![]() | 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. |
Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
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.
TAnthony has changed the text colour at Docklands Light Railway rolling stock from white (the official colour) to black citing WP:COLOR. While this might technically meet the specifications, to me it harder to read and is incorrect to the colour scheme being used. Thy have also not changed the DLR colours anywhere else as far as I have spotted.
My reversion to the easier to read official colours was reverted, despite an explicit request to discuss matters before doing so, so here we are. I'm not against accessibility but TfL's official colour schemes are compliant with contrast requirements (otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to use them afaik) and, for me at least, black on the cyan is significantly harder to read than the white. Finally, if we aren't using the official colours for the DLR on the rolling stock article we shouldn't be using them anywhere and should decide what to use instead - which is why I called for a discussion. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions.What you stated above is The three-revert rule. AlgaeGraphix ( talk) 13:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
The colour accessibility guidelines are designed to make things easier to read for everybody, yet we have multiple people independently saying that the white text (which "fails" the guidelines) is easier to read than the black text (which "passes") and nobody is claiming otherwise (TAnthony has never stated which they find easier to read, only that an external tool deems black to be more accessible; Mackensen hasn't commented either way). We should be attempting to understand why that is and how to ensure that going forwards there isn't a disconnect between what a tool says is accessible and what humans say is accessible. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that simply reverting is not it and nor is wikilawyering or shouting that you cannot be wrong. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I personally don't find it hard to read, but my eyesight is excellent. Let's take a step back and explain color contrast. The purpose of color contrast accessibility guidelines is to ensure that text is readable for people who have poor eyesight, and for whom certain contrast combinations are a problem. My profession is web development; ensuring that the websites I maintain are accessible is a core part of my professional responsibilities. In this case, the combination of white and DLR teal is a real problem for people who trouble with low contrast. Here's the result from the WebAIM contrast checker: [1]. Realistically you want to aim for passing WCAG 2.0 AA contrast; AAA contrast is a real challenge. People who can't read text that passes AA are probably just browsing the web in black-and-white; I know people who have to do that. As you can see, the combination of DLR teal and white fails AA and AAA contrast. I realize that for a person with normal eyesight this is perhaps counterintuitive; the text appears perfectly distinguishable to you. For someone with poor eyesight, it's probably unreadable, or a strain, and that's a problem. Now, compare with using black: [2]. Much higher contrast. Visually it's less appealing to my eyes, but I can still read it, and more importantly, so can someone who has vision problems. Mackensen (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Folks, I realize you all mean well, but what you're effectively saying is that it's okay to deliberately deliver a degraded experience to someone with poor eyesight. What's more, they'll know that's the case. Accessibility is important, it's a guideline, and in some contexts a legal requirement. If this were a purely decorative element that would be one thing, but it's not. Departing from the accessibility guidelines on purely aesthetic grounds privileges the sighted experience and should be avoided. I won't belabor the point, but I'm opposed to doing that and I support the change TAnthony proposes. Mackensen (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
If this were a purely decorative element that would be one thing, but it's not.The title caption at the top of the page which TAnthony persistently has a problem with is a purely decorative element, hence why it's been formatted that way! This is some type of British vs American dispute. C2A06 ( About • Talk • Edits) 15:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
( edit conflict) with Mackensen's helpful explanations above. WP:COLOURWAR would seem to be the guiding article here. It ends by saying that " colour contrast is of particular importance to people with poor vision, including those who are colourblind. Please preserve the accessibility of Wikipedia, per the colour guideline." Those last two links lead to a prohibition notice suggesting this discussion is not about loose guidelines; and to instructions unhelpfully titled "guidelines". They remind us that "some readers of Wikipedia are partially or fully color-blind or visually impaired. Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible". So I read this as saying AAA is the level to aim at. The Snook tool linked to shows that the WCAG determination for this particular discussion are non-compliant at AA and AAA for white text, and fully-compliant for black text. Why this is I do not know: I am not an expert on colour contrast for people with visual impairments and am fortunate in being able, like most of the population, to distinguish colours. I assume that the WCAG guidelines were drawn up by people who are expert, either because it's a field they have studied to become competent to give advice and instruction; or because they have to navigate a world where others decide without first-hand experience of a visual disability what looks right or not. There's an obligation, then, to either change the text color to black, easily and feasibly meeting the AAA requirement; or pick another background colour which fits with white text for AAA compliance. (For the latter, fiddling with the Snook tool and referring to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Colors suggests a compliant background is going to be quite a bit darker.) The same applies to any other DLR-"branded" article, although I would not be first in the queue to make alterations if doing so resulted in reversion and another discussion like this. Bazza ( talk) 15:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
