![]() | 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 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | → | Archive 55 |
The plan is:-
The question I have are: What is the protocol for renaming (and please see talk page for other naming options) What is the protocol for getting the new article up - does it need reviewing first?
Please feel free to look at the work in progress (assuming that is possible).
/info/en/?search=User:Davidvaughanwells/sandbox
-- Davidvaughanwells ( talk) 17:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
If we take the neighbouring Great Eastern Railway its geographic scope is covered by a number of line articles such as Great Eastern Main Line and this is mostly consistent through Wikipedia. Therefore renaming it to London Tilbury and Southend lines is consistent with how wikipedia has dealt with railway history.
I concede there is potential for confusion and I can just copy my work into the current article and then start working on the later history as and when I get round to it. I am concerned that other well meaning editors could pollute the article with post 1912 material so a copy and paste over the rudimentary early history of the current entry has its merits (and looks like less work).
-- Davidvaughanwells ( talk) 09:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Mjroots: Do you have any clue why the inconsistent capitalisation on Template:Railway lines in London? We need to pick one for consistency. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 01:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 49#Trainset - what does it mean? There is an IP insisting on the inclusion of this column with its misleading header at Great North Eastern Railway ( history). The problem affects eight articles that I can find, and the IP is using that as justification for its retention here. Should we keep the column, and if so, can we find a meaningful name for it? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 12:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
what?}}
tag which leads straight here, which is verging on
WP:POINT. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
07:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Redrose64, Bazza 7, Train0824, PhiH, Nthep, Mattbuck, Maurice Oly, and anyone else who is or might be familiar with this discussion: I am taking no further part in it, and also I'm steering clear of all articles related to British railways for the time being.
This situation just seems to be getting more ridiculous by the hour - and more ill-tempered, too. No-one seems to be agreeing on *anything*, and it seems that any attempt to move things forward - like Mattbuck offering a possible definition of "trainset" (regardless whether it's worth defining or not), or me trying to make clear what a family is - is as successful as San Marino are at football. It seems, too, that edit wars are on the verge of developing on some of the articles concerned - like the Greater Anglia one - and, in turn, blocks being handed out.
Call me a drama queen, but this isn't the kind of situation that's particularly good for my sanity. Therefore, I'm bailing out of it while the opportunity is there. How the rest of this discussion pans out shall remain a mystery to me (it'll be archived eventually, obviously), and if it turns out that there *is* a productive outcome after all (like a term that everyone *can* agree on, or the deletion and prohibition of "trainset" columns, "family" columns and the like from these tables), well, it's likely that it'll be a while before I see it for myself.
So, to quote Douglas Adams: so long, and thanks for all the fish. 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:8D6F:3572:F58D:DADD ( talk) 22:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
As a contributor who has been inserting this 'Trainset' column into a lot of the UK railway articles, I do feel that the column is necessary and useful and with there being articles on certain families (such as Bombardier Voyager and Bombardier Aventra), the fleet tables should reiterate this. With that being said, I am all for changing the term 'Trainset' to 'Family' as well because when comparing these two, the term 'Family' indeed makes a lot more sense and this term is already more widely used than 'Trainset' ever was. -- SavageKieran ( talk) 10:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Does anybody have issues of British Railway Modelling, Model Railway Journal or Railway Modeller that have features on 2 mm scale? Perhaps you can use those to improve the article 2 mm scale. Even if you can't, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2 mm scale. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 21:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
An editor has inquired about the reliability of ukrailnews.com. Input would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#ukrailnews.com. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion at Talk:2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident#Requested move 8 May 2021 would benefit from additional input. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Now would be a good time to start prep work on Module:Adjacent stations/Great British Railways. If we get the functionality of the module figured out, we should have at least two years to ensure that templates are transitioned smoothly. (For those unfamiliar with the module, see Template:Adjacent stations and Module:Adjacent stations). Cards 84664 14:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Brecknell Willis high speed pantograph, Brecknell Willis high reach pantograph and Brecknell Willis low height pantograph have been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brecknell Willis high speed pantograph. I'd be astonished if at least the high speed pantograph was not notable, but the subject is poorly covered in google-indexed web pages so if anyone has knowledge and especially sources that cover this, please comment at the AfD. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
