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 50 | ← | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 |
There's a move request at Talk: Glasgow Central station#Requested move 21 January 2023. ---- G-13114 ( talk) 12:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
There is a claim on Twitter that Loch Skerrow Halt opened in 1861 and was renamed in 1955, not that it opened in 1955. I don't have the sources to verify the claim. Can anyone verify which date is correct please? Mjroots ( talk) 06:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Loch Skerrow PP&W 29 NX 66 OP after June 1861 Ppatrick; (OP)&RN Lochskerrow 13 June 1955 BTC. [Also known as Loch Skerrow Halt]which decodes as: The station named Loch Skerrow was on the Portpatrick and Wigtownshire Joint Railway. It may be found in Jowett page 29, within the 10 km x 10 km square denoted as NX 66. It opened for private use at some unknown date that was after June 1861 by the Portpatrick Railway. It was opened for public use and also renamed Lochskerrow on 13 June 1955 by the British Transport Commission. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
An editor has added an exhaustive list of individual bus services at Southampton Central railway station on the grounds that some other station articles have such lists. I understood this level of detail was deprecated, there is adequate general mention of the bus services at the station. Comments are invited on the talk page Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 13:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I've recreated the article based on new information and the general announcement that the site has been at least partly approved and gained planning permission. Could someone go over it and make sure it is up to standard? Thanks. Difficultly north ( talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 20:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, there's been an inquiry at the talk page for the infobox station template, where it was pointed out there's no documentation for the Pre-grouping, Post-grouping and Pre-nationalisation parameters. I'm vaguely familiar with what they mean, but I'm not sure I understand fully enough to add the appropriate documentation myself. Could an editor here provide the documentation at Template:Infobox station/doc? Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 14:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Clarified the lables refer to UK stations. Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 10:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Two newly-registered editors have been making unsourced changes to timetable information in North West England train station articles. Obviously unsourced editing is to be discouraged, but so is sockpuppetry. Perhaps the good people of this project could keep a keen eye out
Thanks in advance. 10mmsocket ( talk) 22:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
This is probably not controversial but I just want to make sure. I have requested Loudoun Square railway station be moved to Butetown railway station, based on new information. See Talk:Loudoun Square railway station. Difficultly north ( talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 20:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus either for the proposed titles or any of the alternatives ("British Rail Pacer"). No such user ( talk) 14:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
– The Pacer article was moved by an admin on 31 January following a requested move. The reason given was "Pacers weren't limited to British rail, and "xxx (train)" is precedent on WP", which seems entirely reasonable. The move was undone today 23 February with the reason "introduces inconsistency with Sprinter (British Rail)". Thus, the best way to eliminate such inconsistency is to move both articles to ".....(train)" and thus be a) consistent and b) in keeping with WP precedent 10mmsocket ( talk) 17:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred, which in combination with
Adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name is Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title(emphasis mine) would lead me to consider "British Rail Pacer" and "British Rail Sprinter" as offering the best balance of precision and concision that avoids falling back to parenthetical disambiguation. Those titles would also give consistency with the family-of-trains articles already mentioned by Mattdaviesfsic. XAM2175 (T) 22:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Can someone with admin rights sort this copy and paste move out? G-13114 ( talk) 18:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
hello, I've been trying to add refs to articles that have not had refs for many years. I found one to add for Abbeyhill Junction for basic verification but am unsure whether it is really notable. I'd appreciate you improving the article if possible, thanks. JMWt ( talk) 15:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
While I broadly support the aims of WP:GNL I find that this edit ( diff) rankles a little. Am I wrong to think that "manned" and "unmanned" are practically reserved language in the (British) railway world - just as it is in the aviation industry, e.g. Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). Should unmanned station, unmanned signalbox, unmanned level crossing, be terms that are preserved not replaced in UK Wikipedia articles? 10mmsocket ( talk) 15:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, useful opinions. Like I said, I have no issue with the GNL initiative and now see that "unmanned" is not something to die in a ditch over! -- 10mmsocket ( talk) 06:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
In a letter to The Critic issue of of 1 April 2023 the writer tells us that in their house "Wikipedia is avoided as much as possible, and rudely labelled “Wankipedia” as it is load of old cock". Quite right too. The problem is that our article Norwich City railway station mentions (unreferenced) a deliberate crash of a Liberator bomber on the station to avoid loss of life. Two "proper history books" mention no such thing. I've put more information on the talk page. Could someone correct our grievous error (or find a source for information that has been challenged)? Thincat ( talk) 20:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Guys, check the issue date of The Critic. There's probably a very good reason two "proper history books" do not mention the event. Mjroots ( talk) 18:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
If anyone's interested and available on the 31st, NR are balloting for tickets for tours. See here for details. I'd love to but I can't make it. Would be great to get some interior photos for the article though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I have posted a question about the decoration of a loco tender in 1913 using decals. If anyone has expert knowledge of this, their contributions would be gratefully received. -- Verbarson talk edits 08:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at
Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent
Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class=
parameter to {{
WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{
WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.