We can't use white text on the current blue background because some people with poor eyesight can't read it. We can't use black text on the current blue background because people with good eyesight can't read it. Then isn't the answer obvious? Use white text on a darker shade of blue (same hue but different lightness and/or saturation) and find a combination that passes the AA test. -- Dr Greg talk 15:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
title bar in the top right is supposed to be a decorative elementPerhaps so, but nothing in the markup makes it so. This is a side issue, but the title of the infobox poses semantic problems as it's just a table cell. That's a problem with {{ Infobox train}} and not directly germane here, but if the intention is that the title bar is decorative, that's not how it's actually presented on the page and (at present) a good reason for not addressing the problem. To put it another way: someone with contrast problems won't know it's decorative, they'll just know that there's text in a prominent place that they can't read very well. And to be clear, I also think that the colors need to be changed. Mackensen (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
have the current DLR colours either side of black-on-white text. Do you mean making it like the bottom example showed by RexxS? C2A06 ( About • Talk • Edits) 08:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
{{s-start}} {{s-line|system=DLR|line=DLR}} {{s-end}}
This colour meets WCAG AAA but wanted to ask yous before implementing, Thanks, – Davey2010 Talk 20:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
This templates for discussion listing has resulted in a merge of GB station, UK disused and UK heritage to Infobox station, with future discussions to be held on TfL stations and the various other local templates. You may find the first converted example at Bristol Temple Meads railway station, which can be used as a guide for other UK stations. Cards 84664 16:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
Infobox London station}}
not been included in the bundle? There is much more in common between that and {{
Infobox GB station}}
than between the latter and {{
Infobox station}}
, and there are occasions when the GB one is replaced by the London one (
example), but I know of no situation where it was necessary to replace any of the GB ones with the generic one.I note that nearly all the objections were from people who deal with these templates, nearly all supports were from people who don't, that specific questions were unanswered or handwaved away with "this is solvable" with no attempt to explain how or why solving it is better than the status quo. Are we sure that this closure actually represents consensus? Thryduulf ( talk) 22:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Heads-up! There has been a train crash near Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire. Judging by the number of ambulances in attendance, it may involve a passenger train. Mjroots ( talk) 10:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Can people please watch merges that are being proposed under the scope of this WikiProject by Jh15s via Wikipedia:Proposed mergers#MERGE REQUESTS. In particular watch this one: Talk:Liverpool Overhead Railway#Merger proposal. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 19:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Can any Quail twitchers or others please tell me names of the tunnel on the Garston and Liverpool Railway line between Brunswick railway station and St Michaels railway station. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 11:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
According to the ORR website, there was an error with the source data which has affected a number of stations, mainly in Wales and the north of England and resulted in an overestimation of usage. Both the 2018/19 and 2017/18 data has been affected so someone (or multiple people) will need to go over all 2000+ stations to check if data is correct. It is hard to tell how many stations were affected or which stations they were so it may be best to unfortunately go over the whole lot. see here. Difficultly north ( talk) Simply south alt. 15:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Letter | Complete? | Letter | Complete? | |
---|---|---|---|---|
A | ![]() |
M | ![]() | |
B | ![]() |
N | ![]() | |
C | ![]() |
O | ![]() | |
D | ![]() |
P | ![]() | |
E | ![]() |
Q | ![]() | |
F | ![]() |
R | ![]() | |
G | ![]() |
S | ![]() | |
H | ![]() |
T | ![]() | |
I | ![]() |
U | ![]() | |
J | ![]() |
V | ![]() | |
K | ![]() |
W | ![]() | |
L | ![]() |
Y | ![]() |