The template Template:Coventry to Leamington line RDT has the current Leamington Spa railway station as Leamington Spa General. Does anyone have a reference for it being called this, and/or for what dates? G-13114 ( talk) 12:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
Butt-Stations}}
template.) --
Dr Greg
talk
13:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)The locomotive in this photo has conflicting info in separate Wikipedia articles. The Waterford and Tramore Railway article claims it was built in 1847 for the Liverpool and Manchester Railway (which had been absorbed into the Grand Junction Railway in 1845 and that company had been absorbed into the LNWR in 1846). The Bury Bar Frame locomotive article states that it was built for the London and Birmingham Railway in 1837. Which is correct? Mjroots ( talk) 11:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Please can I have some help dealing with /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/82.10.86.69 who is back inserting unsourced and frequently trivial information and reverting away from the consensus about it. I've dropped them a level 4 warning, but as it's my edits in a lot of cases they are reverting I don't want to take action myself. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I just spotted someone adding one of the sub-categories of category:Railway stations by Department for Transport category to an article. These used to be added automatically by {{ infobox GB station}} but since the merge to {{ infobox station}} these are no longer being populated. The entries in the categories are the ones filled by {{ infobox London station}}. Keith D ( talk) 23:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Noted in news: [2] ... anyone interested if seeing if relevant to Kingsway tramway subway. I've got about 3/4/5 articles I'm messily stacked on already ... and not sure if its a straightforward update. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 12:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The unreferenced British Rail Class 447 article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 15:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Denton railway station (Lincolnshire) has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 17:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Daventry Parkway Project. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 15#Daventry Parkway Project until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
John Maynard Friedman (
talk)
14:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I am going to give it a day or two but I am going to be bold and move this page to capitalise. If we look at MML - Midland Main Line or West Coast Main Line or East Coast Main Line or even Great Central Main Line they are all capitalized. Even Bonnie Scotland has Highland Main Line in capitals. This article does not. I strongly feel we need consistency. I raised the issue on the talk page quite a while ago and a few agree with me GRALISTAIR ( talk) 11:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I swear I am not fussed either way but there should be consistency. I raised the issue on GW main line talk page a few months back. Consistency is my beef GRALISTAIR ( talk) 12:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I mean in meandering I noticed on the page Rail operating centre it refers to West Coast Route Modernisation. How far do we take this whole thing? Why is Route capitalised? Why is Modernisation capitalised? For that matter why is Coast capitalised? So should WCML read West coast main line? Perhaps I have lived in the USA way too long! GRALISTAIR ( talk) 13:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth I 100% agree that the current guidelines on capitalisation are ludicrous, and clearly unfit for purpose if they produce the results that we have seen. They only exist because of a few editors have a bizarre obsession with the issue! G-13114 ( talk) 19:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The SR Merchant Navy Class article (FA class) currently only mentions one incident, that involving the broken axle on Crewkerne. I'm not sure that it had anything to do with the performance of the unmodified locomtives, which it is currently a subsection of.
There are other accidents and incidents involving the class which are not mentioned. I propose to move the subsection containing the Crewkerne incident to a become a retitled "Accidents and Incidents" section immediately above the "Withdrawal" section and add some other incidents I can verify, unless there are any objections. Mjroots ( talk) 11:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
FYI, there's a requested move discussion underway at Talk:South Western main line#Requested move 20 July 2021. G-13114 ( talk) 01:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
While both tend to be used interchangeably at least in informal discussions, is the correct name in the UK for passenger stock carriages or cars? Formal sources such as Angel Trains, Department for Transport, Eversholt, Hitachi, Porterbrook, Rail Magazine, Rail Technology and The Railway Magazine appear to largely use carriages in both titles and text. Customreed ( talk) 05:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
In some articles, e.g. British Rail Class 323, British Rail Class 332, British Rail Class 333, public address systems are included in the infobox as safety systems. While systems such as AWS and ATP definitely are safety systems, is it a bit of a stretch to include a public address system? While PAs may be used in the aftermath of an accident, it’s more of an incidental rather than the primary function for which they exist.