Aymatth2 (
talk)
22:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
From the file's description: "A trainload of coal comes off the northern end of the High Level bridge in Newcastle, presumably coming from the Durham coalfield and heading to one of the Tyne Valley power stations." Photo taken in 1982. To my untrained eye it looks like a British Rail Class 56, but is it? Cheers, MinorProphet ( talk) 07:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
What? This is made up stuff right? There is no such thing on Network Rail's website. The articles serve zero purpose - it's enough to say on one station article that the other is nearby. Do we need these? 10mmsocket ( talk) 20:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
For a while, when it comes to the service tables, I've always known that we've used both the eNRT and the listed Timetables on the TOC websites to verify timetabled services. However, I've seen some editors also insist on using the RealTrainTimes website for changes, which I believe is unreliable as it only relies on constant updates of active units and almost never matches official schedules. Now I wonder what everyone else's stance on sourcing this website is: reliable or unreliable? Jalen Folf (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
as it only relies on constant updates of active units and almost never matches official schedules. RTT is an accurate primary source for the timetables of individual trains inasmuch as it's a direct reproduction of the TRUST timetable feed up to a few moments before you run your query, so if it lists a station call for a certain place at a certain time then it's reflecting what TRUST thinks will be happening based on how Network Rail have uploaded the timetables. It can, however, differ from National Rail Enquiries and station/TOC information systems for same- and next-day alterations because contractual limitations prevent RTT's use of the Darwin customer information data feed. Similarly, timekeeping records for each train are reproduced from Network Rail's data feeds (primarily train describer berths, but also TRUST direct reports manually entered by signallers).
unpublished ideas or argumentsinto Wikipedia. I recommend reading the footnote to the first para of the OR policy. Citing personal experience is not OR if it might feasibly be published somewhere; it's just a bog-standard WP:V problem in the meantime. Doesn't seem like a big difference, but important in the same sense that good-faith edits cannot be vandalism even if they make a right mess of things.
what's the point about using a source when it's gone after some time without archival}; it's news to me if that's a problem for us here. It's not a million miles away from citing newspapers, really – after all, how accessible would old editions of them be if they weren't being routinely archived?
It's reliable within its limits (which are explicitly noted in various places on the site) but not particularly useful for writing an encyclopaedia. Archive.org and similar can get around the transitory nature of the information if necessary, but I can't see why it would be - anything notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopaedia article would be covered in the (railway) press or other static source.XAM2175 (T) 23:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
If it is the calling point information you want then use the official railway timetables; if it is the rolling stock information then I would want to see it corroborated from a printed source or more permanent (non-fan) website.Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 06:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Cause i know what im seeing is what actually happens and nobody can accept that.No, I think that most people here can accept that those station calls are being made. I have no difficulty with it myself, given that I've boarded one of those trains at Northallerton. The problem is that the information published on Wikipedia is meant to be verifiable:
[Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. This means that a reader of our articles should be able to check any fact we publish against a source already published by a trustworthy provider even if that provider is occasionally wrong. The overall intent is that the only errors on Wikipedia will be those made by other sources that we've repeated, which is still not ideal, but less bad than Wikipedia editors introducing new errors of their own making.
