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 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | → | Archive 55 |
In edits like these, Class380 ( talk · contribs) is insisting on the inclusion of a column named "Trainset" and a link to a class of rolling stock that is different from those shown later in the same rows of the table. Should we have this column, and if so can we either use a more meaningful column header or at least provide a link to a page that explains the term? To a younger person, a "trainset" is a box containing a dozen or so pieces of track, a toy locomotives and some carriages and/or wagons. This is clearly not what is intended: but the only other meaning that I am aware of is a fixed-formation rake of carriages, such as a multiple unit. So a class 507 trainset is no more nor less than a class 507 unit. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 22:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
In the article quoted it is meaningless. Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 10:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Thunderbird locomotive, currently a redirect to Bank engine has been nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 9#Thunderbird locomotive where your comments are invited. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The British rail class 144e article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 15:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dinoboyaz ( talk · contribs) is claiming, without any evidence at all, that the LMS Royal Scot locomotives nos. 6100 and 6152 did not exchange identities permanently in 1933. I have provided sources to show that they did (and can provide more if necessary), but with these edits, Dinoboyaz continues to insist that they are right and I am wrong. Essentially, they are flouting WP:V and denying the accuracy of books written by Bob Essery and also books published by the RCTS. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
There can't be a dispute here if one fellow has sources and the other hasn't. That goes to the core of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Essery may be wrong, or an inferior source. I can't speak to that. However, what's required at this stage is either a source that explicitly states Essery is wrong, or a source that contradicts Essery and is evaluated as more reliable. Otherwise, there's nothing to do here. Mackensen (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Not all sources are reliable: I looked online to find out. All of them said that the identity swap was permanent, but none provided any evidence to prove it. Like I said, without sufficient evidence, no source can be taken as fact. Dinoboyaz ( talk) 02:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
In this video, Chris Eden Green actually states that 6100 and 6133 never returning to their original identities is nothing more than a belief, with interpretation being left up to rivet counters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-AKdB7S4LU&feature=youtu.be
Before you say anything about videos, Chris Eden Green does a lot of research, he’s as reliable as you can get. Dinoboyaz ( talk) 08:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, I've seen enough here. Consensus is that reliable sources say the swap was permanent. Whether it was or it wasn't is immaterial. Dinoboyaz has been warned to drop the WP:STICK on pain of being indeffed. Should the stick be picked up again, ping me and I'll get the banhammer out. Mjroots ( talk) 15:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
If 6152 and 6100 didn’t swap back to their identities after the American Tour, why is there a pic of the former after the tour? Dinoboyaz ( talk) 18:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
(end of moved text) -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 12:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Many UK rolling stock articles have tables that are either totally or largely uncited. An example of the former is British Rail Class 142#Fleet details, where there are two tables that have never been cited and there has been some edit-warring replacing one uncited table with another uncited table. An example of the latter is British Rail Class 43 (HST)#List, while partially cited, also has large amounts of uncited text, making it manifestly unreliable.