I would have though that safety systems are those items which prevent or mitigate the impacts of an accident, which a PA system isn't. The cites used to back up their inclusion in these articles mention them as features of the trains, but not safety features. Customreed ( talk) 06:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I saw this tweet and it seems that we don't have an article for what I shall call the " Wester pipe railway" for want of a better name. An interesting industrial railway in the far north of Scotland. It is some 7.8 kilometres (4.8 mi) long and the motive power is tugboats. Exists solely to facilitate the manufacture of pipes for use by the North Sea oil industry. Plenty of photo's on Geograph - follow the railway inland on the map to see more. Mjroots ( talk) 09:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Dore and Totley railway station has been moved to Dore & Totley railway station by Brampstone, but I can't find any discussion similar to that for the move in the opposite direction done in 2008. Have I missed something? This most recent move is a bit strange as the article's text hasn't been altered, and its first image clearly shows the station name plate as Dore and Totley. Bazza ( talk) 09:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused, hoping someone can help me make sense of this. I wrote a Module:Adjacent stations/Tyne and Wear Metro last year and basically I'm not sure if I've got the left/right lines right. So a route map is the picture on the right. Here is a conversion someone made from {{ s-line}} to the adjacent stations module. Originally it would've said, for the Green line, "Previous: Haymarket. Next: Central" for example. Now it has the order swapped around. I dunno if that's inherently a problem, but I guess the crux of my problem is which is "left" and which is "right"? Or does it not matter?
Similarly, I was looking at converting Newcastle railway station#Tyne & Wear Metro, where it currently looks like: which is obviously not right (Central -> Monument isn't going towards South Shields on the map). Is this just a case of swapping order during the conversion, or should the module and existing usages be swapped, or...? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 21:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
An editor User:N1TH Music has been creating a number of articles about individual railway vehicles and locomotives. So far we have
This one British Rail Locomotive 02 003 is more interesting, though. There is more information and sources about this one, because it's preserved. I know we have articles about individual preserved locomotives (obviously notable in the cases of things like Mallard, City of Truro, or DELTIC, more dubious in others). How should these articles be approached? My reasoning is that on the basis of this one I could write an article about pretty much any preserved diesel locomotive (and probably quite a few that aren't, either - for example D326, the Great Train Robbery locomotive). Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Following copied from my yalk page to keep the discussion coherent:
Hello It's me, N1TH Music the guy who's been writing individual locomotive articles, I've read the Section you and Black Kite have made to "Project UK Railways" and I understand that you don't really want me making more of these, I think if I'm not mistaken that it's ok to make articles about the most notable individual locomotives so the way I see it, stuff like 442 001, 314 209 390 033 "City of Glasgow, ect. but I have a few questions. 1. It's hard to see what is the line between a useful article about and individual locomotive and a useless one, does it have to be preserved or does there have to just be something special about it warranting an article, for example 314 209 is the only remaining 314 unit and it's being hydrogen converted, is that enough? is my existing article about 02 003 which Black Kite called "more interesting" enough or are neither of them enough. In addition I read the Wikipeida instructions that say what articles should be on wikipedia and stuff like that. It makes a point saying that just because something is true and is sourced does not mean it should have an article, just because it can does not mean it should, but it also said that articles on wikipedia shouldn't be too long. If I were to take all the information and sources I put on 02 001, 02 003 and 02 004 and put it all on the Class 02 article, the article would be very long and wouldn't be very user friendly and I only wrote aritcles about the 3 units that got TOPS classifications, If I wrote about all 20, the article about class 02 would be immense. You might tell me then it's too much information but the way I see it, there are some people who only want skin deep information about the class but there are others who might want to learn about a single unit. In this case the person who wants to learn about the class will be confused and maybe even lost about the Giant article that has a lot of information and the person who wants something specific must go searching through said giant article for the little specific information they want. There are 2 solutions, one is to just not jam pack the article with tons of information, but then the person who wants to find out something specific will have to look through the source material or go on FlickR and I know from experience, trying to find information that only Wikipedia's source material has is incredibly annoying. And that's the soul reason I began editing on wikipedia, I wanted to add information so if someone added it it's there, I felt it would be better to make new articles about these locos then it would be to make the existing articles titanic in size. The other solution is what I did, but I understand your point, not all Locomotives need an article, there are 996 Class 08 locomotives, most of those don't matter, maybe a list simply listing and talking about the simple most basic facts would be a simple Idea, I know you did that twice with the class 47 and class 37 and those are great articles, maybe that's a solution, but I would please like you to reply to me on my talk page what you are ok with me writing and what you're not because I don't want to be a rulebreaker N1TH Music ( talk) 14:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