Rail transport in Wales has been created (now draftified from the mainspace), editors involved in this Wikiproject may be of interest of this draft, and any assistance is welcomed. Although I do wonder if Railways in Wales is more suited to the scope. Dank Jae 19:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, awkward request I know, but I was wondering whether someone with Butt's 1995 Directory of railway stations could let me know - whether here or by email, I don't mind - what Butt's directory says about Attadale railway station. The history section is incredibly short there, as you'll see! If you have a copy but no longer need it...... *wink* (kidding, obviously). Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 15:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Should we try and set a threshold as to what project counts as current and what still counts as proposed? E.g. Projects become current when, depending on the project, gains planning permission or passes TWAO or becomes current when construction begins. There has been some confusion over this in the past. Difficultly north ( talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 15:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Probably doesn't warrant inclusion in a list/template, let alone a stanalone article, unless it's received considerable coverage:
Stations/lines which may warrant their own article, depending on coverage:
Sometimes I question some TOCs and the strange service patterns on some of there major routes. I want to hear peoples thoughts on this matter? Should TOCs keep current service patterns are set a fixed one with limited, some times an hour or called at by all services. I generally wann hear what people think on this topic i came up with recently. FusionZenFlame ( talk) 21:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The Mangapps Railway Museum article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 05:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
John Cooke Bourne (d.1896) is "best known for his lithographs showing the construction of the London and Birmingham Railway and the Great Western Railway." It seems to me that all of his pictures, including those associated with the railway histories, are now in the public domain. Some are in Commons, and of those some are flagged as PD. Is there a source all or many of his pictures? I'm particularly interest in illustrations of GWR buildings and bridges that no longer exist in their original state. -- Verbarson talk edits 14:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
All edits that come from the IP address range 185.104.136.0/24 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) are in fact coming from Icomera - a company who a few may know is the UK's leading provider of onboard passenger Wi-Fi on trains and buses. Icomera are kind enough to identify which TOC's customers are using a particular IP address. It's surprising (to me) just how many edits actually come from onboard passengers. I came across this because C2c was just edited by a passenger on a Greater Anglia train. I have taken the liberty of putting a public-ip header on a number of the talk pages for edits going back to later 2022. I suspect this is because I have too much time on my hands! 10mmsocket ( talk) 09:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Talk:Eurostar#Image removal some edit warring on this article by a new editor (also same editor logged out using IP) over an image of the Eurostar terminal in Amsterdam. I would appreciate further discussion from members of this project who collectively continue to do an amazing job of curating railway-related images. 10mmsocket ( talk) 08:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
TransPennine Express is dead, long live TransPennine Trains. I have taken the liberty of creating the latter as a just-for-the-moment redirect to DfT OLR Holdings (along with Ltd and Limited variants). In the meantime we'll be wanting to crack on with Draft:TransPennine Trains until 28 May when the new TOC goes live. TPE have confirmed in their FAQ that little is going to change operationally, which means that some content will be able to be copied over from the original TPE article (remembering to include attribution as part of the copy operation). I'm thinking of routes and rolling stock as the obvious sections to copy. Volunteers form an orderly line.... 10mmsocket ( talk) 09:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
You guys know the drill. The new timetable is out, and TOCs have changed service patterns and added new routes across their networks. Please remember to update the source for services when reflecting these changes on the respective TOC articles, as was advised many times before on this Talk page (i.e. here). Jalen Folf (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
The route update report has been released on the East West Rail here. Difficultly north ( talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 14:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
This must have happened before? Right now, a new
Winslow is nearing the end of construction phase a good mile from the original site and due to come into use late '24 or early '25. There are plans for a new
Tempsford and (
another!) short move for
Bedford St Johns is being proposed. So how are these cases to be handled? Taking Winslow as a "for example", I can think of two three options:
For Winslow, I think option 2 is best, but mainly because the history is extensive and the distance between sites is not trivial. For Bedford St Johns, option 1(b) because the move minimal. For Tempsford, probably 1(b) as well because the history is minimal. Has it really not arisen before? Was there any discussion or did we just drift into it? Is there a reasonable rule of thumb we can establish? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 17:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
platforms
parameter, it could easily be, for instance - 1 (old site)</br>2 (new site)
.{{
clear}}
before the heading of the second station, which could cause a huge blank space in the article. It's better to put all the information into a single infobox. We do have some cases where a resited station has one article for each incarnation, but other than Haddenham, I'm having difficulty finding some. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
10:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I have added retrospectively 3. Have both stations in the same article, with a single infobox that describes primarily the modern station, with info about the old station in the "Key dates" and giving OSGRs for both locations (but {{
coor}} only for the new one)
above, sorry should have done that first time around. --11:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
The Evesham Vale Light Railway article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 11:52, 2 June 2023 (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 50 | ← | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 |
There's a move request at Talk: Glasgow Central station#Requested move 21 January 2023. ---- G-13114 ( talk) 12:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
