of the geographical area, Redrose64 ( talk · contribs) has decided that the reference to 'Thornton-Crail-Dundee' on p101 of the (1963) Beeching Report equates to the Leuchars - St Andrews line and is seemingly immune to dissuasion in this regard.

Anyone interested in this topic can gain further insight from the two books written on the two St Andrews railways by Messrs Hajducki, Jodeluk and Simpson (listed in the substantive bibliography); also from the (2013) media article on the subject ('British Rail, not Dr Beeching closed St Andrews branch line'), also cited in the bibliography of the substantive page to which this 'talk' article refers.

It is important that information posted to Wikipedia is as accurate as possible, to which end I undertake to continue to improve both the 'St Andrews Railway' and 'St Andrews Rail Link' pages on Wikipedia, including the correction of content posted by others which is perceivably erroneous and/or misinformed.

Felix Sylvestris Alba ( talk) 12:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Felix Sylvestris Alba seems to be under the impression that any rail closure that took place after Beeching had been replaced by Raymond, and Castle by Marsh, is not a Beeching closure. On the contrary, any railway station or line that was recommended for closure in the 1963 Beeching Report ("The Reshaping of British Railways") and which was subsequently closed, is a Beeching closure, no matter who was Chairman of the BRB or Minister of Transport at the time of that closure. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 19:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Redrose64 ( talk · contribs) appears to have ignored the following text in my preceding submission; "Whilst the majority of railway line closures in the 1960s were attributable to Dr Beeching (including some immediately sequel to his departure, scheduled prior to his departure), the St Andrews Railway was not"; more fundamentally this user continues to assume that the reference to 'Thornton-Crail-Dundee' refers to Leuchars - St Andrews, which it does not. The Anstruther - St Andrews line was recommended for closure by Beeching; the Leuchars - St Andrews line was not recommended for closure in either Beeching report.

Felix Sylvestris Alba ( talk) 21:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Fact: Beeching's 1963 report ("The Reshaping of British Railways") lists, on p. 102, the line "Thornton-Crail-Dundee".

Fact: the railway line from Thornton to Dundee via Crail passed through both St Andrews and Leuchars.

Fact: Beeching's 1965 report ("The development of the major trunk routes") has nothing to do with it, since it did not recommend anything for closure - closures were outside its remit.

I would like to know what page "Anstruther - St Andrews" is listed, since I cannot find it on the "Passenger Services to be Withdrawn" list on pp. 102-7. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 22:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@ Felix Sylvestris Alba: St Andrews was a Beeching closure: its inclusion in the report is confirmed by map no. 9 in part 2 which shows it with a broken red line indicating "all stopping passenger services to be withdrawn". This is confirmed by other sources. The fact that it closed under a Labour government doesn't change this: both the Waverley Route and GCML were proposed for closure by Beeching but the recommendations were only implemented in 1969. Furthermore, the member of StARLink who declares that Beeching didn't close the line, as referred to in the news article in the StARLink article, is misinformed and her views as a non-railway expert don't carry much WP:WEIGHT. Lamberhurst ( talk) 08:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Lamberhurst ( talk · contribs), thank you for your contribution; in spite of the perseverative and erroneous refutations contained therein, by posting a link to what you believed to be a source that would confirm your perception and that of Redrose64 ( talk · contribs) you have unwittingly proved my point - I direct both Lamberhurst ( talk · contribs) and Redrose64 ( talk · contribs) to p186 of the source cited by Lamberhurst ( talk · contribs), "Dr Beeching's Axe: 50 Years on : Illustrated Memories of Britain's Lost Railways"; headed "Leuchars Junction to St Andrews", the section states as follows: -

"The first part of what was to become the North British Railways Scenic Route along the East Fife Coastline was opened between Leuchars Junction and St Andrews by the St Andrews Railway in 1852. Although the five-mile railway was absorbed by the NBR in 1877 the rest of the route around the coast to Thornton Junction was only completed in 1887. Starting life as a branch line, Leuchars Junction to St Andrews section reverted back to this status when the rest of the route closed in 1965 (see St Andrews to Leven). Despite not being listed for closure in the 'Beeching Report', the branch line closed completely in 1969. There are currently proposals to reopen the railway to this historic town."