For info, N1TH Music's editing has been raised at WP:ANI. I've made a suggestion there as to how to deal with this issue. Mjroots ( talk) 06:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The same user, N1TH Music ( talk · contribs) has created Railway Driving Motor Car. There are so many problems here that I don't know whether to redirect it elsewhere, or to WP:PROD it. It's entirely unsourced; there is much that is incorrect or outright wrong (for example, far from being old-fashioned, many EMUs built recently, such as British Rail Class 730, feature driving motor cars) that to remove the incorrect phrases would leave virtually nothing. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 11:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
This was up for PROD and earlier today I've dePRODed and added a little content and its raised a couple of thoughts in my mind, some of which area UK relevant. (1) Should the article be kept at or is it covered elsewhere. (2) Are there examples of single cabbed EMU's ... do some of the hybrid REP hybrids count? Was there an example of that in Canada in a travel TV program (great railway journeys or whatever). (3) Is their a list of abbreviations for British Coach type classifications ... e.g. TSO for Trailer Second Open. ... etc. etc. etc. and the SR unit type classifications ... e.g. 4COR, 3NOL, 5WES ... etc. All just thoughts. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 21:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Just FYI, there has been some controversy recently at articles associated with Weedon railway station. There's a local campaign to reopen the station, and there's concern that its advocates are using wikipedia as a platform for promoting their campaign. It's something that people here should keep an eye on. G-13114 ( talk) 17:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, the saga continues. Would interested editors add Daventry Parkway to their watch list. There is no such station so right now it is a redirect to a list of bidders for the crown. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 19:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I've reverted edits by MJ9674 saying that 507 006 has been scrapped. Have seen this reported by non-RSs, but if the information is going into the article then it needs to be referenced to a RS. Would suggest that the next edition of Rail magazine is likely to be a good place to look. Have also issued MJ9674 a final warning re the addition of unreferenced material to Wikipedia. They've been her long enough and had several low-level warnings about this so they should know by now what is required. Mjroots ( talk) 05:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
The Liverpool Street railway station article mentions a class 769 freight trial due to take place in 2020. Did it ever happen? Is there now a regular freight service to Liverpool Street or has the pandemic put paid to that and we should amend the article?-- Davidvaughanwells ( talk) 08:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
References
Could someone here with sources check the opening date of Church Brampton railway station? As someone edited it a while back to claim it opened in 1912, when my sources say 1881. G-13114 ( talk) 10:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
References
I have spent many a frustrating time at Redhill station, and at times even more on the Redhill station article. The issue here is the repeat insertion of Sexy Simon's photo to Redhill railway station bby an anon IP. Now many of Sexy simon's photo's, many of which are excellent, are are inserted to station's and they are mostly the most appropriate image. No problem. But a problem occurs if there is a dispute; and the IP tries to keep forcing it in. There are no consequences for the IP if they keep pushing, but considerable risks for a established user who resists. And if the IP wins because of anonymity advantage that sets a bad precedent. Now while there are no guidelines against this it does seem inappropriate. Now if you look at myself and images of stations (or anything) in Dublin analysis would show I have a "go to" whose likely to be the photographer of choice .... for example using File:The Streets Of Dublin - Spencer Dock Luas Stop.jpg for the replacement image at Spencer Dock Luas stop when the prior image likely was in breach of copyright. But I think I'll generally use the best available. Be grateful if others keep a look/eye on this. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 17:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I've redrawn the East Coast Main Line diagram to include the Werrington Dive Under. If any editor feels they can make a neater job please feel free to do so. Mjroots ( talk) 19:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello everybody. Just to let interested parties know I have created a Requested Move discussion at Talk:High Street (Glasgow) railway station for it to be retitled High Street railway station (Glasgow). Please head over if you would like to discuss the proposal. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (report) 01:22, 18 October 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 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | → | Archive 55 |
The plan is:-
The question I have are: What is the protocol for renaming (and please see talk page for other naming options) What is the protocol for getting the new article up - does it need reviewing first?