I suppose I don't need to say, also check the interchange data if it has been included in the article. Difficultly north ( talk) Simply south alt. 21:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Sammy the Shunter has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 05:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Any ideas on which station this could be? I believe it is an LBSCR station (based on the valance) in the London area and the two-word station name is spelt out in stones although is not readable. Could it be Mitcham Junction which had a similar style of footbridge and valance (see image here? Lamberhurst ( talk) 21:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, i'd like a consensus on whether or not my diagrams should be removed from Wikipedia. I've had a few IP users revert some edits i made to some pages and removing my diagrams stating that they are unfit for use on a professional site like here, i did remove all my diagrams twice, both times being reverted by Davey2010 and he asked me to ask for a consensus, so are my diagrams allowed on this site or not? WestRail642fan ( talk) 23:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
WestRail642fan - the main factor that determines the use of an image is quality. Who took the photo, or created the diagram, has absolutely nothing to do with the selection of the image. Mjroots ( talk) 07:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
While this has died down, might i suggest two ideas: 1. Cut down the diagrams to just that of current liveries/branding and 2. Add a long image template to the longer images as per what i did with the APT-P diagram. I'm also electing to no longer uploading any more diagrams to common, nor am i supporting there use anywhere else on wikipedia anymore WestRail642fan ( talk) 20:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, the bigger issue is being overlooked. Smaller issues such as having multiple variants of a diagram on a single page can be rectified, but the fact of the matter is that West's diagrams have been replaced multiple times by older and much less accurate diagrams. Furthermore, the reason tends to be in regards to the smaller pixel size, and not in regards to their accuracy or suitability. If the older diagrams which are badly proportioned can be posted on the majority of pages about trains in the United Kingdom, why can't these newer ones do the same? Seems like a double standard to me. - PennCentral9, 23:55 7 September 2020 (UTC)
So, here's something i didn't bring up until now, but Engine Shed - South London reached to me awhile ago to ask to use my daigrams for some packs to help kids with autism/ADHD, they recently got back to me and showed me a picture of my diagrams as part of there packs WestRail642fan ( talk) 16:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Would someone please help me to understand how to use the railway lines template? I have been looking at List of Northern Trains routes and realising that some of the latter routes are missing line templates and that some other routes need to be merged according to the July timetables. I have tried geting it to work on my own sandbox but I can't seem to get it. -- Exodus662 ( talk) 09:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Bazza: Sorry, I had problems accessing my Wikipedia account recently. I would like to take you up on your offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exodus662 ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
A discussion re criticism of reporting of the Stonehaven derailment is taking place at talk:Stonehaven derailment#Rail magazine. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mjroots ( talk) 06:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
This is only tangentially a railway question, but I thought project members may be able to help. I recently wrote this, Ashorne Hill House. I came across this article [7] which refers to Ashorne Hall, but talks of the property being bought by Arthur Tree in 1892, when he did indeed buy the Ashorne Hill estate, subsequently building Ashorne Hill House between 1895-97. So, my question is are Ashorne Hall and Ashorne Hill House the same place, and the location of the miniature railway, or is Ashorne Hall another, presumably pretty proximate, house? Any advice/information gratefully received. KJP1 ( talk) 16:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I observe admin & oversighter
Jeremy Hosking{See below for mistake here
Djm-leighpark (
talk) 20:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)) has completely removed Jeremy Hosking's associatation with Railway; apart from the now unsupported categpry
Category:British people associated with Heritage Railways. This isn't something I particularly follow but to my best understandning Hoskings has and perhaps does have an impact in the railway sector. Can anyone with more specific information check this out. Thankyou. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Djm-leighpark (
talk •
contribs)
04:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
There is a proposal to rename Category:Panoramas of train stations in the United Kingfom (sic) on Commons. Comments on the talk page please. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 09:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Recently there have been spot fires flaring up on multiple UK railway articles of the need for cites and what are and aren't acceptable. Thought it might be timely to have a centralised discussion so the issues can be discussed.
The core policy is Verifiability. Basically for anything to be added it needs to be backed up by a reliable source.
These are two types of sources; those classified as reliable sources and can be used, and those that are classified as self published and can't be used.
Sources that can be used as cites
Sources that cannot be used as cites
I'm sure there are other examples that people may want to add or discuss. Metro140 ( talk) 04:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I would say that verified Twitter accounts used by TOC should be allowed as a source but as a very last resort I.E. when no other news outlets cover something.
