This page 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. |
There seems to be a bit of duplication between articles in this category. I've flagged one pair, but haven't got time to do the others now. Mjroots ( talk) 07:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Rail transport in Armenia, Rail transport in Austria, Rail transport in Azerbaijan, Rail transport in Belarus, Rail transport in Bulgaria, Rail transport in Croatia, Rail transport in Cyprus, Rail transport in the Czech Republic, Rail transport in Georgia, Rail transport in Greece, Rail transport in Hungary, Rail transport in Finland, Rail transport in Kazakhstan, Rail transport in Luxembourg, Rail transport in the Republic of Macedonia, Rail transport in Malta, Rail transport in Moldova, Rail transport in Montenegro, Rail transport in Romania, Rail transport in Russia, Rail transport in San Marino, Rail transport in Serbia, Rail transport in Slovenia, Rail transport in Turkey, Rail transport in Ukraine. Most are redirects. -- Hartz ( talk) 14:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Since a mass-removal of date links appeared on my watchlist today, I thought it would be good to mention here that linking dates simply to get the autoformatting has now been deprecated. See MOS:UNLINKDATES for details and links to the relevant (lengthy) discussions. What that means for us is that we need to be consistent in date formats within article texts, and don't be surprised when articles pop up on your watchlists simply to remove the date links (note that the dates themselves are left in the articles). There is already discussion happening on how to get the autoformatting to work without using links. Slambo (Speak) 22:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Is anyone here expert enough to create this article? It would help for the Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal which is currently at FAC. I'd have a go myself but am pretty ignorant of railway matters. There is a fair amount of information in the article above to get anyone going, and it is linked in some of the pages of the railways which it was absorbed by. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 12:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The line template for the SEPTA Route 100 broke apart within the infobox, so I had to take it out. How did it get this way, and how can it be fixed? ---- DanTD ( talk) 16:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a width issue; that happens with those style templates. Can you list all the broken ones? Mackensen (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I think I've fixed all the MBTA templates plus the Long Beach Branch, but the amount of text you're trying to include there will cause width issues. Mackensen (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
map = {{{!}}{{Railway line header1}}{{BS-table2}}{{YOUR ROUTE TEMPLATE}} {{!}}}
-- Sameboat - 同舟 ( talk) 23:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
map = {{infobox rdt|YOUR ROUTE TEMPLATE}}
-- Sameboat - 同舟 ( talk) 08:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 31#Category:Former Southern Pacific stations in Oregon. Thanks! Katr67 ( talk) 16:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
John Bull (locomotive) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Halgin ( talk) 00:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The review closed today to reaffirm the article as featured quality. Slambo (Speak) 11:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I received a question on my talk page today where I think the answer would benefit the project as a whole, so I am answering it here. The question was...
The content displayed in the Selected article and Selected picture sections of Portal:Trains are usually selected by me early on Monday mornings (United States central time zone). Although both sections have associated candidate pages ( Selected article candidates and Selected picture candidates), participation in the selections has usually been nonexistent. When there are no candidates listed for a given week, I look through the content and make a selection myself. I try to avoid highlighting my own contributions in these sections more than once every few months to give everyone a fair shake at having their contributions shown.
For the Selected article section, I normally start with Featured and Good articles and then move to B-Class articles if there isn't a suitable candidate. The criteria I use are that the article needs at least one image that can be used in a thumbnail, it needs a sufficient amount of text with which to form an abstract (usually this is the lead section of the article), it needs to be referenced and it cannot have any maintenance banners within it (although an occasional [citation needed] can be overlooked). The only other consideration that I make is that I try to avoid using articles about subjects from one country or region after each other; for example, if the article selected one week describes a UK subject, the next week I try to avoid another UK subject.
For the Selected picture, I look for images that are well exposed, well composed, sufficiently large in output resolution and licensed under a suitably free license; the image should also be aesthetically pleasing (yes, this is very subjective) or show a subject that is technically interesting or historically significant. Like the selection for the article, I try to avoid using images from one region twice in a row.
There are also a similar candidates and archive pages for the intro image ( candidates, archive) and the Did you know ( candidates, archive) and news ( candidates, archived into the timeline pages) sections. Occasionally, another editor will update the news section and one other editor has been helping with numerous Did you know suggestions, but participation in these selections as a whole is also very slim. Slambo (Speak) 11:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Since I'm not an expert in the area, can someone else look at Template:SPSRYLocomotives and determine whether those are all worthy of separate articles? -- NE2 01:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there any objection to me using AWB to creat subcategories of Category:Categories named after railway companies, in particular Category:Categories named after North American Class I railroads, to remove the categories from Category:Former Class I railroads in the United States? -- NE2 09:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I am pleased to announce that the UK Railways Project has successfully given all of its articles an initial assessment of their importance. The work can now focus on getting those articles identified as "Top" and "High" importance improved. Olana North ( talk) 11:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hallo, While stub-sorting for WP:WSS I came across Parc (AMT), and was concerned that there wasn't a link to it from the station name plain, Parc (a dab page). The editor who'd created the page didn't seem to think a dab link (or redirect if the name wasn't already in use) was necessary, for this and many other stations. Looking further, it seems that every line and station on AMT has "(AMT)" in its article title, though it isn't needed for disambiguation (eg Blainville-Saint-Jérôme Line (AMT), with no redirect from Blainville-Saint-Jérôme Line). In contrast, the lines in Category:London Underground lines don't have disambiguators except for Circle line (London Underground).
Is there a general policy about this? I can't see anything at WP:NAME to make rail lines and stations a special case, so I would think that (a) rail line names in brackets are only needed when the line or station name is already in use in Wikipedia for another article (but looking at Paris example, perhaps there is a general policy for railways to add these as standard in every case?), and (b) (much more important) in every case where something is added in brackets there should be a dab page, hatnote, or redirect to help the reader who searches for "Foo" or "Foo line" to find it.
Looking at another example, Paris Métro, it looks as if every station has an addition in brackets, but there is a link to Argentine (Paris Métro) from Argentine via the Argentina (disambiguation) page, and redirect from Charles de Gaulle - Étoile and Charles de Gaulle - Étoile (Paris Métro) to the article at Charles de Gaulle - Étoile (Paris Métro and RER) as I'd expect. London Underground stations have names like Embankment tube station, linked from the dab page at Embankment. PamD ( talk) 07:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, could the project take a look at Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge and assess its importance to the project? The bridge is pretty significant to North American railways as it was:
Please leave your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge/archive1. Thank you. Jappalang ( talk) 01:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 22#Category:Intermodal transportation authorities -- NE2 09:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently working on an article for the Philadelphia International Airport Terminals (SEPTA station), which is separate from the article for Philadelphia International Airport, and I'm stuck. I was looking to see if there was a separate IATA code for this station, as there is for many major railroad stations whether they connect to airports or not. I looked on their offical website, and it didn't give me any codes whatsoever. Does anybody know how I can get around this problem? ---- DanTD ( talk) 02:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been doing a little work on the Cincinnatian article. It needs a routebox for the second (Detroit-Cincinnati) route. I don't have the timetable information available, unfortunately. Mangoe ( talk) 21:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Is "Positive Train Control" just an North-American term form Train protection system? In that case, we have a redundancy. In the other case, the PTC article must get a lot clearer (what are the specifics of PTC with the area of TPS?). -- Pjacobi ( talk) 10:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, November (yeah, they're over a month ahead) 2008 Trains has a blurb about PTC on page 29. -- NE2 22:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
The LIRR Far Rockaway Branch article has an error: Cedarhurst station is listed (in a box at the right of the page) with the wrong mileage (21.9 instead of 20.9) but it's not obvious how to fix this (or even who to report the error to if I can't fix it myself). Tom239 ( talk) 03:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
There has been much discussion over the past few months, this perhaps being one of the longest discussions ever on a name of a railway article, over whther St Pancras railway station should be named differently. There is now currently a move request in progress to determine this.
Btw, the discussion has occurred before the rest of the station opened refurbished and rebranded. See Talk:St Pancras railway station. Nearly 2 years!!! Simply south ( talk) 20:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge has been nominated for FA. Please take a look and comment at its FAC. Thank you. Jappalang ( talk) 00:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello all...
An image used in the British Rail Class 507 article, specifically Image:507026 Centralb.jpg and also Image:507033 HamiltonSquare.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.