Please feel free to look at the work in progress (assuming that is possible).
/info/en/?search=User:Davidvaughanwells/sandbox
-- Davidvaughanwells ( talk) 17:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
If we take the neighbouring Great Eastern Railway its geographic scope is covered by a number of line articles such as Great Eastern Main Line and this is mostly consistent through Wikipedia. Therefore renaming it to London Tilbury and Southend lines is consistent with how wikipedia has dealt with railway history.
I concede there is potential for confusion and I can just copy my work into the current article and then start working on the later history as and when I get round to it. I am concerned that other well meaning editors could pollute the article with post 1912 material so a copy and paste over the rudimentary early history of the current entry has its merits (and looks like less work).
-- Davidvaughanwells ( talk) 09:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Mjroots: Do you have any clue why the inconsistent capitalisation on Template:Railway lines in London? We need to pick one for consistency. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 01:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 49#Trainset - what does it mean? There is an IP insisting on the inclusion of this column with its misleading header at Great North Eastern Railway ( history). The problem affects eight articles that I can find, and the IP is using that as justification for its retention here. Should we keep the column, and if so, can we find a meaningful name for it? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 12:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
what?}}
tag which leads straight here, which is verging on
WP:POINT. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
07:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Redrose64, Bazza 7, Train0824, PhiH, Nthep, Mattbuck, Maurice Oly, and anyone else who is or might be familiar with this discussion: I am taking no further part in it, and also I'm steering clear of all articles related to British railways for the time being.
This situation just seems to be getting more ridiculous by the hour - and more ill-tempered, too. No-one seems to be agreeing on *anything*, and it seems that any attempt to move things forward - like Mattbuck offering a possible definition of "trainset" (regardless whether it's worth defining or not), or me trying to make clear what a family is - is as successful as San Marino are at football. It seems, too, that edit wars are on the verge of developing on some of the articles concerned - like the Greater Anglia one - and, in turn, blocks being handed out.
Call me a drama queen, but this isn't the kind of situation that's particularly good for my sanity. Therefore, I'm bailing out of it while the opportunity is there. How the rest of this discussion pans out shall remain a mystery to me (it'll be archived eventually, obviously), and if it turns out that there *is* a productive outcome after all (like a term that everyone *can* agree on, or the deletion and prohibition of "trainset" columns, "family" columns and the like from these tables), well, it's likely that it'll be a while before I see it for myself.
So, to quote Douglas Adams: so long, and thanks for all the fish. 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:8D6F:3572:F58D:DADD ( talk) 22:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
As a contributor who has been inserting this 'Trainset' column into a lot of the UK railway articles, I do feel that the column is necessary and useful and with there being articles on certain families (such as Bombardier Voyager and Bombardier Aventra), the fleet tables should reiterate this. With that being said, I am all for changing the term 'Trainset' to 'Family' as well because when comparing these two, the term 'Family' indeed makes a lot more sense and this term is already more widely used than 'Trainset' ever was. -- SavageKieran ( talk) 10:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Does anybody have issues of British Railway Modelling, Model Railway Journal or Railway Modeller that have features on 2 mm scale? Perhaps you can use those to improve the article 2 mm scale. Even if you can't, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2 mm scale. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 21:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
An editor has inquired about the reliability of ukrailnews.com. Input would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#ukrailnews.com. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion at Talk:2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident#Requested move 8 May 2021 would benefit from additional input. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Now would be a good time to start prep work on Module:Adjacent stations/Great British Railways. If we get the functionality of the module figured out, we should have at least two years to ensure that templates are transitioned smoothly. (For those unfamiliar with the module, see Template:Adjacent stations and Module:Adjacent stations). Cards 84664 14:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Brecknell Willis high speed pantograph, Brecknell Willis high reach pantograph and Brecknell Willis low height pantograph have been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brecknell Willis high speed pantograph. I'd be astonished if at least the high speed pantograph was not notable, but the subject is poorly covered in google-indexed web pages so if anyone has knowledge and especially sources that cover this, please comment at the AfD. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