I use Manchester united football ground railway station as an example, services there were suspended in 2018 due to health and safety concerns. How do we know this? Because Northern was asked on Twitter about it and said that was the reason why would they make up as reason as the only TOC serving that station only they would know why services were suspended.
Without Twitter we would not able to confirm why services had been suspended.
I understand that anybody could claim anything on Twitter, but I feel like as a last resort when no other sources are available verified Twitter accounts used by TOC should be allowed. Maurice Oly ( talk) 00:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Metro140: I would define official Twitter acconts as acconts with the blue checkmark aka twitter verified accounts for example @Northernassist etc. Maurice Oly ( talk) 18:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Metro140: Maurice Oly ( talk) 18:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Updating usage stats with the publication today of the ORR 2019/20 figures, I find articles that use the "Infobox London station" template don't display the 2019/20 figures, though I've added the new figures in the same way as usual, and hidden the oldest ones. I've done Morden South railway station and Mortlake railway station so far, with the same results. I don't pretend to understand how to edit templates, if that's where the problem lies... Stations outside London that use a different infobox template don't have this problem. Johnlp ( talk) 17:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
infobox London station}}
just like {{
infobox GB station}}
and others. The whole business has got me down, severely, and my heart just isn't in it any more. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
22:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
infobox London station}}
- it used {{
infobox GB station}}
, and whilst I would have helped (indeed, fixed it) in the past, the article now uses {{
infobox station}}
and I no longer have the desire to do so, all the pleasure has been taken away from me. I've unwatched hundreds of articles, even though there have been a large number of recent bad edits, because I simply can no longer be bothered to check the edits of various IPs and newbies. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
22:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)With the latest updates of stats, I've noticed that when AnomieBOT changed the station infobox template recently, stats from more than five years ago, which were previously commented out with <!-- -->, have been removed (e.g. [8]). Was there agreement to do this? — O Still Small Voice of Clam 18:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Having gone through over 2,560 UK railway station articles in the last week, Wrenbury railway station was the last station I needed to update the railway figures for. Thanks to everyone who has helped with this tedious task this year. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 13:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I've added a couple of accidents to the Bognor Regis station article. A search of the Railways Archive reveals a 1995 accident. Further searching reveals 4CIG 1710 collided with the signal box. Not sure that website is useable as a reference though. Can anyone come up with a better source please? Mjroots ( talk) 17:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
So I want to check with everybody here how we should format rolling stock tables for TOCs in terms of year built as a standard, I noticed this issue while I was formatting tables last night.
Examples of how we could format tables in terms of train build dates are:
1975-1985 1975-85
Those two dates are random and just examples of formatting, but they show how I think we could format tables in terms of rolling stock year build dates in terms of a standard format.
I look forward to hearing editors input on this matter. Maurice Oly ( talk) 13:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Bazza: ok thanks for making that clear. Maurice Oly ( talk) 14:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I've been a very good boy this year and Santa has rewarded me handsomely. I got a copy of Simon Lilley's new book on the Class 33s (Lilley, Simon (2020). The Class 33s A Sixty Year History. Manchester: Crécy Publishing Ltd. ISBN 978 191080 9662.). The article is in sore need of improvement, which I should be able to achieve using the book as a reference. As a first step towards this, is there any objection to converting exising book references to {{ sfn}} format? Mjroots ( talk) 10:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite magazine}}
: Cite magazine requires |magazine=
(
help) which is somewhat of a sourcing heaven for a certain subset, won't do a dirty diesel though. Surviving Covid-19 was a better present but hasn't improved my grammar/spelling.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
15:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Dear all can the page on the class 332 please be locked to prevent Vandalism please. Maurice Oly ( talk) 23:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Redrose64: I thank you for blocking IP address and I only came here due to not knowing where to go for this since this was my first time asking for a page to be locked.
Thank you for telling me where I should go in the future for issues like this. Maurice Oly ( talk) 15:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The user has been making several edits to Railway related articles in the last few months. Unfortunately they have been riddled with poor spelling and grammar, add unneeded speculation and most of the time lack sources. I discussed this on their talk page last night but they appear to have ignored it and made several more edits this morning. SK2242 ( talk) 12:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
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.