You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.-- Jordan 1972 ( talk) 00:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I was looking through the SEPTA R5 station articles, and found that somebody converted a lot of the previous & next stations into redlinks for Route 102 trolley stops. I had to redirect them to the appropriate articles, and I can't find a way to get rid of the phony articles. ---- DanTD ( talk) 17:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunatley, I just did start a sandbox for User:DanTD/Sandbox/Saxer Avenue(SEPTA Route 101 station), and instead of Springfield Road (SEPTA Route 101 station) being the next stop, it has mysteriously gone to the non-existant Springfield Road (SEPTA Route 100 station). ---- DanTD ( talk) 16:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I have started a page, to give guidance on adding coordinates to articles about linear features such as railways, roads and rivers. I intend to use it to document current practise, and develop polices for future use. Please feel free to add to it, or to discuss the matter on its talk page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I think I may've just accidentally created a color bar for the Baltimore Metro Subway. If not, then please let me know who did. Either way, I still would like to deliberatley make some color bars for the Green Mountain Railroad. Some stations up there need them. ---- DanTD ( talk) 01:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/mcgraw_electric.html -- NE2 15:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Tom B ( talk) 14:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
William Nelson Page has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The Class II and III definitions are rarely used, and it is impossible to know for sure which companies qualify. On the other hand, the Association of American Railroads uses a "regional railroad" definition of 350 miles of track or $40 million operating revenue, and does publish a full list of these (although not all smaller railroads are included in the smaller classes). Other bodies, including the Federal Railroad Administration, have picked up on this definition. I propose replacing Template:US class II and Template:US class III with similar templates for regional, local, and switching and terminal railroads. It might also make sense to merge the Class I/II/III articles into one article on classification of railroads in the U.S. -- NE2 22:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated the Class II and III categories and templates for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 15#Class II and III railroad categories and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Class II and III railroad templates. -- NE2 03:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Stub article has been AfD'd for third time. This and previous Afd follow almost immediately after previous AfD. Mjroots ( talk) 18:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been thinking for a while now that with the {{ TrainsWikiProject}} banner on more and more pages, we don't need to include links specific to this project in the todo template. The main {{ todo}} template has more functionality, and the only link on {{todo, trains}} other than links that are repeated there is a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Todo and categorization into Category:To do, trains. It seems more efficient to integrate the category into the project banner by making the unref, imageneeded or mapneeded categories child categories of it; other relevant pages can be manually added to the category. The 220 transclusions of {{todo, trains}} can be easily changed to {{todo}}, even by a bot. Any objections? Slambo (Speak) 23:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Anyone else have any opinions on this proposal? Slambo (Speak) 18:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Many of the images in Category:Otto Perry images fail our fair use criteria; see related discussion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Otto Perry images. Someone better-versed than me in what's unique about locomotives should look through them. -- NE2 05:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
What template should be used s-rail or the original kind (I don't know the name) s-rail is good but its harder to put service patterns in, which sometimes is required to give an accurate portrayal of services. Mark999 13:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a user adding info about on-street running to various settlement and railroad company articles. Though I'm sure some railfans find this interesting, I'm not sure if it necessarily belongs in articles about individual locations. What do you folks think? Katr67 ( talk) 14:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I just saw some on-street rails on Front Street (Philadelphia) using GoogleMaps Street View program, while I was checking out the Market-Frankford Line. I don't know if it was for a former trolley, or some local waterfront freight railroad system. ---- DanTD ( talk) 15:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether articles like Atlantic and Gulf Railroad and Steamboat Company should exist. I am only talking about the "lowest of the low" - this company was incorporated by the legislature, but does not appear to have done anything else, and simply passed out of existence quietly without becoming part of another company. I have not been able to find any mentions in any other sources, such as local histories; literally the only reference is the state law that incorporated it. -- NE2 05:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd say that's probably below the threshold. For my part, I only listed things at List of Michigan railroads if the company actually built something, bought something, or was consolidated by another company. If the company was targeted at the same right of way as a later company I might redirect it there. Mackensen (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest that a separate "list of unbuilt STATE railroads" (as opposed to defunct railroads) would be a good idea, with a paragraph or so for each railroad outlining the charter rights and date and maybe the incorporators. On the other hand, railroads that did construction/grading (even if never finished) should probably still be eligible for separate articles (e.g., Path Valley Railroad). Choess ( talk) 01:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
So are there any objections to redirecting, part (a) of my above plan, including the removal of Category:Defunct Florida railroads? I could redirect to either List of defunct Florida railroads or List of railroads incorporated in Florida; I'm thinking the latter might be better. -- NE2 09:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I'll do the redirecting to List of railroads incorporated in Florida soon. — NE2 10:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
If you haven't noticed this, it's really useful: "rochester and OR & lake ontario belt" searches for either form of the and/&. -- NE2 16:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I've used CatScan to generate a list of U.S. railway stations that lack geographical coordinates.
Lists for other countries can be generated similarly to the above, by changing the category entries in the search form in the obvious way.
For example:
The articles are all marked with {{ coord missing}} tags, which need to be replaced with {{ coord}} tags that contain the location's latitude/longitude coordinates; or you might be able to add coordinates to an existing infobox, where appropriate. You can find out how to do this, and how to format {{ coord}} tags, at the Wikipedia:Geocoding how-to for WikiProject members. -- The Anome ( talk) 01:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
This article has been AfD'd. I don't know much about Czech railways but it would seem to be notable enough to me. Mjroots ( talk) 15:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. See my comments on the AfD discussion page. The article needs developing but is one of many that is a work in progress as part of this excellent Wiki Trains project. Bermicourt ( talk) 22:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose retitling the Deutsche Reichsbahn-Gesellschaft article to just "Deutsche Reichsbahn". The logic is that the "Deutsche Reichsbahn" was the overarching name for the German national railways from its inception in 1920 through to 1949, when it was effectively split into the "Deutsche Bundesbahn" and a successor administration with the same name in East Germany. The "Deutsche Reichsbahn Gesellschaft" was simply the organisational construct through which the Deutsche Reichsbahn was run from 1924 to 1937. Once taken over and repainted, the vehicles carried the name "Deutsche Reichsbahn" or "DR" throughout. So it is quite normal to refer to these railways simply as the "Deutsche Reichsbahn" for the entire period to 1949 without any confusion as it was to all intents and purposes the same administration under the same government. It would also simplify the vast majority of the links which currently have to say [[Deutsche Reichsbahn Gesellschaft|Deutsche Reichsbahn]]. Finally it also conforms to German Wikipedia practice. In a sense the DRG was just one part of the DR's history, so it should be a section in the article, but not, IMHO, the title. This is a copy of the proposal on the article's discussion page as I wasn't sure if it would be spotted by everyone there Bermicourt ( talk) 22:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I found this unusual vehicle in a 1916 magazine from which I was scanning and uploading images. I'm not sure I've categorized it correctly (help would be welcome) and I wouldn't be surprised if there was an article I'm not aware of for which it would be a fine illustration. Have at it! - Jmabel | Talk 02:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd appreciate checking over Image:New York Central Railroad system map (1918).svg to ensure that I didn't make any mistakes. Thank you. -- NE2 13:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Indian Railways has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The article for the shunting locomotive LMS Sentinel 7164 has been nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LMS Sentinel 7164.
NOTE: I did not initiate this deletion discussion but am listing here as the article falls into the scope of this project. -- Oakshade ( talk) 02:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure each of you is aware of the fact that Amtrak infoboxes, as well as Long Island Rail Road, Metro-North, New Jersey Transit and a few others have their own style parameters. Well, you can thank Secondarywaltz for creating a new one for VIA Rail station infoboxes. I encourage everybody to spread them around, especially Canadians Wikipedians. ---- DanTD ( talk) 06:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Why doesn't WP:RAIL redirect here? 76.66.198.46 ( talk) 06:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. -- NE2 07:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is generally poorly referenced, with some trivial accidents included. I've proposed a course of action to improve the article on the talk page. Mjroots ( talk) 07:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed we don't really have any articles about railway workshops or locomotive depots
Motive power depot has a British perspective stub, Bahnbetriebswerk is about German and Austrian railways but has some good stuff, as does Bahnbetriebswerk (steam locomotives). Ausbesserungswerk is another foreign translated one, Roundhouse is a small article.