The template Template:Coventry to Leamington line RDT has the current Leamington Spa railway station as Leamington Spa General. Does anyone have a reference for it being called this, and/or for what dates? G-13114 ( talk) 12:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
Butt-Stations}}
template.) --
Dr Greg
talk
13:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)The locomotive in this photo has conflicting info in separate Wikipedia articles. The Waterford and Tramore Railway article claims it was built in 1847 for the Liverpool and Manchester Railway (which had been absorbed into the Grand Junction Railway in 1845 and that company had been absorbed into the LNWR in 1846). The Bury Bar Frame locomotive article states that it was built for the London and Birmingham Railway in 1837. Which is correct? Mjroots ( talk) 11:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Please can I have some help dealing with /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/82.10.86.69 who is back inserting unsourced and frequently trivial information and reverting away from the consensus about it. I've dropped them a level 4 warning, but as it's my edits in a lot of cases they are reverting I don't want to take action myself. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I just spotted someone adding one of the sub-categories of category:Railway stations by Department for Transport category to an article. These used to be added automatically by {{ infobox GB station}} but since the merge to {{ infobox station}} these are no longer being populated. The entries in the categories are the ones filled by {{ infobox London station}}. Keith D ( talk) 23:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Noted in news: [2] ... anyone interested if seeing if relevant to Kingsway tramway subway. I've got about 3/4/5 articles I'm messily stacked on already ... and not sure if its a straightforward update. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 12:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The unreferenced British Rail Class 447 article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 15:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Denton railway station (Lincolnshire) has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 17:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Daventry Parkway Project. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 15#Daventry Parkway Project until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
John Maynard Friedman (
talk)
14:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I am going to give it a day or two but I am going to be bold and move this page to capitalise. If we look at MML - Midland Main Line or West Coast Main Line or East Coast Main Line or even Great Central Main Line they are all capitalized. Even Bonnie Scotland has Highland Main Line in capitals. This article does not. I strongly feel we need consistency. I raised the issue on the talk page quite a while ago and a few agree with me GRALISTAIR ( talk) 11:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I swear I am not fussed either way but there should be consistency. I raised the issue on GW main line talk page a few months back. Consistency is my beef GRALISTAIR ( talk) 12:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I mean in meandering I noticed on the page Rail operating centre it refers to West Coast Route Modernisation. How far do we take this whole thing? Why is Route capitalised? Why is Modernisation capitalised? For that matter why is Coast capitalised? So should WCML read West coast main line? Perhaps I have lived in the USA way too long! GRALISTAIR ( talk) 13:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth I 100% agree that the current guidelines on capitalisation are ludicrous, and clearly unfit for purpose if they produce the results that we have seen. They only exist because of a few editors have a bizarre obsession with the issue! G-13114 ( talk) 19:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The SR Merchant Navy Class article (FA class) currently only mentions one incident, that involving the broken axle on Crewkerne. I'm not sure that it had anything to do with the performance of the unmodified locomtives, which it is currently a subsection of.
There are other accidents and incidents involving the class which are not mentioned. I propose to move the subsection containing the Crewkerne incident to a become a retitled "Accidents and Incidents" section immediately above the "Withdrawal" section and add some other incidents I can verify, unless there are any objections. Mjroots ( talk) 11:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
FYI, there's a requested move discussion underway at Talk:South Western main line#Requested move 20 July 2021. G-13114 ( talk) 01:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
While both tend to be used interchangeably at least in informal discussions, is the correct name in the UK for passenger stock carriages or cars? Formal sources such as Angel Trains, Department for Transport, Eversholt, Hitachi, Porterbrook, Rail Magazine, Rail Technology and The Railway Magazine appear to largely use carriages in both titles and text. Customreed ( talk) 05:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
In some articles, e.g. British Rail Class 323, British Rail Class 332, British Rail Class 333, public address systems are included in the infobox as safety systems. While systems such as AWS and ATP definitely are safety systems, is it a bit of a stretch to include a public address system? While PAs may be used in the aftermath of an accident, it’s more of an incidental rather than the primary function for which they exist.