TAnthony has changed the text colour at Docklands Light Railway rolling stock from white (the official colour) to black citing WP:COLOR. While this might technically meet the specifications, to me it harder to read and is incorrect to the colour scheme being used. Thy have also not changed the DLR colours anywhere else as far as I have spotted.
My reversion to the easier to read official colours was reverted, despite an explicit request to discuss matters before doing so, so here we are. I'm not against accessibility but TfL's official colour schemes are compliant with contrast requirements (otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to use them afaik) and, for me at least, black on the cyan is significantly harder to read than the white. Finally, if we aren't using the official colours for the DLR on the rolling stock article we shouldn't be using them anywhere and should decide what to use instead - which is why I called for a discussion. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions.What you stated above is The three-revert rule. AlgaeGraphix ( talk) 13:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
The colour accessibility guidelines are designed to make things easier to read for everybody, yet we have multiple people independently saying that the white text (which "fails" the guidelines) is easier to read than the black text (which "passes") and nobody is claiming otherwise (TAnthony has never stated which they find easier to read, only that an external tool deems black to be more accessible; Mackensen hasn't commented either way). We should be attempting to understand why that is and how to ensure that going forwards there isn't a disconnect between what a tool says is accessible and what humans say is accessible. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that simply reverting is not it and nor is wikilawyering or shouting that you cannot be wrong. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I personally don't find it hard to read, but my eyesight is excellent. Let's take a step back and explain color contrast. The purpose of color contrast accessibility guidelines is to ensure that text is readable for people who have poor eyesight, and for whom certain contrast combinations are a problem. My profession is web development; ensuring that the websites I maintain are accessible is a core part of my professional responsibilities. In this case, the combination of white and DLR teal is a real problem for people who trouble with low contrast. Here's the result from the WebAIM contrast checker: [1]. Realistically you want to aim for passing WCAG 2.0 AA contrast; AAA contrast is a real challenge. People who can't read text that passes AA are probably just browsing the web in black-and-white; I know people who have to do that. As you can see, the combination of DLR teal and white fails AA and AAA contrast. I realize that for a person with normal eyesight this is perhaps counterintuitive; the text appears perfectly distinguishable to you. For someone with poor eyesight, it's probably unreadable, or a strain, and that's a problem. Now, compare with using black: [2]. Much higher contrast. Visually it's less appealing to my eyes, but I can still read it, and more importantly, so can someone who has vision problems. Mackensen (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Folks, I realize you all mean well, but what you're effectively saying is that it's okay to deliberately deliver a degraded experience to someone with poor eyesight. What's more, they'll know that's the case. Accessibility is important, it's a guideline, and in some contexts a legal requirement. If this were a purely decorative element that would be one thing, but it's not. Departing from the accessibility guidelines on purely aesthetic grounds privileges the sighted experience and should be avoided. I won't belabor the point, but I'm opposed to doing that and I support the change TAnthony proposes. Mackensen (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
If this were a purely decorative element that would be one thing, but it's not.The title caption at the top of the page which TAnthony persistently has a problem with is a purely decorative element, hence why it's been formatted that way! This is some type of British vs American dispute. C2A06 ( About • Talk • Edits) 15:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
( edit conflict) with Mackensen's helpful explanations above. WP:COLOURWAR would seem to be the guiding article here. It ends by saying that " colour contrast is of particular importance to people with poor vision, including those who are colourblind. Please preserve the accessibility of Wikipedia, per the colour guideline." Those last two links lead to a prohibition notice suggesting this discussion is not about loose guidelines; and to instructions unhelpfully titled "guidelines". They remind us that "some readers of Wikipedia are partially or fully color-blind or visually impaired. Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible". So I read this as saying AAA is the level to aim at. The Snook tool linked to shows that the WCAG determination for this particular discussion are non-compliant at AA and AAA for white text, and fully-compliant for black text. Why this is I do not know: I am not an expert on colour contrast for people with visual impairments and am fortunate in being able, like most of the population, to distinguish colours. I assume that the WCAG guidelines were drawn up by people who are expert, either because it's a field they have studied to become competent to give advice and instruction; or because they have to navigate a world where others decide without first-hand experience of a visual disability what looks right or not. There's an obligation, then, to either change the text color to black, easily and feasibly meeting the AAA requirement; or pick another background colour which fits with white text for AAA compliance. (For the latter, fiddling with the Snook tool and referring to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Colors suggests a compliant background is going to be quite a bit darker.) The same applies to any other DLR-"branded" article, although I would not be first in the queue to make alterations if doing so resulted in reversion and another discussion like this. Bazza ( talk) 15:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