To clear any residual confusion on the part of either Redrose64 ( talk · contribs) or Lamberhurst ( talk · contribs), please be advised as follows: -

• Felix Sylvestris Alba ( talk · contribs) has never stated that all Beeching closures happened during Dr Beeching's active tenure at British Rail.
• Felix Sylvestris Alba ( talk · contribs) has stated, and is correct in doing so, that not all railway closures in the 1960s or later were attributable to Dr Beeching, an assumption that Redrose64 ( talk · contribs) and Lamberhurst ( talk · contribs) appear to have made.
• Felix Sylvestris Alba ( talk · contribs) has never sought to refute the Beeching closure of 'Thornton-Crail-Dundee', merely to point out that this closure refers to services via the Anstruther & St Andrews line and not the St Andrews - Leuchars line. Had either Redrose64 ( talk · contribs) and Lamberhurst ( talk · contribs) been correct in their assertions, we would today have no east coast mainline services northwards of Cupar.
• By virtue of the fact that all railways are connected, the railway line from Thornton and Crail did indeed pass through St Andrews, but it was a separate line and a separate closure (1965 for the former, 1969 for the latter). The afore-referenced source cited by Lamberhurst ( talk · contribs), "Dr Beeching's Axe: 50 Years on: Illustrated Memories of Britain's Lost Railways", provides an overview of the Anstruther & St Andrews (Beeching) closure on p169 and of the Leuchars - St Andrews (non-Beeching) closure on p186, with specific and explicit reference to the later fact, as already quoted.
• The text quoted by Lamberhurst ( talk · contribs) from map no. 9, part 2 ("all stopping passenger services to be withdrawn") refers to the cessation of passenger services at the former halt at Guardbridge - the only passenger "stop" between St Andrews and Leuchars.
• Felix Sylvestris Alba ( talk · contribs) would politely suggest that the assertions repeatedly made by Lamberhurst ( talk · contribs) and Redrose64 ( talk · contribs) apropos maps/diagrams, routes and line-closures cited in the Beeching report are products of misunderstanding, misconstrual and perseverative error-forming, both in terms of the actual meaning of these data and of the geography of the area under question.
• The StARLink campaigner to whom Lamberhurst ( talk · contribs) refers may or may not be a "non-railway expert" (the basis upon which this assumption has been made is unclear) but it would appear to be the case that her views on the matter of the St Andrews closure carry significantly more WP:WEIGHT than those of either Lamberhurst ( talk · contribs) or Redrose64 ( talk · contribs) by viture of the fact that she has been proven to be correct.

Sequel to a protracted 'discussion', it has been conclusively demonstrated that the St Andrews Railway was not a Beeching closure. The subsequent (undernoted) contribution made by Redrose64 ( talk · contribs) in which the user does not, per se, present any new data or take any seeming cognizance of the WP:TALK#FACTS of either the Beeching Report or of the three topical texts (Hajducki et al; Holland) does not, ergo, offer any novel input within the terms of advancing an already exhausted topic.

Felix Sylvestris Alba ( talk · contribs) is disappointed by the at times aggressive and borderline troll-like manner in which this exchange has been conducted and is further disappointed that other contributors have been unable to acknowledge the factual evidence presented, reflect upon erroneously-drawn conclusions and concede their suppositional errors - particularly in light of the fact that 'talk' discussions are purposed to advance a topic on a factual, collegiate and non-personalized basis.

In light of the conclusive demonstration of the non-Beeching nature of the St Andrews - Leuchars closure and the lack of any evidence to the contrary Felix Sylvestris Alba ( talk · contribs) considers this discussion to be closed.