There is a claim on Twitter that Loch Skerrow Halt opened in 1861 and was renamed in 1955, not that it opened in 1955. I don't have the sources to verify the claim. Can anyone verify which date is correct please? Mjroots ( talk) 06:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Loch Skerrow PP&W 29 NX 66 OP after June 1861 Ppatrick; (OP)&RN Lochskerrow 13 June 1955 BTC. [Also known as Loch Skerrow Halt]which decodes as: The station named Loch Skerrow was on the Portpatrick and Wigtownshire Joint Railway. It may be found in Jowett page 29, within the 10 km x 10 km square denoted as NX 66. It opened for private use at some unknown date that was after June 1861 by the Portpatrick Railway. It was opened for public use and also renamed Lochskerrow on 13 June 1955 by the British Transport Commission. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
An editor has added an exhaustive list of individual bus services at Southampton Central railway station on the grounds that some other station articles have such lists. I understood this level of detail was deprecated, there is adequate general mention of the bus services at the station. Comments are invited on the talk page Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 13:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I've recreated the article based on new information and the general announcement that the site has been at least partly approved and gained planning permission. Could someone go over it and make sure it is up to standard? Thanks. Difficultly north ( talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 20:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, there's been an inquiry at the talk page for the infobox station template, where it was pointed out there's no documentation for the Pre-grouping, Post-grouping and Pre-nationalisation parameters. I'm vaguely familiar with what they mean, but I'm not sure I understand fully enough to add the appropriate documentation myself. Could an editor here provide the documentation at Template:Infobox station/doc? Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 14:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Clarified the lables refer to UK stations. Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 10:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Two newly-registered editors have been making unsourced changes to timetable information in North West England train station articles. Obviously unsourced editing is to be discouraged, but so is sockpuppetry. Perhaps the good people of this project could keep a keen eye out
Thanks in advance. 10mmsocket ( talk) 22:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
This is probably not controversial but I just want to make sure. I have requested Loudoun Square railway station be moved to Butetown railway station, based on new information. See Talk:Loudoun Square railway station. Difficultly north ( talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 20:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus either for the proposed titles or any of the alternatives ("British Rail Pacer"). No such user ( talk) 14:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
– The Pacer article was moved by an admin on 31 January following a requested move. The reason given was "Pacers weren't limited to British rail, and "xxx (train)" is precedent on WP", which seems entirely reasonable. The move was undone today 23 February with the reason "introduces inconsistency with Sprinter (British Rail)". Thus, the best way to eliminate such inconsistency is to move both articles to ".....(train)" and thus be a) consistent and b) in keeping with WP precedent 10mmsocket ( talk) 17:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred, which in combination with
Adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name is Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title(emphasis mine) would lead me to consider "British Rail Pacer" and "British Rail Sprinter" as offering the best balance of precision and concision that avoids falling back to parenthetical disambiguation. Those titles would also give consistency with the family-of-trains articles already mentioned by Mattdaviesfsic. XAM2175 (T) 22:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Can someone with admin rights sort this copy and paste move out? G-13114 ( talk) 18:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
hello, I've been trying to add refs to articles that have not had refs for many years. I found one to add for Abbeyhill Junction for basic verification but am unsure whether it is really notable. I'd appreciate you improving the article if possible, thanks. JMWt ( talk) 15:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
While I broadly support the aims of WP:GNL I find that this edit ( diff) rankles a little. Am I wrong to think that "manned" and "unmanned" are practically reserved language in the (British) railway world - just as it is in the aviation industry, e.g. Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). Should unmanned station, unmanned signalbox, unmanned level crossing, be terms that are preserved not replaced in UK Wikipedia articles? 10mmsocket ( talk) 15:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, useful opinions. Like I said, I have no issue with the GNL initiative and now see that "unmanned" is not something to die in a ditch over! -- 10mmsocket ( talk) 06:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
In a letter to The Critic issue of of 1 April 2023 the writer tells us that in their house "Wikipedia is avoided as much as possible, and rudely labelled “Wankipedia” as it is load of old cock". Quite right too. The problem is that our article Norwich City railway station mentions (unreferenced) a deliberate crash of a Liberator bomber on the station to avoid loss of life. Two "proper history books" mention no such thing. I've put more information on the talk page. Could someone correct our grievous error (or find a source for information that has been challenged)? Thincat ( talk) 20:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Guys, check the issue date of The Critic. There's probably a very good reason two "proper history books" do not mention the event. Mjroots ( talk) 18:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
If anyone's interested and available on the 31st, NR are balloting for tickets for tours. See here for details. I'd love to but I can't make it. Would be great to get some interior photos for the article though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I have posted a question about the decoration of a loco tender in 1913 using decals. If anyone has expert knowledge of this, their contributions would be gratefully received. -- Verbarson talk edits 08:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at
Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent
Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class=
parameter to {{
WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{
WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.