Sometimes in magazines there are full disposition tables or in the Platform 5 books that are published annually, these can be considered reliable, but the piecemeal way in which the above two have evolved is not. So, should we keep uncited tables or remove them? Metro140 ( talk) 23:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Someone is messing with Weedon railway station, can an admin take a look at it? G-13114 ( talk) 03:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Yesterday at about 20:12 (whilst riding in the late-running 20:07 Banbury to Didcot), I noticed in Banbury depot a stabled train comprising two units, both of which had the destination "99 Sheffield via Rugby Central" on their front (northernmost) indicators. Do Chiltern Railways know something that we don't? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 14:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Just heard that Vic Mitchell has passed away. A name that will be familiar to many members of this WP. Mjroots ( talk) 18:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
As you will have noticed, the redlink has turned blue. Mitchell was an early director of the revived Festiniog Railway, so books covering that subject may be of use in expanding the article. I would expect fuller obituaries to be published in the railway press in due course, so again, hopefully more material to expand the article with. Mjroots ( talk) 14:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a suggestion that we split this article into the pre 1912 company and a history of the line started on Talk:London, Tilbury and Southend Railway. Whilst this is not the first time this has come up on that page I feel it is worth another discussion (or should we divert the discussion here?).-- Davidvaughanwells ( talk) 14:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Is there anyone with a Railway Gazette Intl account that can check if this edit was a direct copy of the article it was citing? SK2242 ( talk) 17:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
There's a discussion I've started about which version of the system map for the Tyne & Wear Metro to use if anyone has an opinion. G-13114 ( talk) 02:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
The Llangollen Railway has appointed receivers. Might be worth having a few more eyes on the article and its associated RDT lest some over-eager editors start writing that it has closed permanently. Obviously this is a possible outcome, but nothing is confirmed yet. Mjroots ( talk) 15:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
For a long time, we've had a template, {{
butt-stations}}
, which cites Butt, R. V. J. (1995). The Directory of Railway Stations: details every public and private passenger station, halt, platform and stopping place, past and present. I have used this as a go-to source for station opening and closing dates all over the place, and have not doubted its factual accuracy. However,
Psulagain has drawn my attention to
Railway Passenger Stations in Great Britain - A Chronology, published by the
Railway and Canal Historical Society in 2019. I did a spot check, and for example, it claims
Ashford International railway station partially reopened after the Eurostar upgrade on 4 September 1995, which I have never seen before. Does anyone else have any thoughts as to which sources we should use?
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 18:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
it claims Ashford International railway station partially reopened after the Eurostar upgrade on 4 September 1995, I wouldn't expect Butt to have covered that, since his book was published in 1995 and there is a note on page 4 that
this edition contains changes up to and including 31 December 1994. Most of Butt is reliable, but anomalies have been found so it's not 100% accurate. The RCHS are, generally speaking, reliable. I don't know about the RLHS.
I'm looking to finish up the merge of the Manchester Metrolink infoboxes. So if I understand correctly, Manchester Metrolink articles tend to use two separate infoboxes in the same article for the Network Rail station and the Metrolink station. Example at Manchester Piccadilly station the first infobox is for NR (though it has the Metrolink icon in the top right and some ML details like the number of platforms), and the Metrolink infobox is at Manchester_Piccadilly_station#Piccadilly_tram_stop. Similar pattern for Manchester_Victoria_station#Victoria_tram_stop.
Other countries/locations seem to do it differently (one infobox for all services, eg Union Station (Los Angeles)). Wanted to get some feedback on if it might be better to have the details in the main infobox instead (much seem to overlap anyway, though some thought may have to go into passenger numbers), with the section just having an image and route map? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 16:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Since Bombardier Transportation no longer exists after being acquired by Alstom SA, I ask this should we change the manufacture for the class 730 Aventra and the Aventra family to Alstom SA?
I know changing the builder for the Aventra family page may cause issues, since the Class 710 and Class 720 Aventras were built by Bombardier Transportation and not Alstom, but could we find a way around that.