Does anyone have some good books or magazine articles to put something 'general' together on the topic? Wongm ( talk) 11:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone produce a colour-coded table showing the status (class/importance, etc) of articles in the Rail transport in Germany task force area on that task force's page? Just like the main one on the overall project page. Thanks. Bermicourt ( talk) 11:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
As Mjroots has noted, NE2 redirected WP:RAIL to here instead of WikiProject UK Railways, this should not be the case as it has always historically been UK Railway's redirect and it's main one. (Or capitalised version anyway). See Wikipedia:List_of_shortcuts/Project_shortcuts#Topic-oriented_WikiProjects. Simply south ( talk) 19:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Silly... -- NE2 00:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Over on the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad article, there are a lot of redlinks, at least two of which I've fixed. But I'm wondering about one for the Virginia Central Railway: Is it really just the same company as the Virginia Central Railroad, or do they just have names that sound similar? ---- DanTD ( talk) 01:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
This locomotive is on the National Register of Historic Places. I think this article should be moved to Santa Fe 3759 to match the Trains WikiProject manual of style - no ampersands and the most common name and operating number. I've also posted this at the WP:NRHP page. Einbierbitte ( talk) 22:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 24#Category:Terminal railroads -- NE2 23:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
This article has wrong information, Venturio is a concept train and has nothing to do with what is mentioned in the article. Need help in fixing it, thanx. -- STTW (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I've added this page to WikiProject:Trains, as it needs updation and review, both of which it hasn't been getting frequently enough. Please visit the page and assess it. Regards, SBC-YPR ( talk) 14:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion started at WT:OR that has basically requested that wikipedia have a guideline for the use of maps as sources. There is a discussion there, as well as a proposed policy. Dave ( talk) 22:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Map of Southport Area
[3]
It's been sat on a sub page for a while. I think I made it to see what the relationship between the lines involved was. Britmax ( talk) 16:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Two BS icons are being discussed for deletion.
Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BSicon tKRZo.svg and Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BSicon tBRÜCKE.svg. Mjroots ( talk) 09:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Progressive railroading has an article about Fairfield, California getting another station on the Capitol Corridor. Generally speaking I trust the source, but I can't find a second source to corroborate. Any else have anything on this? Mackensen (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
A contest at DYK lead to the beginning of User talk:Suntag/Train melody by several editors. At the moment, the article is more about Japan train melodies. If you know of reliable source material for this topic, please add to User talk:Suntag/Train melody. On the article being moved to article namespace, contributors may receive a DYK article creation credit once the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 19:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The NTSB sent a note out on their regular announcement email list that the official NTSB website ( http://www.ntsb.gov), which we link to for citations in several articles that discuss railway accidents, will be offline for at least 18 hours this weekend. The email notes that there is electrical work going on in the building where the web server is located. The site is expected to be back online late Saturday December 6. So, if you notice anyone removing NTSB website links as dead links over the next 24 hours, please restore them as it is likely that the information will again be available later. Slambo (Speak) 18:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I've created {{ RailAmerica}} as an example--do others think it would be worthwhile to create and maintain these sorts of templates? Mackensen (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I have been doing quite a lot of editing on the article for the London, Midland and Scottish Railway recently and have added a discussion to the talk page here for other editors to comment before I continue. Your contributions would be welcome. :o) ColourSarge ( talk) 11:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The book I'm using to expand Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway has a locomotive roster. Is this something that should be placed in the article in any form, or is it too much detail? -- NE2 07:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
How does Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway#Equipment look? That's a full list of narrow-gauge locomotives. Should I include the cylinders, drive (?), and engine weight? -- NE2 21:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/July 29 in rail transport. The discussion is tending toward deletion of the entire series of DAY in rail transport articles. Please comment there. Slambo (Speak) 17:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The AFD closed as no consensus last night. There is a DRV discussion now about the closure that so far is tending toward endorsement (and I thank the DRV opener for notifying me of that discussion too). The AFD closing admin noted "The weight of community opinion in this debate is substantially against this structure." and suggested further discussion here.
I created the set of articles described in the discussion first as a way to sort and organize events that could appear in the anniversary section of Portal:Trains. The data was gleaned initially from various internet resources by doing a search for "MONTH DAY in railway history" and added to the portal's specific anniversary subpage (for example, Portal:Trains/Anniversaries/January 1) first. I initially used these subpages as the starting point for the main articles, but after creating a few of the articles, decided that it would be better not to create future articles until there were more than four events listed on the specific day. That decision is why about a third of the days of the year don't have anniversary pages in article space yet. The portal subpages are limited to four events, and if the main day's article exists, then the More... link appears on the portal that day at the bottom of the portal anniversaries section. The section link to Archive contains links to all of the portal subpages.
After I requested time in the AFD to copy relevant information to appropriate portal talk pages, several other editors (on both sides of the keep/delete opinions) agreed with this proposal. I mentioned above one possible way that the information could be retained in the portal and I plan to work up a prototype of this strategy with one of the more populated dates soon.
So, the question here is not whether the data on these pages has value, but how best to store the data. Several editors agreed that the YEAR in rail transport series is valuable but questioned the organization by anniversary day in addition to that series. I do have further thoughts on this, but I'm out of time to add them right now (I will be back this afternoon to discuss this further). Since this series is so far the only series on en.wikipedia (there are now translations of these and other events on fr and ru) related to a specific area of study, we get to be the test case. Slambo (Speak) 12:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned using <noinclude> and <includeonly> blocks as an option to hold the data in portal space and show only the selected items on the portal front page. Well, to the right, you can see an example using the January 1 anniversary subpage for a test. The box here is how it would look on the portal. The More... link will take you to the portal subpage where all of the data is displayed.
There are a couple of points that could be improved. First, I don't like the amount of whitespace at the bottom and that the More... link is now on a separate line from the Archive link. In the current setup, the More... link is printed by the call to {{Box-footer}}, where an #ifexist call fits neatly within it. Moving the data to the portal page destroys the ability to use #ifexist as a condition to print this link (however, if the complete list is on its own portalspace subpage, perhaps something like Portal:Trains/Anniversaries/January 1/More, the #ifexist solution would still work). Second, on the anniversary page itself ( Portal:Trains/Anniversaries/January 1 in this case), the items to be displayed are almost lost within the large number of other events, and the placement of the noinclude statements is a little tricky to get only one line break between the events that get displayed on the portal. If the events displayed are all copied to the includeonly section, then the data is on the page twice and editors updating the information might miss one or the other locations to keep everything consistent; but as the data currently is in two locations (the portalspace subpage and the articlespace page), this is less of an issue. Finally, and this is a minor change, once the data is moved to the portal pages, the navigation template at the top of the subpage needs to be updated to reflect the contents' new locations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slambo ( talk • contribs)
Tony May ( talk · contribs) is changing this heading for various UK steam loco class pages, describing it as formatting. I don't think this is appropriate - I don't think Stock List is an appropriately jargon neutral term for a wikipedia article, as its meaning is currently undefined either directly in an article, or indirectly in the Project MOS. He has tried to justify this elsewhere as being more 'professional', and describes locomotives 'taken into stock' by a specific company, yet we have many locomotive class pages for locomotives that were delivered to different companies either at the same time or across the timeline of production. I think this is just unneccessarily confusing to the non-technical reader, as the article or the list itself usually makes clear which loco was delivered where/used by who. "List of XYZ" is just a standard, non ambigous term used everywhere in articles.
This issue arises because I was looking into his edit pattern, due to an ongoing dispute at LNER Peppercorn Class A1, where he wants to exclude the new A1 60163 Tornado from the "List of Locomotives" because it "never entered BR stock". That is a special case though, and I think the general point also needs addressing.
Opinions? MickMacNee ( talk) 01:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, per the emerging consensus, I have changed it on the A1 article [4]. MickMacNee ( talk) 17:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
IMVHO, Stock list is more appropriate as it involves the locomotives being taken into stock, or withdrawn from stock, as appropriate. "Stock" is a word that is really used, and is important. Stock was split into "capital stock" and "departmental stock". "List of locomotives" in this case is a poor choice because it is ambiguous with regards to Tornado which clearly was never taken into BR stock. I also disagree with it being language neutral as it is sufficiently obvious what it is and isn't. Tony May ( talk) 19:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
(To answer your last question first, classes are listed separately if they belonged to different companies (rather than successors, hence they are different classes of the same type, e.g. British Rail Class 77, NS 1500 Class. If locomotives are again of the same type, but belong to different companies (rather than one company and its natural successor), then they two are listed differently, e.g. EMD Series 66 with Britain - British Rail Class 66, Norway - CD66 Tony May ( talk) 23:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
"Stock list" is entirely appropriate. Stock is very common terminology and I am completely stunned by your apparent ignorance of it. Try a Google search for some related terms, and you will find various websites and many published books. I also can provide references to such books, the most obvious being "LMS 150" by Pat Whitehouse and David St John Thomas which includes ("Locomotive stock as of 31 December 1947") on page 60 or thereabouts (similar books exist for the other three big four companies). If necessary, I could probably provide you with references to dozens of books that use the word "stock".