Felix Sylvestris Alba ( talk) 16:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting what myself and Lamberhurst wrote. I stated 'any railway station or line that was recommended for closure in the 1963 Beeching Report ("The Reshaping of British Railways") and which was subsequently closed, is a Beeching closure'. Nowhere did either of us claim that "all railway closures in the 1960s or later were attributable to Dr Beeching".

Do you agree that "Thornton-Crail-Dundee" is shown on p. 102 of the 1963 Beeching Report?

Do you agree that Anstruther is on the line between Thornton and Crail?

Do you agree that Crail is on the line between Anstruther and St Andrews?

Do you agree that St Andrews is on the line between Crail and Leuchars?

Do you agree that Leuchars is on the line between St Andrews and Dundee?

Do you agree that Anstruther-St Andrews is not mentioned on pp. 102-108 of the 1963 Beeching Report?

If your answer to all of these is "yes", then clearly "Thornton-Crail-Dundee" must include Anstruther-St Andrews and also St Andrews-Leuchars.

If your answer to any of these is "no", is there a railway map which shows lines that I am not aware of? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 17:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@ Felix Sylvestris Alba: It is extremely difficult to form a proper reply to you particularly when you make such large changes to your comments after I had previously replied to them. You would do well to observe WP:TPG#Own comments, and also WP:TPG#Good practices for all talk pages used for collaboration not to mention WP:FOC. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 08:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the Class of DMU was in this picture from Birmingham New Street? G-13114 ( talk) 04:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Media related to British Rail Class 116 at Wikimedia Commons might be a match. Secondarywaltz ( talk) 04:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this not a Class 118? Btw, can anyone read that sign in the window: "...express from Birmingham"? Lamberhurst ( talk) 07:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It's one of Tyseley's mixed sets. When asbestos removal became top priority, it was found more economic to scrap some cars than to decontaminate them, and since not all cars in a set were equally affected, some depots were left with odd cars that couldn't be made up into sets with the same class. Set T318 was (in 1993, the year of its withdrawal) formed 51316-59483-53102, which were:

51316 - Class 118 DMBS

59483 - Class 118 TCL

53102 - Class 116 DMS

The car closest the camera, being a DMBS, is thus 51316 of Class 118. The date 5 June 2013 is highly suspect, by then all the "heritage" DMUs were long gone, apart from a few Class 121 single units around Cardiff and Aylesbury. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and the yellow sign says "Midline Express from Birmingham". The word "Midline" is flanked by two logos, yellow on black: the BR double arrow on the left, the "WM" logo of West Midlands PTE on the right, see first image at The 'Midline' Brand. So the pic in question is from no earlier than 1986. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 11:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok I've categorised it as a 118. G-13114 ( talk) 08:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Considering the major role this change played in the history of UK rail, can I implore people here to work on it? As I've just said on the talk page, it's never been any good, and there are major issues over what should even be in it. I really don't want people to just turn up and comment, or just make a few trivial changes, and then forget about it. It's borderline criminal that this article is in such a poor state, while seemingly every other piece of minutia about UK rail (all stations, all trains, all operators, all tunnels, etc, etc) is covered on Wikipedia in excruciating detail. I realise the hypocrisy of asking this, as I've neither the time or the sources to do this job myself, but come on people! My best suggestion is to not even start with what's in the current article, it's that bad - just write a new one from scratch, with a clear structure in mind, and only when that's done, see if there's anything in the current article that warrants keeping. I really don't want to check back in a year's time and see this frankly horrific article in largely the same state. Kristian Jenn ( talk) 19:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

What did your last slave die of? People write about what interests them, or what they feel is important, and not on the basis of what a complete stranger turns up out of the blue and orders that they work on. Rewriting it won't be a case of "just write a new one from scratch", which you seem to think will be a quick and easy job—Wikipedia reflects what the sources say, not original research, and aside from Christian Wolmar (who has a specific agenda) there hasn't actually been much academic work on this, and what there is would take a matter of months to synthesise into a Wikipedia article. Privatisation of British Rail is a distinctly low-traffic article averaging about 5000 pageviews per month (to put that in perspective, that's about 1⁄10 of the average pageviews for a throwaway article I wrote a few years ago about a French cannibal), and I'd question whether the time it would take to do a slash-and-burn complete rewrite would be a sensible use of limited editor time. ‑  iridescent 20:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