Just thought I’d post this here and see what people think. Maurice Oly ( talk) 22:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Redrose64: Ok, I’ll leave things as they are this was just me wanting to check on this. Maurice Oly ( talk) 00:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed the new article Windsor Lines (Waterloo to Reading, Windsor and Hounslow loop). It's about a group of three railway lines which already have their own articles. Many sections are just an exact copy from the existing articles without proper attribution. What should we do about this? -- PhiH ( talk) 19:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I am pretty certain that user:2A02:C7F:5C39:1100:2D26:2504:4962:5F67 is user:I Like The british Rail Class 483 editing logged out to evade their partial block from the article namespace - see the contributions for the /64. Thryduulf ( talk) 03:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
No the these to users are not the same user:I Like The british Rail Class 483 and user:2A02:C7F:5C39:1100:2D26:2504:4962:5F67 are not the same. -- I Like The british Rail Class 483 ( talk) 18:11, 20 March 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 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | → | Archive 55 |
In edits like these, Class380 ( talk · contribs) is insisting on the inclusion of a column named "Trainset" and a link to a class of rolling stock that is different from those shown later in the same rows of the table. Should we have this column, and if so can we either use a more meaningful column header or at least provide a link to a page that explains the term? To a younger person, a "trainset" is a box containing a dozen or so pieces of track, a toy locomotives and some carriages and/or wagons. This is clearly not what is intended: but the only other meaning that I am aware of is a fixed-formation rake of carriages, such as a multiple unit. So a class 507 trainset is no more nor less than a class 507 unit. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 22:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
In the article quoted it is meaningless. Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 10:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Thunderbird locomotive, currently a redirect to Bank engine has been nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 9#Thunderbird locomotive where your comments are invited. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The British rail class 144e article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 15:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dinoboyaz ( talk · contribs) is claiming, without any evidence at all, that the LMS Royal Scot locomotives nos. 6100 and 6152 did not exchange identities permanently in 1933. I have provided sources to show that they did (and can provide more if necessary), but with these edits, Dinoboyaz continues to insist that they are right and I am wrong. Essentially, they are flouting WP:V and denying the accuracy of books written by Bob Essery and also books published by the RCTS. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
There can't be a dispute here if one fellow has sources and the other hasn't. That goes to the core of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Essery may be wrong, or an inferior source. I can't speak to that. However, what's required at this stage is either a source that explicitly states Essery is wrong, or a source that contradicts Essery and is evaluated as more reliable. Otherwise, there's nothing to do here. Mackensen (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Not all sources are reliable: I looked online to find out. All of them said that the identity swap was permanent, but none provided any evidence to prove it. Like I said, without sufficient evidence, no source can be taken as fact. Dinoboyaz ( talk) 02:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
In this video, Chris Eden Green actually states that 6100 and 6133 never returning to their original identities is nothing more than a belief, with interpretation being left up to rivet counters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-AKdB7S4LU&feature=youtu.be
Before you say anything about videos, Chris Eden Green does a lot of research, he’s as reliable as you can get. Dinoboyaz ( talk) 08:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, I've seen enough here. Consensus is that reliable sources say the swap was permanent. Whether it was or it wasn't is immaterial. Dinoboyaz has been warned to drop the WP:STICK on pain of being indeffed. Should the stick be picked up again, ping me and I'll get the banhammer out. Mjroots ( talk) 15:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
If 6152 and 6100 didn’t swap back to their identities after the American Tour, why is there a pic of the former after the tour? Dinoboyaz ( talk) 18:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
(end of moved text) -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 12:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Many UK rolling stock articles have tables that are either totally or largely uncited. An example of the former is British Rail Class 142#Fleet details, where there are two tables that have never been cited and there has been some edit-warring replacing one uncited table with another uncited table. An example of the latter is British Rail Class 43 (HST)#List, while partially cited, also has large amounts of uncited text, making it manifestly unreliable.