Furthermore, I do not understand the point about being "in stock" ambiguously referring to those currently existing ( as of 2008). They clearly were existing, in stock, at those particular historical points in time, and this is a simple observation. Where appropriate, sentences should therefore use the past tense of course, and there should be no confusion.
Also, being in stock is a bit more complicated than simply "existing". This is why it is better to use more accurate terminology. The use of jargon is necessary because these are technical articles and is far better than use of incorrect, confusing or non-common language. In this case, this jargon is standard terminology, widely known, and unambiguous, and can be understood by anyone.
As a further explanation there is capital stock and departmental stock. Where locomotives existed in both, (often they were transferred to departmental stock after withdrawal from capital stock), this can be a problem with listing them together. As a further example; Bullied's Leader locomotives were never taken into capital stock, despite 2 being completed, 1 steamed and others in various states of completeness. Another example is the 46202 Princess Anne rebuild, which after the Harrow & Wealstone smash remained for a few years in capital stock despite being stored at Crewe while they worked out what to do with her, before she was withdrawn and scrapped.
Stock represents the railway company's investments, and locomotives and other vehicles are expensive, so from a financial point this is obviously important - the railway companies had to try to keep track of their investments in order to pay their shareholders.
In conclusion, again, this is a question of professionalism. Whereas I am following professional railway historians and authors, MacNee seems to be trying to make this up as his goes along in a rather amateurish manner. MacNee's attempt to unnecessarily lump Tornado with the Peppercorn A1s simply because it is of the same type (though not historically of the same class) is disingenuous and fails to match any published source, which includes Tornado's owners! Tony May ( talk) 23:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Project members may be interested in a discussion taking place here about whether or not to consider 60163 Tornado as a member of the original class, or a replica. Comment from interested editors is welcomed as this has been referred to RFC but so far without comment from other editors. Please respond on the article talk page. ColourSarge ( talk) 08:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I recently tried to add a Polish translation tag to Riverhead (LIRR station), but it didn't work out. Can somebody fix it, and/or tell me how to do the same? ---- DanTD ( talk) 18:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Modeling 2' gauge railroads -- NE2 15:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Recently some new templates such as {{
Railway stations opened in 1803}}
have been created and are being added to articles (as a replacement for adding
Category:Railway stations opened in 1803). I question the use of these templates as they are adding, in my opinion, unnecessary clutter to articles. The navigation features provided by this template are already one click away in the category
Category:Railway stations opened in 1803. What do others think? --
Dr Greg (
talk) 13:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey ho - an idea that did not work.....
But please note that those of you have argued against it have included in the arguement that categorising stations by years is not a good idea (one idea is that by line is better). So not only did you argue against my experiment, but you have also argued against the status quo of adding categories by year, and adding dated commons categories references on the category page.
I am disappointed that Dr Greg did not come back into the discussion after starting it.
As far as I am concern the subject is NOW CLOSED, and I will tidy up behind myself in the next day or so. -- Stewart ( talk | edits) 23:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a current discussion on
WT:VANCOUVER about removing the heading, "The next station is..." on articles. I don't know how many articles have this heading, but
OlEnglish decided to remove the headings on
SkyTrain (Vancouver) stations. Any thoughts and comments would be appreciated. Thanks and cheers. -- signed by
SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.
24 spell my name backwards on 06:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed a more detailed scope for this project at WP:RR#SCOPE. Thoughts and opinions welcome.
(For context: we previously had no scope other than "trains, railways, and railroads.")
AGK 22:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I've read over your changes, and they seem good and sensible to me. Choess ( talk) 03:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I propose to change this from "AAR reporting mark" to simply "reporting mark", since the latter is more commonly used, and there's no potential for confusion. Are there any objections? -- NE2 23:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Crossposted from
WT:UKRAIL, should anyone think this seems a bit familiar…
I've opened a
peer review on
Hellingly Hospital Railway – if anyone has any comments and/or suggestions, do feel free! Although it's short, and on a very obscure topic, I think this is actually quite a good article in striking the balance between "what would the general reader want to know?" and "don't oversimplify to the point of putting off people with specialist knowledge". Any comments welcome… –
iridescent 20:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone planning or already have plans for the change of identity of EWS.?
Should the EWS page have its 'is' changed to 'was'. Does anyone know if the EWS brand will effectively cease to exist after 1 Jan ? Thanks (and happy new year) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.88.238 ( talk) 12:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the new templates have been created for Baltimore Light Rail station articles. It appears that whoever did it just wanted to change the names of the templates because nothing else is changed except for the colors on the rail color box templates. Either they are now white or they have disappeared (something which has occurred before). Is there more to this template change or are we just faced with the same problem we had months ago? Murjax ( talk) 18:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I say that Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Rail transport in Germany task force should actually be a Child wikiproject, rather than a task force within TWP itself, like that of Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways, Wikipedia:WikiProject NZR, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains in Japan. ---- DanTD ( talk) 04:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
A few tramway list redirects are up for deletion. Comments welcme at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 January 3#Tramway list redirects. Simply south not SS, sorry 16:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I do not attempt, in making this comment, to wade in and attempt to force change in this project; I have been an active contributor to Railway-related articles—but not to this project, despite being a registered member—and simply strive to put this impressively active project to good use.
I've been tidying up the project page by removing clutter, updating the prose, restructuring, and rewriting as otherwise necessary; I would invite other editors to review my changes and build on them as necessary.
I suspect I may not be going far enough, however. Using the exceptionally successful WikiProject Military history as a model to emulate, we may wish to look into selecting a few active contributors as co-ordinators to guide the authoring of en:wiki's railway articles in tandem with a structured WikiProject; would some co-ordinators be an idea this project's members would consider?
I will present specifics if my proposal is not immediately shot down as absurd. :-)
AGK 21:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to add the data for continuous tractive effort for a variety of locomotives...
On this page http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/British-Rail-Class-09 it gives 8,800 lbf at 11.6 mph, the speed information is not present on wikipedia - but isn't this page just a mirror of the wikipedia site??