What on Earth possessed you to write this load of nonsense by way of a reply then? I specifically mentioned "sources", so why you thought I was asking someone to just invent an article, is a mystery to me. And I specifically mentioned "time", so why you thought I assumed it wouldn't be a big job, is a mystery to me. If it really is the case that nobody is interested in this topic and doesn't think it's worth the effort, that's fine by me. It makes me wonder what sort of person is interested in writing about all the stations, trains, companies, tunnels, etc, etc, and yet would find this topic completely unimportant. It's kind of hard for me to take this alleged encyclopedia seriously if that's really the case - what you describe seems more like Wordpress. One minor point - if not many people are reading it, have you considered whether or not that's because it's in a pretty poor state, and is staying like that over long periods of time? Kristian Jenn ( talk) 14:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Iridescent is essentially correct. The problem is that to do the job properly, decent access to a wide variety of contemporary sources is required. That plus the time and willingness to do so. Nobody can force an editor to devote their time to any particular subject or article. We are all volunteers here, after all. Mjroots ( talk) 15:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no doubt it would be a long and difficult job, and despite Iridescent's ravings, I never said it wouldn't be (hence why I said I'd be checking back in a year). Also despite Iridescent's hysterical reaction, I never demanded anyone to work on it either - I used the word "implore" quite deliberately - it means to "beg someone earnestly or desperately to do something." Just because you're all volunteers, that's really no reason not to put the required effort into this article. I frankly cannot understand the mindset of anyone here who professes to be knowledgeable about UK rail, and puts in hour after hour documenting every tiny little detail of the present railway, while completely and totally neglecting an important article like this. Because, despite what Iridescent claimed with their ridiculous comparison to the 'popularity' of the article on Obama's dog, there can't really be anyone here who seriously believes this article is unimportant, not if they're actually claiming to be knowledgeable about UK rail. If those people are genuinely here to educate people, rather than just using Wikipedia as some kind of hobby, then I would go so far as to say they're being negligent, and are demonstrating quite well that Wikipedia is most undeserving of its classification as an "encyclopedia". This is a topic that is in the news again, and indeed has never really left the news, and yet the article is woeful. I'm doing what I can, but it amounts to simply shuffling text around, not more than putting lipstick on a pig really. If there's no sign of anyone really being interested in the article, I'm thinking it might even be worth just deleting it, and replacing it with a small paragraph in the 1990s section of the History series of articles. Kristian Jenn ( talk) 17:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I realise now, some of the above comment will only make sense if you go look at Iridescent's talk page too, where there was more discussion, until of course they got bored and decided to go home and take their ball with them. [3] Kristian Jenn ( talk) 17:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That would be User talk:Iridescent#The motivation/interest (or lack thereof) of editors. Please observe WP:MULTI in future. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 22:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

For what its worth, I have proposed a merger of Edinburgh Crossrail with the Borders Railway. Please see Talk:Borders Railway#Merge?. Simply south .... .. time, deparment skies for just 9 years 17:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

User:81.157.57.48 has been going on a vandalism spree for the last few days, and I'm tired of chasing after them reverting their edits. I could use some help dealing with them. G-13114 ( talk) 19:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Southern is no longer a TOC: Talk:Southern (train operating company)#Sub-brand of GTR    JaJaWa | talk  18:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone explain the difference between Category:Templates for UK railway line colours and Category:United Kingdom rail transport color templates? The former is a sub-category of the latter, and the latter follows the standard form for the rest of the world (i.e. Category:Country rail transport color templates). Useddenim ( talk) 22:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Category:Templates for UK railway line colours is for historic railway companies, whereas Category:United Kingdom rail transport color templates is for post-privatisation TOCs. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 20:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Then shouldn't the name of Category:Templates for UK railway line colours reflect that?