Aymatth2 (
talk)
22:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
From the file's description: "A trainload of coal comes off the northern end of the High Level bridge in Newcastle, presumably coming from the Durham coalfield and heading to one of the Tyne Valley power stations." Photo taken in 1982. To my untrained eye it looks like a British Rail Class 56, but is it? Cheers, MinorProphet ( talk) 07:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
What? This is made up stuff right? There is no such thing on Network Rail's website. The articles serve zero purpose - it's enough to say on one station article that the other is nearby. Do we need these? 10mmsocket ( talk) 20:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
For a while, when it comes to the service tables, I've always known that we've used both the eNRT and the listed Timetables on the TOC websites to verify timetabled services. However, I've seen some editors also insist on using the RealTrainTimes website for changes, which I believe is unreliable as it only relies on constant updates of active units and almost never matches official schedules. Now I wonder what everyone else's stance on sourcing this website is: reliable or unreliable? Jalen Folf (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
as it only relies on constant updates of active units and almost never matches official schedules. RTT is an accurate primary source for the timetables of individual trains inasmuch as it's a direct reproduction of the TRUST timetable feed up to a few moments before you run your query, so if it lists a station call for a certain place at a certain time then it's reflecting what TRUST thinks will be happening based on how Network Rail have uploaded the timetables. It can, however, differ from National Rail Enquiries and station/TOC information systems for same- and next-day alterations because contractual limitations prevent RTT's use of the Darwin customer information data feed. Similarly, timekeeping records for each train are reproduced from Network Rail's data feeds (primarily train describer berths, but also TRUST direct reports manually entered by signallers).
unpublished ideas or argumentsinto Wikipedia. I recommend reading the footnote to the first para of the OR policy. Citing personal experience is not OR if it might feasibly be published somewhere; it's just a bog-standard WP:V problem in the meantime. Doesn't seem like a big difference, but important in the same sense that good-faith edits cannot be vandalism even if they make a right mess of things.
what's the point about using a source when it's gone after some time without archival}; it's news to me if that's a problem for us here. It's not a million miles away from citing newspapers, really – after all, how accessible would old editions of them be if they weren't being routinely archived?
It's reliable within its limits (which are explicitly noted in various places on the site) but not particularly useful for writing an encyclopaedia. Archive.org and similar can get around the transitory nature of the information if necessary, but I can't see why it would be - anything notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopaedia article would be covered in the (railway) press or other static source.XAM2175 (T) 23:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
If it is the calling point information you want then use the official railway timetables; if it is the rolling stock information then I would want to see it corroborated from a printed source or more permanent (non-fan) website.Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 06:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Cause i know what im seeing is what actually happens and nobody can accept that.No, I think that most people here can accept that those station calls are being made. I have no difficulty with it myself, given that I've boarded one of those trains at Northallerton. The problem is that the information published on Wikipedia is meant to be verifiable:
[Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. This means that a reader of our articles should be able to check any fact we publish against a source already published by a trustworthy provider even if that provider is occasionally wrong. The overall intent is that the only errors on Wikipedia will be those made by other sources that we've repeated, which is still not ideal, but less bad than Wikipedia editors introducing new errors of their own making.