Anyone know what's going on here? Obviously I can't use a mirror of wikipedia as a reference for wikipedia.. Has anyone got a reliable reference for this figure. Thanks. (Data for other locos also appreciated if it can be referenced...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.85.58 ( talk) 17:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I just learned of a derailment of an Amtrak train in Buffalo Grove, Illinois. I was close to adding this event to the Buffalo Grove (Metra) article, but I paused for a moment, because I didn't think Metra shared the North Central Service line with Amtrak. I see, of course that the article says it's a freight train, but my local news outlet said it was Amtrak train. What gives? ---- DanTD ( talk) 03:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
For a while I have been partially transcribing the ICC valuation reports, mainly the corporate history and development of fixed physical property (see Beech Creek Railroad for an example of the latter), at User:NE2/valuations and subpages. They are useful not only as sources, but also for "what links here" to find what happened to a former company. Would it be a good idea to move the pages to Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/valuations and subpages? -- NE2 03:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm announcing that I've just created the Category:Illinois and Indiana rail succession templates category. I'd like to be able to move the succession templates for Newark City Subway and Hudson-Bergen Light Rail as subcategories for the Category:New Jersey Transit succession templates, but the site isn't letting me do it. ---- DanTD ( talk) 19:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
How the hell are all these stations getting succession template categories that I can't find when I try to remove them?!?! ---- DanTD ( talk) 19:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I see you must've also got rid of the British rail succession templates, but I noticed before that there were 21 subcategories, and now there are only 19. What happened to the other two? ---- DanTD ( talk) 22:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I finally added the one for Category:Texas rail succession templates. Can I be assured this won't screw anything up? ---- DanTD ( talk) 06:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
This page 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. |
There seems to be a bit of duplication between articles in this category. I've flagged one pair, but haven't got time to do the others now. Mjroots ( talk) 07:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Rail transport in Armenia, Rail transport in Austria, Rail transport in Azerbaijan, Rail transport in Belarus, Rail transport in Bulgaria, Rail transport in Croatia, Rail transport in Cyprus, Rail transport in the Czech Republic, Rail transport in Georgia, Rail transport in Greece, Rail transport in Hungary, Rail transport in Finland, Rail transport in Kazakhstan, Rail transport in Luxembourg, Rail transport in the Republic of Macedonia, Rail transport in Malta, Rail transport in Moldova, Rail transport in Montenegro, Rail transport in Romania, Rail transport in Russia, Rail transport in San Marino, Rail transport in Serbia, Rail transport in Slovenia, Rail transport in Turkey, Rail transport in Ukraine. Most are redirects. -- Hartz ( talk) 14:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Since a mass-removal of date links appeared on my watchlist today, I thought it would be good to mention here that linking dates simply to get the autoformatting has now been deprecated. See MOS:UNLINKDATES for details and links to the relevant (lengthy) discussions. What that means for us is that we need to be consistent in date formats within article texts, and don't be surprised when articles pop up on your watchlists simply to remove the date links (note that the dates themselves are left in the articles). There is already discussion happening on how to get the autoformatting to work without using links. Slambo (Speak) 22:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Is anyone here expert enough to create this article? It would help for the Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal which is currently at FAC. I'd have a go myself but am pretty ignorant of railway matters. There is a fair amount of information in the article above to get anyone going, and it is linked in some of the pages of the railways which it was absorbed by. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 12:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The line template for the SEPTA Route 100 broke apart within the infobox, so I had to take it out. How did it get this way, and how can it be fixed? ---- DanTD ( talk) 16:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a width issue; that happens with those style templates. Can you list all the broken ones? Mackensen (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I think I've fixed all the MBTA templates plus the Long Beach Branch, but the amount of text you're trying to include there will cause width issues. Mackensen (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
map = {{{!}}{{Railway line header1}}{{BS-table2}}{{YOUR ROUTE TEMPLATE}} {{!}}}
-- Sameboat - 同舟 ( talk) 23:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
map = {{infobox rdt|YOUR ROUTE TEMPLATE}}
-- Sameboat - 同舟 ( talk) 08:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 31#Category:Former Southern Pacific stations in Oregon. Thanks! Katr67 ( talk) 16:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
John Bull (locomotive) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Halgin ( talk) 00:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The review closed today to reaffirm the article as featured quality. Slambo (Speak) 11:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I received a question on my talk page today where I think the answer would benefit the project as a whole, so I am answering it here. The question was...
The content displayed in the Selected article and Selected picture sections of Portal:Trains are usually selected by me early on Monday mornings (United States central time zone). Although both sections have associated candidate pages ( Selected article candidates and Selected picture candidates), participation in the selections has usually been nonexistent. When there are no candidates listed for a given week, I look through the content and make a selection myself. I try to avoid highlighting my own contributions in these sections more than once every few months to give everyone a fair shake at having their contributions shown.
For the Selected article section, I normally start with Featured and Good articles and then move to B-Class articles if there isn't a suitable candidate. The criteria I use are that the article needs at least one image that can be used in a thumbnail, it needs a sufficient amount of text with which to form an abstract (usually this is the lead section of the article), it needs to be referenced and it cannot have any maintenance banners within it (although an occasional [citation needed] can be overlooked). The only other consideration that I make is that I try to avoid using articles about subjects from one country or region after each other; for example, if the article selected one week describes a UK subject, the next week I try to avoid another UK subject.
For the Selected picture, I look for images that are well exposed, well composed, sufficiently large in output resolution and licensed under a suitably free license; the image should also be aesthetically pleasing (yes, this is very subjective) or show a subject that is technically interesting or historically significant. Like the selection for the article, I try to avoid using images from one region twice in a row.
There are also a similar candidates and archive pages for the intro image ( candidates, archive) and the Did you know ( candidates, archive) and news ( candidates, archived into the timeline pages) sections. Occasionally, another editor will update the news section and one other editor has been helping with numerous Did you know suggestions, but participation in these selections as a whole is also very slim. Slambo (Speak) 11:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Since I'm not an expert in the area, can someone else look at Template:SPSRYLocomotives and determine whether those are all worthy of separate articles? -- NE2 01:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there any objection to me using AWB to creat subcategories of Category:Categories named after railway companies, in particular Category:Categories named after North American Class I railroads, to remove the categories from Category:Former Class I railroads in the United States? -- NE2 09:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I am pleased to announce that the UK Railways Project has successfully given all of its articles an initial assessment of their importance. The work can now focus on getting those articles identified as "Top" and "High" importance improved. Olana North ( talk) 11:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hallo, While stub-sorting for WP:WSS I came across Parc (AMT), and was concerned that there wasn't a link to it from the station name plain, Parc (a dab page). The editor who'd created the page didn't seem to think a dab link (or redirect if the name wasn't already in use) was necessary, for this and many other stations. Looking further, it seems that every line and station on AMT has "(AMT)" in its article title, though it isn't needed for disambiguation (eg Blainville-Saint-Jérôme Line (AMT), with no redirect from Blainville-Saint-Jérôme Line). In contrast, the lines in Category:London Underground lines don't have disambiguators except for Circle line (London Underground).
Is there a general policy about this? I can't see anything at WP:NAME to make rail lines and stations a special case, so I would think that (a) rail line names in brackets are only needed when the line or station name is already in use in Wikipedia for another article (but looking at Paris example, perhaps there is a general policy for railways to add these as standard in every case?), and (b) (much more important) in every case where something is added in brackets there should be a dab page, hatnote, or redirect to help the reader who searches for "Foo" or "Foo line" to find it.
Looking at another example, Paris Métro, it looks as if every station has an addition in brackets, but there is a link to Argentine (Paris Métro) from Argentine via the Argentina (disambiguation) page, and redirect from Charles de Gaulle - Étoile and Charles de Gaulle - Étoile (Paris Métro) to the article at Charles de Gaulle - Étoile (Paris Métro and RER) as I'd expect. London Underground stations have names like Embankment tube station, linked from the dab page at Embankment. PamD ( talk) 07:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, could the project take a look at Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge and assess its importance to the project? The bridge is pretty significant to North American railways as it was:
Please leave your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge/archive1. Thank you. Jappalang ( talk) 01:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 22#Category:Intermodal transportation authorities -- NE2 09:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently working on an article for the Philadelphia International Airport Terminals (SEPTA station), which is separate from the article for Philadelphia International Airport, and I'm stuck. I was looking to see if there was a separate IATA code for this station, as there is for many major railroad stations whether they connect to airports or not. I looked on their offical website, and it didn't give me any codes whatsoever. Does anybody know how I can get around this problem? ---- DanTD ( talk) 02:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been doing a little work on the Cincinnatian article. It needs a routebox for the second (Detroit-Cincinnati) route. I don't have the timetable information available, unfortunately. Mangoe ( talk) 21:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Is "Positive Train Control" just an North-American term form Train protection system? In that case, we have a redundancy. In the other case, the PTC article must get a lot clearer (what are the specifics of PTC with the area of TPS?). -- Pjacobi ( talk) 10:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, November (yeah, they're over a month ahead) 2008 Trains has a blurb about PTC on page 29. -- NE2 22:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
The LIRR Far Rockaway Branch article has an error: Cedarhurst station is listed (in a box at the right of the page) with the wrong mileage (21.9 instead of 20.9) but it's not obvious how to fix this (or even who to report the error to if I can't fix it myself). Tom239 ( talk) 03:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
There has been much discussion over the past few months, this perhaps being one of the longest discussions ever on a name of a railway article, over whther St Pancras railway station should be named differently. There is now currently a move request in progress to determine this.
Btw, the discussion has occurred before the rest of the station opened refurbished and rebranded. See Talk:St Pancras railway station. Nearly 2 years!!! Simply south ( talk) 20:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge has been nominated for FA. Please take a look and comment at its FAC. Thank you. Jappalang ( talk) 00:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello all...
An image used in the British Rail Class 507 article, specifically Image:507026 Centralb.jpg and also Image:507033 HamiltonSquare.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.