Is it really justified to have two separate categories? Lamberhurst ( talk) 12:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I would think not. Suggest a merge Category:Templates for UK railway line colours → Category:United Kingdom rail transport color templates? Useddenim ( talk) 17:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth having a Wikipedia: page to list them, or a folder to separate historic from current. - mattbuck ( Talk) 19:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I would support a merge. There is a page where the historical colours are shown: Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/Colours list. It would be nice if the title of the merged page spelt "color" using British spelling. Lamberhurst ( talk) 21:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yest, it would be nice if it were spelt "colour", but I believe there's some templates out there that use the code {{{Country}}} rail transport color templates (but there's no reason that there couldn't be a properly-spelt redirect…) Useddenim ( talk) 22:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Some of you are probably already aware, but I've just discovered that the National Railway Museum has made a few thousand of its images reusable on creative commons licences here. It includes the Sellick collection which covers the south-west and Wales with a large number of images of closed stations and long-demolished viaducts. Lamberhurst ( talk) 12:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

They're all (AFAIK) licensed as CC-by-nc-sa though, even those old enough to be PD. So they're of no use here. You might get one or two if you can argue the PD-US-old case, but they're still then likely to get listed for deletion by the usual couple of useless admin-wannabes. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It depends when they were published.

• If the work is unpublished and has a known author with a known death date, then the author needs to have died in 1944 or earlier.
• If the author is unknown and the work is previously unpublished, it needs to have been created in 1894 or earlier.
• If the work was published outside the US first, it needs to have either been published before 1923, or between 1923 and 1977 but in the public domain in the UK in 1996.

Of course all these also require that the image be PD in the UK. - mattbuck ( Talk) 18:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a great shame as none of the photos I've been through indicate whether they have been previously published. Thanks anyway for the clarification. Lamberhurst ( talk) 21:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Specifically it's CC BY-NC-SA 3.0, which is not compatible with Wikipedia, the sticking point is that -NC ("NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes"). If they were CC BY-SA 3.0 it would be perfectly OK.

Looking at the link provided by Lamberhurst, I see that it's essentially a list of categories, each with what is apparently intended to be a representative photo, some of which are odd. For example, the photo chosen to illustrate " Horwich" is clearly one of the piers and two half-spans of the Forth Bridge under construction. Makes me wonder on what basis the categorisation was made. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 22:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

We've used them in the past, and they've been deleted as a -nc- licence wasn't thought acceptable. Even for some broad gauge photos, as they were undated [ sic].

NRM were sympathetic when I last spoke to them, but as part of the Science Museum all issues like this are dictated by London, and they (WIRs passim) don't think highly of WM people. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Since the government are now licencing most online content under OGL which is wiki-acceptable, letting these images go under -nc is a bit inconsistent. Nthep ( talk) 09:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The government are licensing government-generated datasets under OGL, not artwork collections like this.

As a general rule (but not an enforceable one) the resources that UK quangos, museums and galleries etc. are either licensing or are offering under these CC-nc licences are because they're actually PD already (but they never admit this). Otherwise they'd be treating it differently. There are always plenty of image libraries who'll sell you something you can also legitimately get for free. Just look at Lewis Hine's work. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I came across THIS. Apparently a new railway station called Rugby Parkway is going to be built on the outskirts of Rugby, Warwickshire on the Northampton Loop Line. Does anyone know if this is actually going ahead, or is just an intention which needs to be approved? In any case, do people think it could do with a wiki article? G-13114 ( talk) 19:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Just a pious hope at present. Nowhere near justifying its own article yet. -- Alarics ( talk) 21:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes it says they want to bid for the new stations fund. So presumably it has to clear that hurdle before it can go ahead. Does anyone know how many hurdles have to be jumped before it would be a definite thing? G-13114 ( talk) 22:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

We currently have two articles, Bicester Town and Bicester Village, both covering the same station, and the latter of which may be subject to an AFD (check history).