Sometimes in magazines there are full disposition tables or in the Platform 5 books that are published annually, these can be considered reliable, but the piecemeal way in which the above two have evolved is not. So, should we keep uncited tables or remove them? Metro140 ( talk) 23:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Someone is messing with Weedon railway station, can an admin take a look at it? G-13114 ( talk) 03:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Yesterday at about 20:12 (whilst riding in the late-running 20:07 Banbury to Didcot), I noticed in Banbury depot a stabled train comprising two units, both of which had the destination "99 Sheffield via Rugby Central" on their front (northernmost) indicators. Do Chiltern Railways know something that we don't? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 14:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Just heard that Vic Mitchell has passed away. A name that will be familiar to many members of this WP. Mjroots ( talk) 18:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
As you will have noticed, the redlink has turned blue. Mitchell was an early director of the revived Festiniog Railway, so books covering that subject may be of use in expanding the article. I would expect fuller obituaries to be published in the railway press in due course, so again, hopefully more material to expand the article with. Mjroots ( talk) 14:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a suggestion that we split this article into the pre 1912 company and a history of the line started on Talk:London, Tilbury and Southend Railway. Whilst this is not the first time this has come up on that page I feel it is worth another discussion (or should we divert the discussion here?).-- Davidvaughanwells ( talk) 14:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Is there anyone with a Railway Gazette Intl account that can check if this edit was a direct copy of the article it was citing? SK2242 ( talk) 17:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
There's a discussion I've started about which version of the system map for the Tyne & Wear Metro to use if anyone has an opinion. G-13114 ( talk) 02:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
The Llangollen Railway has appointed receivers. Might be worth having a few more eyes on the article and its associated RDT lest some over-eager editors start writing that it has closed permanently. Obviously this is a possible outcome, but nothing is confirmed yet. Mjroots ( talk) 15:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
For a long time, we've had a template, {{
butt-stations}}
, which cites Butt, R. V. J. (1995). The Directory of Railway Stations: details every public and private passenger station, halt, platform and stopping place, past and present. I have used this as a go-to source for station opening and closing dates all over the place, and have not doubted its factual accuracy. However,
Psulagain has drawn my attention to
Railway Passenger Stations in Great Britain - A Chronology, published by the
Railway and Canal Historical Society in 2019. I did a spot check, and for example, it claims
Ashford International railway station partially reopened after the Eurostar upgrade on 4 September 1995, which I have never seen before. Does anyone else have any thoughts as to which sources we should use?
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 18:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
it claims Ashford International railway station partially reopened after the Eurostar upgrade on 4 September 1995, I wouldn't expect Butt to have covered that, since his book was published in 1995 and there is a note on page 4 that
this edition contains changes up to and including 31 December 1994. Most of Butt is reliable, but anomalies have been found so it's not 100% accurate. The RCHS are, generally speaking, reliable. I don't know about the RLHS.
I'm looking to finish up the merge of the Manchester Metrolink infoboxes. So if I understand correctly, Manchester Metrolink articles tend to use two separate infoboxes in the same article for the Network Rail station and the Metrolink station. Example at Manchester Piccadilly station the first infobox is for NR (though it has the Metrolink icon in the top right and some ML details like the number of platforms), and the Metrolink infobox is at Manchester_Piccadilly_station#Piccadilly_tram_stop. Similar pattern for Manchester_Victoria_station#Victoria_tram_stop.
Other countries/locations seem to do it differently (one infobox for all services, eg Union Station (Los Angeles)). Wanted to get some feedback on if it might be better to have the details in the main infobox instead (much seem to overlap anyway, though some thought may have to go into passenger numbers), with the section just having an image and route map? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 16:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Since Bombardier Transportation no longer exists after being acquired by Alstom SA, I ask this should we change the manufacture for the class 730 Aventra and the Aventra family to Alstom SA?
I know changing the builder for the Aventra family page may cause issues, since the Class 710 and Class 720 Aventras were built by Bombardier Transportation and not Alstom, but could we find a way around that.
Just thought I’d post this here and see what people think. Maurice Oly ( talk) 22:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Redrose64: Ok, I’ll leave things as they are this was just me wanting to check on this. Maurice Oly ( talk) 00:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed the new article Windsor Lines (Waterloo to Reading, Windsor and Hounslow loop). It's about a group of three railway lines which already have their own articles. Many sections are just an exact copy from the existing articles without proper attribution. What should we do about this? -- PhiH ( talk) 19:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I am pretty certain that user:2A02:C7F:5C39:1100:2D26:2504:4962:5F67 is user:I Like The british Rail Class 483 editing logged out to evade their partial block from the article namespace - see the contributions for the /64. Thryduulf ( talk) 03:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
No the these to users are not the same user:I Like The british Rail Class 483 and user:2A02:C7F:5C39:1100:2D26:2504:4962:5F67 are not the same. -- I Like The british Rail Class 483 ( talk) 18:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)