You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.-- Jordan 1972 ( talk) 00:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I was looking through the SEPTA R5 station articles, and found that somebody converted a lot of the previous & next stations into redlinks for Route 102 trolley stops. I had to redirect them to the appropriate articles, and I can't find a way to get rid of the phony articles. ---- DanTD ( talk) 17:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunatley, I just did start a sandbox for User:DanTD/Sandbox/Saxer Avenue(SEPTA Route 101 station), and instead of Springfield Road (SEPTA Route 101 station) being the next stop, it has mysteriously gone to the non-existant Springfield Road (SEPTA Route 100 station). ---- DanTD ( talk) 16:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I have started a page, to give guidance on adding coordinates to articles about linear features such as railways, roads and rivers. I intend to use it to document current practise, and develop polices for future use. Please feel free to add to it, or to discuss the matter on its talk page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I think I may've just accidentally created a color bar for the Baltimore Metro Subway. If not, then please let me know who did. Either way, I still would like to deliberatley make some color bars for the Green Mountain Railroad. Some stations up there need them. ---- DanTD ( talk) 01:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/mcgraw_electric.html -- NE2 15:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Tom B ( talk) 14:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
William Nelson Page has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The Class II and III definitions are rarely used, and it is impossible to know for sure which companies qualify. On the other hand, the Association of American Railroads uses a "regional railroad" definition of 350 miles of track or $40 million operating revenue, and does publish a full list of these (although not all smaller railroads are included in the smaller classes). Other bodies, including the Federal Railroad Administration, have picked up on this definition. I propose replacing Template:US class II and Template:US class III with similar templates for regional, local, and switching and terminal railroads. It might also make sense to merge the Class I/II/III articles into one article on classification of railroads in the U.S. -- NE2 22:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated the Class II and III categories and templates for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 15#Class II and III railroad categories and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Class II and III railroad templates. -- NE2 03:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Stub article has been AfD'd for third time. This and previous Afd follow almost immediately after previous AfD. Mjroots ( talk) 18:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been thinking for a while now that with the {{ TrainsWikiProject}} banner on more and more pages, we don't need to include links specific to this project in the todo template. The main {{ todo}} template has more functionality, and the only link on {{todo, trains}} other than links that are repeated there is a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Todo and categorization into Category:To do, trains. It seems more efficient to integrate the category into the project banner by making the unref, imageneeded or mapneeded categories child categories of it; other relevant pages can be manually added to the category. The 220 transclusions of {{todo, trains}} can be easily changed to {{todo}}, even by a bot. Any objections? Slambo (Speak) 23:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Anyone else have any opinions on this proposal? Slambo (Speak) 18:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Many of the images in Category:Otto Perry images fail our fair use criteria; see related discussion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Otto Perry images. Someone better-versed than me in what's unique about locomotives should look through them. -- NE2 05:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
What template should be used s-rail or the original kind (I don't know the name) s-rail is good but its harder to put service patterns in, which sometimes is required to give an accurate portrayal of services. Mark999 13:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a user adding info about on-street running to various settlement and railroad company articles. Though I'm sure some railfans find this interesting, I'm not sure if it necessarily belongs in articles about individual locations. What do you folks think? Katr67 ( talk) 14:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I just saw some on-street rails on Front Street (Philadelphia) using GoogleMaps Street View program, while I was checking out the Market-Frankford Line. I don't know if it was for a former trolley, or some local waterfront freight railroad system. ---- DanTD ( talk) 15:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether articles like Atlantic and Gulf Railroad and Steamboat Company should exist. I am only talking about the "lowest of the low" - this company was incorporated by the legislature, but does not appear to have done anything else, and simply passed out of existence quietly without becoming part of another company. I have not been able to find any mentions in any other sources, such as local histories; literally the only reference is the state law that incorporated it. -- NE2 05:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd say that's probably below the threshold. For my part, I only listed things at List of Michigan railroads if the company actually built something, bought something, or was consolidated by another company. If the company was targeted at the same right of way as a later company I might redirect it there. Mackensen (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest that a separate "list of unbuilt STATE railroads" (as opposed to defunct railroads) would be a good idea, with a paragraph or so for each railroad outlining the charter rights and date and maybe the incorporators. On the other hand, railroads that did construction/grading (even if never finished) should probably still be eligible for separate articles (e.g., Path Valley Railroad). Choess ( talk) 01:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
So are there any objections to redirecting, part (a) of my above plan, including the removal of Category:Defunct Florida railroads? I could redirect to either List of defunct Florida railroads or List of railroads incorporated in Florida; I'm thinking the latter might be better. -- NE2 09:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I'll do the redirecting to List of railroads incorporated in Florida soon. — NE2 10:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
If you haven't noticed this, it's really useful: "rochester and OR & lake ontario belt" searches for either form of the and/&. -- NE2 16:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I've used CatScan to generate a list of U.S. railway stations that lack geographical coordinates.
Lists for other countries can be generated similarly to the above, by changing the category entries in the search form in the obvious way.
For example:
The articles are all marked with {{ coord missing}} tags, which need to be replaced with {{ coord}} tags that contain the location's latitude/longitude coordinates; or you might be able to add coordinates to an existing infobox, where appropriate. You can find out how to do this, and how to format {{ coord}} tags, at the Wikipedia:Geocoding how-to for WikiProject members. -- The Anome ( talk) 01:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
This article has been AfD'd. I don't know much about Czech railways but it would seem to be notable enough to me. Mjroots ( talk) 15:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. See my comments on the AfD discussion page. The article needs developing but is one of many that is a work in progress as part of this excellent Wiki Trains project. Bermicourt ( talk) 22:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose retitling the Deutsche Reichsbahn-Gesellschaft article to just "Deutsche Reichsbahn". The logic is that the "Deutsche Reichsbahn" was the overarching name for the German national railways from its inception in 1920 through to 1949, when it was effectively split into the "Deutsche Bundesbahn" and a successor administration with the same name in East Germany. The "Deutsche Reichsbahn Gesellschaft" was simply the organisational construct through which the Deutsche Reichsbahn was run from 1924 to 1937. Once taken over and repainted, the vehicles carried the name "Deutsche Reichsbahn" or "DR" throughout. So it is quite normal to refer to these railways simply as the "Deutsche Reichsbahn" for the entire period to 1949 without any confusion as it was to all intents and purposes the same administration under the same government. It would also simplify the vast majority of the links which currently have to say [[Deutsche Reichsbahn Gesellschaft|Deutsche Reichsbahn]]. Finally it also conforms to German Wikipedia practice. In a sense the DRG was just one part of the DR's history, so it should be a section in the article, but not, IMHO, the title. This is a copy of the proposal on the article's discussion page as I wasn't sure if it would be spotted by everyone there Bermicourt ( talk) 22:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I found this unusual vehicle in a 1916 magazine from which I was scanning and uploading images. I'm not sure I've categorized it correctly (help would be welcome) and I wouldn't be surprised if there was an article I'm not aware of for which it would be a fine illustration. Have at it! - Jmabel | Talk 02:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd appreciate checking over Image:New York Central Railroad system map (1918).svg to ensure that I didn't make any mistakes. Thank you. -- NE2 13:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Indian Railways has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The article for the shunting locomotive LMS Sentinel 7164 has been nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LMS Sentinel 7164.
NOTE: I did not initiate this deletion discussion but am listing here as the article falls into the scope of this project. -- Oakshade ( talk) 02:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure each of you is aware of the fact that Amtrak infoboxes, as well as Long Island Rail Road, Metro-North, New Jersey Transit and a few others have their own style parameters. Well, you can thank Secondarywaltz for creating a new one for VIA Rail station infoboxes. I encourage everybody to spread them around, especially Canadians Wikipedians. ---- DanTD ( talk) 06:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Why doesn't WP:RAIL redirect here? 76.66.198.46 ( talk) 06:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. -- NE2 07:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is generally poorly referenced, with some trivial accidents included. I've proposed a course of action to improve the article on the talk page. Mjroots ( talk) 07:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed we don't really have any articles about railway workshops or locomotive depots
Motive power depot has a British perspective stub, Bahnbetriebswerk is about German and Austrian railways but has some good stuff, as does Bahnbetriebswerk (steam locomotives). Ausbesserungswerk is another foreign translated one, Roundhouse is a small article.