As far as I can tell, the easiest way to deal with the situation is to delete Bicester Village under G6 and move the Town to the Village title. Would doing so cause problems with attribution though?

@ Redrose64:, this is in your area, so maybe you are in a better position than I am to judge. Mjroots ( talk) 16:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually I have just put in a request for a history merge as this is a clear cut case. Simply south .... .. time, deparment skies for just 9 years 16:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No need for histmerge (explained at Talk:Bicester Town railway station#Requested move 25 October 2015). Just revert recent edits, which I have done. Also, WP:MULTI - we have at least three threads on this now.

When (and not before) the discussion at Talk:Bicester Town railway station#Requested move 25 October 2015 is done, and consensus is to move, an admin may perform the required page moves. If an admin does it, there will be no need for a G6 since admins can move pages over existing pages, even those with history. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 21:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

List of ACoRP members has been proposed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ACoRP members. Simply south .... .. time, deparment skies for just 9 years 17:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I have proposed Template:Edinburgh Crossrail. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 28#Template:Edinburgh Crossrail. Simply south .... .. time, deparment skies for just 9 years 22:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The article on Belgrave & Belgrave station contains history and information on Leicester North (built and opened by the Great Central Heritage Railway Society) which was built on a different site. I recommend that the articles be split as two separate articles. Steamybrian2 ( talk) 19:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Fully agree having proposed the split long ago. Lamberhurst ( talk) 08:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The article on Lloyd Park tramstop contains history and information on Coombe Road station closed in 1983 which was on a different site. Lloyd Park tramstop was built about 250 yards from the site of Coombe Road station on a former green field (parkland) site and not even on the former railway alignment. I recommend the articles be split as two separate articles Steamybrian2 ( talk) 19:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we need a formal split here, it's a question of creating an article in place of the redirect at Coombe Road railway station. Lamberhurst ( talk) 08:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a notice on Talk:West_Coast_Main_Line#Stale_Drafts about some stale drafts that could be useful to the article in question. Please feel free to help. Hasteur ( talk) 16:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have a WP:RS for the exact location of the Great Yorkshire Railway Preservation Society, a short-lived preservation group at Starbeck, North Yorkshire, in the 1980s? I recall seeing it from the train as a child, so it was obviously near the track, and what little sources I have state it was on the site of the Starbeck loco shed. My best guess is that it was on the south side of the station, in the junction with the former Leeds-Northallerton Railway, at 53°59′51″N 1°29′58″W / 53.99748°N 1.499355°W / 53.99748; -1.499355, but this is just conjecture. Any help would be appreciated. Optimist on the run ( talk) 08:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I had never heard of it until yesterday, when I found it in Category:United Kingdom articles missing geocoordinate data and made this edit. Although I can refine its location further, to Starbeck, I can't improve my edit because Category:North Yorkshire articles missing geocoordinate data isn't subdivided. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Glad I was able to increase your knowledge a little :-) It was your edit that prompted me to make this query. Optimist on the run ( talk) 15:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking at what's on the net, the society appears to have been based on the site of the old loco depot at Starbeck. Nthep ( talk) 21:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but where was that? Optimist on the run ( talk) 09:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Optimist on the run, if you go to this search for Starbeck at www.old-maps.co.uk and select the map for 1932 in the left side-bar, you can see there's a building with a turntable beside it within the triangle, and it's marked as "Engine Shed". You might need to drag the map up a bit to see it. Maps are WP:RS, are they not? HTH Nortonius ( talk) 12:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The loco shed coords are 53°59′48″N 1°29′52″W / 53.9967°N 1.4977°W / 53.9967; -1.4977. If the RPS was definitely in the old loco shed, I'd use those coords. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 19:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info - this ties in with my speculation. I've added the coords to the article. Optimist on the run ( talk) 06:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)