We can't use white text on the current blue background because some people with poor eyesight can't read it. We can't use black text on the current blue background because people with good eyesight can't read it. Then isn't the answer obvious? Use white text on a darker shade of blue (same hue but different lightness and/or saturation) and find a combination that passes the AA test. -- Dr Greg talk 15:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
title bar in the top right is supposed to be a decorative elementPerhaps so, but nothing in the markup makes it so. This is a side issue, but the title of the infobox poses semantic problems as it's just a table cell. That's a problem with {{ Infobox train}} and not directly germane here, but if the intention is that the title bar is decorative, that's not how it's actually presented on the page and (at present) a good reason for not addressing the problem. To put it another way: someone with contrast problems won't know it's decorative, they'll just know that there's text in a prominent place that they can't read very well. And to be clear, I also think that the colors need to be changed. Mackensen (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
have the current DLR colours either side of black-on-white text. Do you mean making it like the bottom example showed by RexxS? C2A06 ( About • Talk • Edits) 08:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
{{s-start}} {{s-line|system=DLR|line=DLR}} {{s-end}}
This colour meets WCAG AAA but wanted to ask yous before implementing, Thanks, – Davey2010 Talk 20:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
This templates for discussion listing has resulted in a merge of GB station, UK disused and UK heritage to Infobox station, with future discussions to be held on TfL stations and the various other local templates. You may find the first converted example at Bristol Temple Meads railway station, which can be used as a guide for other UK stations. Cards 84664 16:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
Infobox London station}}
not been included in the bundle? There is much more in common between that and {{
Infobox GB station}}
than between the latter and {{
Infobox station}}
, and there are occasions when the GB one is replaced by the London one (
example), but I know of no situation where it was necessary to replace any of the GB ones with the generic one.I note that nearly all the objections were from people who deal with these templates, nearly all supports were from people who don't, that specific questions were unanswered or handwaved away with "this is solvable" with no attempt to explain how or why solving it is better than the status quo. Are we sure that this closure actually represents consensus? Thryduulf ( talk) 22:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Heads-up! There has been a train crash near Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire. Judging by the number of ambulances in attendance, it may involve a passenger train. Mjroots ( talk) 10:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Can people please watch merges that are being proposed under the scope of this WikiProject by Jh15s via Wikipedia:Proposed mergers#MERGE REQUESTS. In particular watch this one: Talk:Liverpool Overhead Railway#Merger proposal. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 19:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Can any Quail twitchers or others please tell me names of the tunnel on the Garston and Liverpool Railway line between Brunswick railway station and St Michaels railway station. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 11:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
According to the ORR website, there was an error with the source data which has affected a number of stations, mainly in Wales and the north of England and resulted in an overestimation of usage. Both the 2018/19 and 2017/18 data has been affected so someone (or multiple people) will need to go over all 2000+ stations to check if data is correct. It is hard to tell how many stations were affected or which stations they were so it may be best to unfortunately go over the whole lot. see here. Difficultly north ( talk) Simply south alt. 15:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Letter | Complete? | Letter | Complete? | |
---|---|---|---|---|
A | ![]() |
M | ![]() | |
B | ![]() |
N | ![]() | |
C | ![]() |
O | ![]() | |
D | ![]() |
P | ![]() | |
E | ![]() |
Q | ![]() | |
F | ![]() |
R | ![]() | |
G | ![]() |
S | ![]() | |
H | ![]() |
T | ![]() | |
I | ![]() |
U | ![]() | |
J | ![]() |
V | ![]() | |
K | ![]() |
W | ![]() | |
L | ![]() |
Y | ![]() |