Does anyone have some good books or magazine articles to put something 'general' together on the topic? Wongm ( talk) 11:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone produce a colour-coded table showing the status (class/importance, etc) of articles in the Rail transport in Germany task force area on that task force's page? Just like the main one on the overall project page. Thanks. Bermicourt ( talk) 11:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
As Mjroots has noted, NE2 redirected WP:RAIL to here instead of WikiProject UK Railways, this should not be the case as it has always historically been UK Railway's redirect and it's main one. (Or capitalised version anyway). See Wikipedia:List_of_shortcuts/Project_shortcuts#Topic-oriented_WikiProjects. Simply south ( talk) 19:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Silly... -- NE2 00:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Over on the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad article, there are a lot of redlinks, at least two of which I've fixed. But I'm wondering about one for the Virginia Central Railway: Is it really just the same company as the Virginia Central Railroad, or do they just have names that sound similar? ---- DanTD ( talk) 01:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
This locomotive is on the National Register of Historic Places. I think this article should be moved to Santa Fe 3759 to match the Trains WikiProject manual of style - no ampersands and the most common name and operating number. I've also posted this at the WP:NRHP page. Einbierbitte ( talk) 22:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 24#Category:Terminal railroads -- NE2 23:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
This article has wrong information, Venturio is a concept train and has nothing to do with what is mentioned in the article. Need help in fixing it, thanx. -- STTW (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I've added this page to WikiProject:Trains, as it needs updation and review, both of which it hasn't been getting frequently enough. Please visit the page and assess it. Regards, SBC-YPR ( talk) 14:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion started at WT:OR that has basically requested that wikipedia have a guideline for the use of maps as sources. There is a discussion there, as well as a proposed policy. Dave ( talk) 22:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Manchester-Southport Line | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Map of Southport Area
[3]
It's been sat on a sub page for a while. I think I made it to see what the relationship between the lines involved was. Britmax ( talk) 16:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Two BS icons are being discussed for deletion.
Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BSicon tKRZo.svg and Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BSicon tBRÜCKE.svg. Mjroots ( talk) 09:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Progressive railroading has an article about Fairfield, California getting another station on the Capitol Corridor. Generally speaking I trust the source, but I can't find a second source to corroborate. Any else have anything on this? Mackensen (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
A contest at DYK lead to the beginning of User talk:Suntag/Train melody by several editors. At the moment, the article is more about Japan train melodies. If you know of reliable source material for this topic, please add to User talk:Suntag/Train melody. On the article being moved to article namespace, contributors may receive a DYK article creation credit once the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 19:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The NTSB sent a note out on their regular announcement email list that the official NTSB website ( http://www.ntsb.gov), which we link to for citations in several articles that discuss railway accidents, will be offline for at least 18 hours this weekend. The email notes that there is electrical work going on in the building where the web server is located. The site is expected to be back online late Saturday December 6. So, if you notice anyone removing NTSB website links as dead links over the next 24 hours, please restore them as it is likely that the information will again be available later. Slambo (Speak) 18:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I've created {{ RailAmerica}} as an example--do others think it would be worthwhile to create and maintain these sorts of templates? Mackensen (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I have been doing quite a lot of editing on the article for the London, Midland and Scottish Railway recently and have added a discussion to the talk page here for other editors to comment before I continue. Your contributions would be welcome. :o) ColourSarge ( talk) 11:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The book I'm using to expand Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway has a locomotive roster. Is this something that should be placed in the article in any form, or is it too much detail? -- NE2 07:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
How does Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway#Equipment look? That's a full list of narrow-gauge locomotives. Should I include the cylinders, drive (?), and engine weight? -- NE2 21:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/July 29 in rail transport. The discussion is tending toward deletion of the entire series of DAY in rail transport articles. Please comment there. Slambo (Speak) 17:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The AFD closed as no consensus last night. There is a DRV discussion now about the closure that so far is tending toward endorsement (and I thank the DRV opener for notifying me of that discussion too). The AFD closing admin noted "The weight of community opinion in this debate is substantially against this structure." and suggested further discussion here.
I created the set of articles described in the discussion first as a way to sort and organize events that could appear in the anniversary section of Portal:Trains. The data was gleaned initially from various internet resources by doing a search for "MONTH DAY in railway history" and added to the portal's specific anniversary subpage (for example, Portal:Trains/Anniversaries/January 1) first. I initially used these subpages as the starting point for the main articles, but after creating a few of the articles, decided that it would be better not to create future articles until there were more than four events listed on the specific day. That decision is why about a third of the days of the year don't have anniversary pages in article space yet. The portal subpages are limited to four events, and if the main day's article exists, then the More... link appears on the portal that day at the bottom of the portal anniversaries section. The section link to Archive contains links to all of the portal subpages.
After I requested time in the AFD to copy relevant information to appropriate portal talk pages, several other editors (on both sides of the keep/delete opinions) agreed with this proposal. I mentioned above one possible way that the information could be retained in the portal and I plan to work up a prototype of this strategy with one of the more populated dates soon.
So, the question here is not whether the data on these pages has value, but how best to store the data. Several editors agreed that the YEAR in rail transport series is valuable but questioned the organization by anniversary day in addition to that series. I do have further thoughts on this, but I'm out of time to add them right now (I will be back this afternoon to discuss this further). Since this series is so far the only series on en.wikipedia (there are now translations of these and other events on fr and ru) related to a specific area of study, we get to be the test case. Slambo (Speak) 12:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned using <noinclude> and <includeonly> blocks as an option to hold the data in portal space and show only the selected items on the portal front page. Well, to the right, you can see an example using the January 1 anniversary subpage for a test. The box here is how it would look on the portal. The More... link will take you to the portal subpage where all of the data is displayed.
There are a couple of points that could be improved. First, I don't like the amount of whitespace at the bottom and that the More... link is now on a separate line from the Archive link. In the current setup, the More... link is printed by the call to {{Box-footer}}, where an #ifexist call fits neatly within it. Moving the data to the portal page destroys the ability to use #ifexist as a condition to print this link (however, if the complete list is on its own portalspace subpage, perhaps something like Portal:Trains/Anniversaries/January 1/More, the #ifexist solution would still work). Second, on the anniversary page itself ( Portal:Trains/Anniversaries/January 1 in this case), the items to be displayed are almost lost within the large number of other events, and the placement of the noinclude statements is a little tricky to get only one line break between the events that get displayed on the portal. If the events displayed are all copied to the includeonly section, then the data is on the page twice and editors updating the information might miss one or the other locations to keep everything consistent; but as the data currently is in two locations (the portalspace subpage and the articlespace page), this is less of an issue. Finally, and this is a minor change, once the data is moved to the portal pages, the navigation template at the top of the subpage needs to be updated to reflect the contents' new locations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slambo ( talk • contribs)
Tony May ( talk · contribs) is changing this heading for various UK steam loco class pages, describing it as formatting. I don't think this is appropriate - I don't think Stock List is an appropriately jargon neutral term for a wikipedia article, as its meaning is currently undefined either directly in an article, or indirectly in the Project MOS. He has tried to justify this elsewhere as being more 'professional', and describes locomotives 'taken into stock' by a specific company, yet we have many locomotive class pages for locomotives that were delivered to different companies either at the same time or across the timeline of production. I think this is just unneccessarily confusing to the non-technical reader, as the article or the list itself usually makes clear which loco was delivered where/used by who. "List of XYZ" is just a standard, non ambigous term used everywhere in articles.
This issue arises because I was looking into his edit pattern, due to an ongoing dispute at LNER Peppercorn Class A1, where he wants to exclude the new A1 60163 Tornado from the "List of Locomotives" because it "never entered BR stock". That is a special case though, and I think the general point also needs addressing.
Opinions? MickMacNee ( talk) 01:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, per the emerging consensus, I have changed it on the A1 article [4]. MickMacNee ( talk) 17:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
IMVHO, Stock list is more appropriate as it involves the locomotives being taken into stock, or withdrawn from stock, as appropriate. "Stock" is a word that is really used, and is important. Stock was split into "capital stock" and "departmental stock". "List of locomotives" in this case is a poor choice because it is ambiguous with regards to Tornado which clearly was never taken into BR stock. I also disagree with it being language neutral as it is sufficiently obvious what it is and isn't. Tony May ( talk) 19:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
(To answer your last question first, classes are listed separately if they belonged to different companies (rather than successors, hence they are different classes of the same type, e.g. British Rail Class 77, NS 1500 Class. If locomotives are again of the same type, but belong to different companies (rather than one company and its natural successor), then they two are listed differently, e.g. EMD Series 66 with Britain - British Rail Class 66, Norway - CD66 Tony May ( talk) 23:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
"Stock list" is entirely appropriate. Stock is very common terminology and I am completely stunned by your apparent ignorance of it. Try a Google search for some related terms, and you will find various websites and many published books. I also can provide references to such books, the most obvious being "LMS 150" by Pat Whitehouse and David St John Thomas which includes ("Locomotive stock as of 31 December 1947") on page 60 or thereabouts (similar books exist for the other three big four companies). If necessary, I could probably provide you with references to dozens of books that use the word "stock".