Rail transport in Wales has been created (now draftified from the mainspace), editors involved in this Wikiproject may be of interest of this draft, and any assistance is welcomed. Although I do wonder if Railways in Wales is more suited to the scope. Dank Jae 19:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, awkward request I know, but I was wondering whether someone with Butt's 1995 Directory of railway stations could let me know - whether here or by email, I don't mind - what Butt's directory says about Attadale railway station. The history section is incredibly short there, as you'll see! If you have a copy but no longer need it...... *wink* (kidding, obviously). Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 15:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Should we try and set a threshold as to what project counts as current and what still counts as proposed? E.g. Projects become current when, depending on the project, gains planning permission or passes TWAO or becomes current when construction begins. There has been some confusion over this in the past. Difficultly north ( talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 15:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Probably doesn't warrant inclusion in a list/template, let alone a stanalone article, unless it's received considerable coverage:
Stations/lines which may warrant their own article, depending on coverage:
Sometimes I question some TOCs and the strange service patterns on some of there major routes. I want to hear peoples thoughts on this matter? Should TOCs keep current service patterns are set a fixed one with limited, some times an hour or called at by all services. I generally wann hear what people think on this topic i came up with recently. FusionZenFlame ( talk) 21:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The Mangapps Railway Museum article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 05:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
John Cooke Bourne (d.1896) is "best known for his lithographs showing the construction of the London and Birmingham Railway and the Great Western Railway." It seems to me that all of his pictures, including those associated with the railway histories, are now in the public domain. Some are in Commons, and of those some are flagged as PD. Is there a source all or many of his pictures? I'm particularly interest in illustrations of GWR buildings and bridges that no longer exist in their original state. -- Verbarson talk edits 14:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
All edits that come from the IP address range 185.104.136.0/24 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) are in fact coming from Icomera - a company who a few may know is the UK's leading provider of onboard passenger Wi-Fi on trains and buses. Icomera are kind enough to identify which TOC's customers are using a particular IP address. It's surprising (to me) just how many edits actually come from onboard passengers. I came across this because C2c was just edited by a passenger on a Greater Anglia train. I have taken the liberty of putting a public-ip header on a number of the talk pages for edits going back to later 2022. I suspect this is because I have too much time on my hands! 10mmsocket ( talk) 09:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Talk:Eurostar#Image removal some edit warring on this article by a new editor (also same editor logged out using IP) over an image of the Eurostar terminal in Amsterdam. I would appreciate further discussion from members of this project who collectively continue to do an amazing job of curating railway-related images. 10mmsocket ( talk) 08:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
TransPennine Express is dead, long live TransPennine Trains. I have taken the liberty of creating the latter as a just-for-the-moment redirect to DfT OLR Holdings (along with Ltd and Limited variants). In the meantime we'll be wanting to crack on with Draft:TransPennine Trains until 28 May when the new TOC goes live. TPE have confirmed in their FAQ that little is going to change operationally, which means that some content will be able to be copied over from the original TPE article (remembering to include attribution as part of the copy operation). I'm thinking of routes and rolling stock as the obvious sections to copy. Volunteers form an orderly line.... 10mmsocket ( talk) 09:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
You guys know the drill. The new timetable is out, and TOCs have changed service patterns and added new routes across their networks. Please remember to update the source for services when reflecting these changes on the respective TOC articles, as was advised many times before on this Talk page (i.e. here). Jalen Folf (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
The route update report has been released on the East West Rail here. Difficultly north ( talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 14:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
This must have happened before? Right now, a new
Winslow is nearing the end of construction phase a good mile from the original site and due to come into use late '24 or early '25. There are plans for a new
Tempsford and (
another!) short move for
Bedford St Johns is being proposed. So how are these cases to be handled? Taking Winslow as a "for example", I can think of two three options:
For Winslow, I think option 2 is best, but mainly because the history is extensive and the distance between sites is not trivial. For Bedford St Johns, option 1(b) because the move minimal. For Tempsford, probably 1(b) as well because the history is minimal. Has it really not arisen before? Was there any discussion or did we just drift into it? Is there a reasonable rule of thumb we can establish? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 17:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
platforms
parameter, it could easily be, for instance - 1 (old site)</br>2 (new site)
.{{
clear}}
before the heading of the second station, which could cause a huge blank space in the article. It's better to put all the information into a single infobox. We do have some cases where a resited station has one article for each incarnation, but other than Haddenham, I'm having difficulty finding some. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
10:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I have added retrospectively 3. Have both stations in the same article, with a single infobox that describes primarily the modern station, with info about the old station in the "Key dates" and giving OSGRs for both locations (but {{
coor}} only for the new one)
above, sorry should have done that first time around. --11:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
The Evesham Vale Light Railway article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 11:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)