I suppose I don't need to say, also check the interchange data if it has been included in the article. Difficultly north ( talk) Simply south alt. 21:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Sammy the Shunter has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 05:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Any ideas on which station this could be? I believe it is an LBSCR station (based on the valance) in the London area and the two-word station name is spelt out in stones although is not readable. Could it be Mitcham Junction which had a similar style of footbridge and valance (see image here? Lamberhurst ( talk) 21:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, i'd like a consensus on whether or not my diagrams should be removed from Wikipedia. I've had a few IP users revert some edits i made to some pages and removing my diagrams stating that they are unfit for use on a professional site like here, i did remove all my diagrams twice, both times being reverted by Davey2010 and he asked me to ask for a consensus, so are my diagrams allowed on this site or not? WestRail642fan ( talk) 23:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
WestRail642fan - the main factor that determines the use of an image is quality. Who took the photo, or created the diagram, has absolutely nothing to do with the selection of the image. Mjroots ( talk) 07:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
While this has died down, might i suggest two ideas: 1. Cut down the diagrams to just that of current liveries/branding and 2. Add a long image template to the longer images as per what i did with the APT-P diagram. I'm also electing to no longer uploading any more diagrams to common, nor am i supporting there use anywhere else on wikipedia anymore WestRail642fan ( talk) 20:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, the bigger issue is being overlooked. Smaller issues such as having multiple variants of a diagram on a single page can be rectified, but the fact of the matter is that West's diagrams have been replaced multiple times by older and much less accurate diagrams. Furthermore, the reason tends to be in regards to the smaller pixel size, and not in regards to their accuracy or suitability. If the older diagrams which are badly proportioned can be posted on the majority of pages about trains in the United Kingdom, why can't these newer ones do the same? Seems like a double standard to me. - PennCentral9, 23:55 7 September 2020 (UTC)
So, here's something i didn't bring up until now, but Engine Shed - South London reached to me awhile ago to ask to use my daigrams for some packs to help kids with autism/ADHD, they recently got back to me and showed me a picture of my diagrams as part of there packs WestRail642fan ( talk) 16:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Would someone please help me to understand how to use the railway lines template? I have been looking at List of Northern Trains routes and realising that some of the latter routes are missing line templates and that some other routes need to be merged according to the July timetables. I have tried geting it to work on my own sandbox but I can't seem to get it. -- Exodus662 ( talk) 09:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Bazza: Sorry, I had problems accessing my Wikipedia account recently. I would like to take you up on your offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exodus662 ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
A discussion re criticism of reporting of the Stonehaven derailment is taking place at talk:Stonehaven derailment#Rail magazine. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mjroots ( talk) 06:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
This is only tangentially a railway question, but I thought project members may be able to help. I recently wrote this, Ashorne Hill House. I came across this article [7] which refers to Ashorne Hall, but talks of the property being bought by Arthur Tree in 1892, when he did indeed buy the Ashorne Hill estate, subsequently building Ashorne Hill House between 1895-97. So, my question is are Ashorne Hall and Ashorne Hill House the same place, and the location of the miniature railway, or is Ashorne Hall another, presumably pretty proximate, house? Any advice/information gratefully received. KJP1 ( talk) 16:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I observe admin & oversighter
Jeremy Hosking{See below for mistake here
Djm-leighpark (
talk) 20:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)) has completely removed Jeremy Hosking's associatation with Railway; apart from the now unsupported categpry
Category:British people associated with Heritage Railways. This isn't something I particularly follow but to my best understandning Hoskings has and perhaps does have an impact in the railway sector. Can anyone with more specific information check this out. Thankyou. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Djm-leighpark (
talk •
contribs)
04:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
There is a proposal to rename Category:Panoramas of train stations in the United Kingfom (sic) on Commons. Comments on the talk page please. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 09:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Recently there have been spot fires flaring up on multiple UK railway articles of the need for cites and what are and aren't acceptable. Thought it might be timely to have a centralised discussion so the issues can be discussed.
The core policy is Verifiability. Basically for anything to be added it needs to be backed up by a reliable source.
These are two types of sources; those classified as reliable sources and can be used, and those that are classified as self published and can't be used.
Sources that can be used as cites
Sources that cannot be used as cites
I'm sure there are other examples that people may want to add or discuss. Metro140 ( talk) 04:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I would say that verified Twitter accounts used by TOC should be allowed as a source but as a very last resort I.E. when no other news outlets cover something.