I would have though that safety systems are those items which prevent or mitigate the impacts of an accident, which a PA system isn't. The cites used to back up their inclusion in these articles mention them as features of the trains, but not safety features. Customreed ( talk) 06:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I saw this tweet and it seems that we don't have an article for what I shall call the " Wester pipe railway" for want of a better name. An interesting industrial railway in the far north of Scotland. It is some 7.8 kilometres (4.8 mi) long and the motive power is tugboats. Exists solely to facilitate the manufacture of pipes for use by the North Sea oil industry. Plenty of photo's on Geograph - follow the railway inland on the map to see more. Mjroots ( talk) 09:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Dore and Totley railway station has been moved to Dore & Totley railway station by Brampstone, but I can't find any discussion similar to that for the move in the opposite direction done in 2008. Have I missed something? This most recent move is a bit strange as the article's text hasn't been altered, and its first image clearly shows the station name plate as Dore and Totley. Bazza ( talk) 09:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused, hoping someone can help me make sense of this. I wrote a Module:Adjacent stations/Tyne and Wear Metro last year and basically I'm not sure if I've got the left/right lines right. So a route map is the picture on the right. Here is a conversion someone made from {{ s-line}} to the adjacent stations module. Originally it would've said, for the Green line, "Previous: Haymarket. Next: Central" for example. Now it has the order swapped around. I dunno if that's inherently a problem, but I guess the crux of my problem is which is "left" and which is "right"? Or does it not matter?
Similarly, I was looking at converting Newcastle railway station#Tyne & Wear Metro, where it currently looks like: which is obviously not right (Central -> Monument isn't going towards South Shields on the map). Is this just a case of swapping order during the conversion, or should the module and existing usages be swapped, or...? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 21:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
An editor User:N1TH Music has been creating a number of articles about individual railway vehicles and locomotives. So far we have
This one British Rail Locomotive 02 003 is more interesting, though. There is more information and sources about this one, because it's preserved. I know we have articles about individual preserved locomotives (obviously notable in the cases of things like Mallard, City of Truro, or DELTIC, more dubious in others). How should these articles be approached? My reasoning is that on the basis of this one I could write an article about pretty much any preserved diesel locomotive (and probably quite a few that aren't, either - for example D326, the Great Train Robbery locomotive). Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Following copied from my yalk page to keep the discussion coherent:
Hello It's me, N1TH Music the guy who's been writing individual locomotive articles, I've read the Section you and Black Kite have made to "Project UK Railways" and I understand that you don't really want me making more of these, I think if I'm not mistaken that it's ok to make articles about the most notable individual locomotives so the way I see it, stuff like 442 001, 314 209 390 033 "City of Glasgow, ect. but I have a few questions. 1. It's hard to see what is the line between a useful article about and individual locomotive and a useless one, does it have to be preserved or does there have to just be something special about it warranting an article, for example 314 209 is the only remaining 314 unit and it's being hydrogen converted, is that enough? is my existing article about 02 003 which Black Kite called "more interesting" enough or are neither of them enough. In addition I read the Wikipeida instructions that say what articles should be on wikipedia and stuff like that. It makes a point saying that just because something is true and is sourced does not mean it should have an article, just because it can does not mean it should, but it also said that articles on wikipedia shouldn't be too long. If I were to take all the information and sources I put on 02 001, 02 003 and 02 004 and put it all on the Class 02 article, the article would be very long and wouldn't be very user friendly and I only wrote aritcles about the 3 units that got TOPS classifications, If I wrote about all 20, the article about class 02 would be immense. You might tell me then it's too much information but the way I see it, there are some people who only want skin deep information about the class but there are others who might want to learn about a single unit. In this case the person who wants to learn about the class will be confused and maybe even lost about the Giant article that has a lot of information and the person who wants something specific must go searching through said giant article for the little specific information they want. There are 2 solutions, one is to just not jam pack the article with tons of information, but then the person who wants to find out something specific will have to look through the source material or go on FlickR and I know from experience, trying to find information that only Wikipedia's source material has is incredibly annoying. And that's the soul reason I began editing on wikipedia, I wanted to add information so if someone added it it's there, I felt it would be better to make new articles about these locos then it would be to make the existing articles titanic in size. The other solution is what I did, but I understand your point, not all Locomotives need an article, there are 996 Class 08 locomotives, most of those don't matter, maybe a list simply listing and talking about the simple most basic facts would be a simple Idea, I know you did that twice with the class 47 and class 37 and those are great articles, maybe that's a solution, but I would please like you to reply to me on my talk page what you are ok with me writing and what you're not because I don't want to be a rulebreaker N1TH Music ( talk) 14:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