Furthermore, I do not understand the point about being "in stock" ambiguously referring to those currently existing ( as of 2008). They clearly were existing, in stock, at those particular historical points in time, and this is a simple observation. Where appropriate, sentences should therefore use the past tense of course, and there should be no confusion.
Also, being in stock is a bit more complicated than simply "existing". This is why it is better to use more accurate terminology. The use of jargon is necessary because these are technical articles and is far better than use of incorrect, confusing or non-common language. In this case, this jargon is standard terminology, widely known, and unambiguous, and can be understood by anyone.
As a further explanation there is capital stock and departmental stock. Where locomotives existed in both, (often they were transferred to departmental stock after withdrawal from capital stock), this can be a problem with listing them together. As a further example; Bullied's Leader locomotives were never taken into capital stock, despite 2 being completed, 1 steamed and others in various states of completeness. Another example is the 46202 Princess Anne rebuild, which after the Harrow & Wealstone smash remained for a few years in capital stock despite being stored at Crewe while they worked out what to do with her, before she was withdrawn and scrapped.
Stock represents the railway company's investments, and locomotives and other vehicles are expensive, so from a financial point this is obviously important - the railway companies had to try to keep track of their investments in order to pay their shareholders.
In conclusion, again, this is a question of professionalism. Whereas I am following professional railway historians and authors, MacNee seems to be trying to make this up as his goes along in a rather amateurish manner. MacNee's attempt to unnecessarily lump Tornado with the Peppercorn A1s simply because it is of the same type (though not historically of the same class) is disingenuous and fails to match any published source, which includes Tornado's owners! Tony May ( talk) 23:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Project members may be interested in a discussion taking place here about whether or not to consider 60163 Tornado as a member of the original class, or a replica. Comment from interested editors is welcomed as this has been referred to RFC but so far without comment from other editors. Please respond on the article talk page. ColourSarge ( talk) 08:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I recently tried to add a Polish translation tag to Riverhead (LIRR station), but it didn't work out. Can somebody fix it, and/or tell me how to do the same? ---- DanTD ( talk) 18:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Modeling 2' gauge railroads -- NE2 15:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Recently some new templates such as {{
Railway stations opened in 1803}}
have been created and are being added to articles (as a replacement for adding
Category:Railway stations opened in 1803). I question the use of these templates as they are adding, in my opinion, unnecessary clutter to articles. The navigation features provided by this template are already one click away in the category
Category:Railway stations opened in 1803. What do others think? --
Dr Greg (
talk) 13:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey ho - an idea that did not work.....
But please note that those of you have argued against it have included in the arguement that categorising stations by years is not a good idea (one idea is that by line is better). So not only did you argue against my experiment, but you have also argued against the status quo of adding categories by year, and adding dated commons categories references on the category page.
I am disappointed that Dr Greg did not come back into the discussion after starting it.
As far as I am concern the subject is NOW CLOSED, and I will tidy up behind myself in the next day or so. -- Stewart ( talk | edits) 23:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a current discussion on
WT:VANCOUVER about removing the heading, "The next station is..." on articles. I don't know how many articles have this heading, but
OlEnglish decided to remove the headings on
SkyTrain (Vancouver) stations. Any thoughts and comments would be appreciated. Thanks and cheers. -- signed by
SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.
24 spell my name backwards on 06:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed a more detailed scope for this project at WP:RR#SCOPE. Thoughts and opinions welcome.
(For context: we previously had no scope other than "trains, railways, and railroads.")
AGK 22:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I've read over your changes, and they seem good and sensible to me. Choess ( talk) 03:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I propose to change this from "AAR reporting mark" to simply "reporting mark", since the latter is more commonly used, and there's no potential for confusion. Are there any objections? -- NE2 23:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Crossposted from
WT:UKRAIL, should anyone think this seems a bit familiar…
I've opened a
peer review on
Hellingly Hospital Railway – if anyone has any comments and/or suggestions, do feel free! Although it's short, and on a very obscure topic, I think this is actually quite a good article in striking the balance between "what would the general reader want to know?" and "don't oversimplify to the point of putting off people with specialist knowledge". Any comments welcome… –
iridescent 20:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone planning or already have plans for the change of identity of EWS.?
Should the EWS page have its 'is' changed to 'was'. Does anyone know if the EWS brand will effectively cease to exist after 1 Jan ? Thanks (and happy new year) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.88.238 ( talk) 12:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the new templates have been created for Baltimore Light Rail station articles. It appears that whoever did it just wanted to change the names of the templates because nothing else is changed except for the colors on the rail color box templates. Either they are now white or they have disappeared (something which has occurred before). Is there more to this template change or are we just faced with the same problem we had months ago? Murjax ( talk) 18:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I say that Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Rail transport in Germany task force should actually be a Child wikiproject, rather than a task force within TWP itself, like that of Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways, Wikipedia:WikiProject NZR, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains in Japan. ---- DanTD ( talk) 04:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
A few tramway list redirects are up for deletion. Comments welcme at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 January 3#Tramway list redirects. Simply south not SS, sorry 16:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I do not attempt, in making this comment, to wade in and attempt to force change in this project; I have been an active contributor to Railway-related articles—but not to this project, despite being a registered member—and simply strive to put this impressively active project to good use.
I've been tidying up the project page by removing clutter, updating the prose, restructuring, and rewriting as otherwise necessary; I would invite other editors to review my changes and build on them as necessary.
I suspect I may not be going far enough, however. Using the exceptionally successful WikiProject Military history as a model to emulate, we may wish to look into selecting a few active contributors as co-ordinators to guide the authoring of en:wiki's railway articles in tandem with a structured WikiProject; would some co-ordinators be an idea this project's members would consider?
I will present specifics if my proposal is not immediately shot down as absurd. :-)
AGK 21:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to add the data for continuous tractive effort for a variety of locomotives...
On this page http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/British-Rail-Class-09 it gives 8,800 lbf at 11.6 mph, the speed information is not present on wikipedia - but isn't this page just a mirror of the wikipedia site??
Anyone know what's going on here? Obviously I can't use a mirror of wikipedia as a reference for wikipedia.. Has anyone got a reliable reference for this figure. Thanks. (Data for other locos also appreciated if it can be referenced...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.85.58 ( talk) 17:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I just learned of a derailment of an Amtrak train in Buffalo Grove, Illinois. I was close to adding this event to the Buffalo Grove (Metra) article, but I paused for a moment, because I didn't think Metra shared the North Central Service line with Amtrak. I see, of course that the article says it's a freight train, but my local news outlet said it was Amtrak train. What gives? ---- DanTD ( talk) 03:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
For a while I have been partially transcribing the ICC valuation reports, mainly the corporate history and development of fixed physical property (see Beech Creek Railroad for an example of the latter), at User:NE2/valuations and subpages. They are useful not only as sources, but also for "what links here" to find what happened to a former company. Would it be a good idea to move the pages to Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/valuations and subpages? -- NE2 03:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm announcing that I've just created the Category:Illinois and Indiana rail succession templates category. I'd like to be able to move the succession templates for Newark City Subway and Hudson-Bergen Light Rail as subcategories for the Category:New Jersey Transit succession templates, but the site isn't letting me do it. ---- DanTD ( talk) 19:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
How the hell are all these stations getting succession template categories that I can't find when I try to remove them?!?! ---- DanTD ( talk) 19:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I see you must've also got rid of the British rail succession templates, but I noticed before that there were 21 subcategories, and now there are only 19. What happened to the other two? ---- DanTD ( talk) 22:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I finally added the one for Category:Texas rail succession templates. Can I be assured this won't screw anything up? ---- DanTD ( talk) 06:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)