I use Manchester united football ground railway station as an example, services there were suspended in 2018 due to health and safety concerns. How do we know this? Because Northern was asked on Twitter about it and said that was the reason why would they make up as reason as the only TOC serving that station only they would know why services were suspended.
Without Twitter we would not able to confirm why services had been suspended.
I understand that anybody could claim anything on Twitter, but I feel like as a last resort when no other sources are available verified Twitter accounts used by TOC should be allowed. Maurice Oly ( talk) 00:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Metro140: I would define official Twitter acconts as acconts with the blue checkmark aka twitter verified accounts for example @Northernassist etc. Maurice Oly ( talk) 18:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Metro140: Maurice Oly ( talk) 18:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Updating usage stats with the publication today of the ORR 2019/20 figures, I find articles that use the "Infobox London station" template don't display the 2019/20 figures, though I've added the new figures in the same way as usual, and hidden the oldest ones. I've done Morden South railway station and Mortlake railway station so far, with the same results. I don't pretend to understand how to edit templates, if that's where the problem lies... Stations outside London that use a different infobox template don't have this problem. Johnlp ( talk) 17:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
infobox London station}}
just like {{
infobox GB station}}
and others. The whole business has got me down, severely, and my heart just isn't in it any more. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
22:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
infobox London station}}
- it used {{
infobox GB station}}
, and whilst I would have helped (indeed, fixed it) in the past, the article now uses {{
infobox station}}
and I no longer have the desire to do so, all the pleasure has been taken away from me. I've unwatched hundreds of articles, even though there have been a large number of recent bad edits, because I simply can no longer be bothered to check the edits of various IPs and newbies. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
22:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)With the latest updates of stats, I've noticed that when AnomieBOT changed the station infobox template recently, stats from more than five years ago, which were previously commented out with <!-- -->, have been removed (e.g. [8]). Was there agreement to do this? — O Still Small Voice of Clam 18:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Having gone through over 2,560 UK railway station articles in the last week, Wrenbury railway station was the last station I needed to update the railway figures for. Thanks to everyone who has helped with this tedious task this year. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 13:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I've added a couple of accidents to the Bognor Regis station article. A search of the Railways Archive reveals a 1995 accident. Further searching reveals 4CIG 1710 collided with the signal box. Not sure that website is useable as a reference though. Can anyone come up with a better source please? Mjroots ( talk) 17:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
So I want to check with everybody here how we should format rolling stock tables for TOCs in terms of year built as a standard, I noticed this issue while I was formatting tables last night.
Examples of how we could format tables in terms of train build dates are:
1975-1985 1975-85
Those two dates are random and just examples of formatting, but they show how I think we could format tables in terms of rolling stock year build dates in terms of a standard format.
I look forward to hearing editors input on this matter. Maurice Oly ( talk) 13:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Bazza: ok thanks for making that clear. Maurice Oly ( talk) 14:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I've been a very good boy this year and Santa has rewarded me handsomely. I got a copy of Simon Lilley's new book on the Class 33s (Lilley, Simon (2020). The Class 33s A Sixty Year History. Manchester: Crécy Publishing Ltd. ISBN 978 191080 9662.). The article is in sore need of improvement, which I should be able to achieve using the book as a reference. As a first step towards this, is there any objection to converting exising book references to {{ sfn}} format? Mjroots ( talk) 10:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite magazine}}
: Cite magazine requires |magazine=
(
help) which is somewhat of a sourcing heaven for a certain subset, won't do a dirty diesel though. Surviving Covid-19 was a better present but hasn't improved my grammar/spelling.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
15:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Dear all can the page on the class 332 please be locked to prevent Vandalism please. Maurice Oly ( talk) 23:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Redrose64: I thank you for blocking IP address and I only came here due to not knowing where to go for this since this was my first time asking for a page to be locked.
Thank you for telling me where I should go in the future for issues like this. Maurice Oly ( talk) 15:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The user has been making several edits to Railway related articles in the last few months. Unfortunately they have been riddled with poor spelling and grammar, add unneeded speculation and most of the time lack sources. I discussed this on their talk page last night but they appear to have ignored it and made several more edits this morning. SK2242 ( talk) 12:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)