For info, N1TH Music's editing has been raised at WP:ANI. I've made a suggestion there as to how to deal with this issue. Mjroots ( talk) 06:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The same user, N1TH Music ( talk · contribs) has created Railway Driving Motor Car. There are so many problems here that I don't know whether to redirect it elsewhere, or to WP:PROD it. It's entirely unsourced; there is much that is incorrect or outright wrong (for example, far from being old-fashioned, many EMUs built recently, such as British Rail Class 730, feature driving motor cars) that to remove the incorrect phrases would leave virtually nothing. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 11:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
This was up for PROD and earlier today I've dePRODed and added a little content and its raised a couple of thoughts in my mind, some of which area UK relevant. (1) Should the article be kept at or is it covered elsewhere. (2) Are there examples of single cabbed EMU's ... do some of the hybrid REP hybrids count? Was there an example of that in Canada in a travel TV program (great railway journeys or whatever). (3) Is their a list of abbreviations for British Coach type classifications ... e.g. TSO for Trailer Second Open. ... etc. etc. etc. and the SR unit type classifications ... e.g. 4COR, 3NOL, 5WES ... etc. All just thoughts. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 21:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Just FYI, there has been some controversy recently at articles associated with Weedon railway station. There's a local campaign to reopen the station, and there's concern that its advocates are using wikipedia as a platform for promoting their campaign. It's something that people here should keep an eye on. G-13114 ( talk) 17:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, the saga continues. Would interested editors add Daventry Parkway to their watch list. There is no such station so right now it is a redirect to a list of bidders for the crown. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 19:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I've reverted edits by MJ9674 saying that 507 006 has been scrapped. Have seen this reported by non-RSs, but if the information is going into the article then it needs to be referenced to a RS. Would suggest that the next edition of Rail magazine is likely to be a good place to look. Have also issued MJ9674 a final warning re the addition of unreferenced material to Wikipedia. They've been her long enough and had several low-level warnings about this so they should know by now what is required. Mjroots ( talk) 05:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
The Liverpool Street railway station article mentions a class 769 freight trial due to take place in 2020. Did it ever happen? Is there now a regular freight service to Liverpool Street or has the pandemic put paid to that and we should amend the article?-- Davidvaughanwells ( talk) 08:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
References
Could someone here with sources check the opening date of Church Brampton railway station? As someone edited it a while back to claim it opened in 1912, when my sources say 1881. G-13114 ( talk) 10:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
References
I have spent many a frustrating time at Redhill station, and at times even more on the Redhill station article. The issue here is the repeat insertion of Sexy Simon's photo to Redhill railway station bby an anon IP. Now many of Sexy simon's photo's, many of which are excellent, are are inserted to station's and they are mostly the most appropriate image. No problem. But a problem occurs if there is a dispute; and the IP tries to keep forcing it in. There are no consequences for the IP if they keep pushing, but considerable risks for a established user who resists. And if the IP wins because of anonymity advantage that sets a bad precedent. Now while there are no guidelines against this it does seem inappropriate. Now if you look at myself and images of stations (or anything) in Dublin analysis would show I have a "go to" whose likely to be the photographer of choice .... for example using File:The Streets Of Dublin - Spencer Dock Luas Stop.jpg for the replacement image at Spencer Dock Luas stop when the prior image likely was in breach of copyright. But I think I'll generally use the best available. Be grateful if others keep a look/eye on this. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 17:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I've redrawn the East Coast Main Line diagram to include the Werrington Dive Under. If any editor feels they can make a neater job please feel free to do so. Mjroots ( talk) 19:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello everybody. Just to let interested parties know I have created a Requested Move discussion at Talk:High Street (Glasgow) railway station for it to be retitled High Street railway station (Glasgow). Please head over if you would like to discuss the proposal. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (report) 01:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)