Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2024

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Looking for sources.

Hello All, I am currently looking for sources for the following pages relating to the Isle of Man railway system; Year of Railways, Isle of Man Railway stations, Isle of Man Railway level crossings and points of interest. I am loathe to nominate these articles for deletion based on how much information is in these articles but I cannot find any sources myself. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Tooncool64 (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Tooncool64 If you haven't tried already, these books are available on the Internet Archive to borrow:
others available are:
Registration for the Internet Archive is free, and then you can borrow each book for an hour, but you can refresh that each hour anyway. The important thing to remember is if you finish before the time is up, to return the book to the library, otherwise it ceases to let you borrow items later. There is also a template for the IA: <ref>{{Internet Archive|id=ID|name=NAME|page=PAGE}}</ref> The template page is here.
There is no access-date parameter (which I find odd, but there will be some reason for it). Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
@Tooncool64: Also try these Middleton Press books in their "Narrow Gauge Branch Lines" series:
Between them, the first four of these cover the whole of the island's railways, including every station (but not necessarily the level crossings). If out of stock at Middleton Press, your local public library should be able to obtain them on inter-library loans. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pomona station (California)#Requested move 12 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pomona station (California)#Requested move 12 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

British Railways or British Rail ?

I'm seeing a lot of moves like this recently: British Rail DP1 British Rail Mark 1. These are, of course, incorrect anachronisms. The justification seems to be given as 'consistency'. Yet when did consistency override accuracy, WP:V etc. ?

@Danners430: @YorkshireExpat: @Adumbrativus: Andy Dingley (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The naming convention really predates my involvement with the project - I've left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways to try and get some of the older editors involved in the discussion over here. Danners430 (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Andy Dingley, as the closer of the requested moves British Railways Mark 1 → British Rail Mark 1 and British Railways Mark 2 → British Rail Mark 2, I take no personal position. If you want me to revert the closures and reopen the RMs to present your arguments/evidence, let me know. Or if you're not asking for that, and you just want to coordinate what to do next on this Wikproject page, that's fine too. Adumbrativus (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME should be the decider really, but WP:CONSISTENT does exist of course. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
So British Rail Mark 1 now opens with "British Rail Mark 1 is the family designation for the first standardised designs of railway carriages built by British Railways" which obviously doesn't match. They were built by British Railways for most of their production run; I wouldn't have moved this one. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Free access to The Railway Magazine

Would you like to have free access to the full set of back issues of The Railway Magazine though the Wikipedia Library? If you are eligible for a Wikipedia Library account, please upvote this request.

Even if you already have access through some other means, your upvote will help to secure free access for other Wikimedia volunteers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Upvoted. For those (like me) unaccustomed to the Wikipedia Library, you have to click the 'Log in' button at the top right of the page, then click the bar that says 'Login via Wikipedia. Then the Upvote button will appear next to each suggestion. -- Verbarson  talkedits 22:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Upvoted. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Upvoted. Although, as somebody who pays for a monthly print copy, I think that I already qualify for direct access. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dadar Central–Ratnagiri Passenger#Requested move 17 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dadar Central–Ratnagiri Passenger#Requested move 17 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The articles on electro-pneumatic brakes are a mess

We have an article on the Electro-pneumatic brake system on British railway trains and an entirely US-focused article on Electronically controlled pneumatic brakes. What we need is one article about electro-pneumatic brakes in general that covers the various varieties found worldwide, that could include the content of the existing articles. Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Walden–Wallkill Rail Trail

I have nominated Walden–Wallkill Rail Trail for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. 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 "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Southeastern (train operating company 2006–2021)#Requested move 16 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Southeastern (train operating company 2006–2021)#Requested move 16 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Passenger route sections in Italian railway station articles

Greetings, editors! I would like to invite your comments in a discussion I've opened on the routes section found in the articles of Italian railway stations. You can join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Italy#Routes in railway station articles. Your expertise and thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

South Eastern Railway

I boldly merged and redirected the disambig at South Eastern Railway to Southeast (disambiguation)#Rail transport as it was a near complete subset. However, now I'm wondering if I shouldn't have gone the other way and expanded the more specifically-titled page to become a set index of railways with "South East" or "South Eastern" (with various spacings) in their name? There are at least a couple of US and one Australian that are the "Something & South Eastern". I'll leave a note for the disambiguation project about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I started a similar discussion about “Northern/Southern/Eastern/Western etc Railway/Railroad” a while ago, which is now in the WT:WPDAB talk archives which might be of interest. Fork99 (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd completely overlooked "railroad". Southeastern Railroad appears to be the only relevant article, so I've added links to and from the dab page. I agree with PamD's suggestion in the discussion you linked to combine "South East", "South Eastern", "Southeastern"/"Line"/"Railway", "Railroad"/etc into one dab page (unless there is a need to split for size reasons). Thryduulf (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Minimum railway curve radius source

Unfortunately, the important formulas and examples in Minimum railway curve radius, first added here in October 2009, are unsourced or insufficiently sourced. Without reliable sources for the formulas, it is hard for me to tell if the formula was real or original research: if the latter was true then the factual accuracy of the entire article could be in doubt. --Minoa (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Repeated and unexplained insertion of dubious content. Jc86035 (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Maidstone line#Requested move 27 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Maidstone line#Requested move 27 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Bergen Line

Bergen Line has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

California High-Speed Rail

There is a discussion currently going on Talk:California High-Speed Rail#Clean-up and Harmonisation about potential revisions to the article, which has evolved in an often unorganized fashion over the years. Looking for editors experienced with rail articles who may be able to give some advice or even help out with the effort – particularly in terms of notability guidelines and what should and shouldn't be included. I will be a regular contributor to this project, but I've only edited a limited amount of rail articles in the past so I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs. Thank you, Shannon [ Talk ] 19:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Request: Protected Status for Rio Grande 223

The Rio Grande 223 article has had several extensive edits with unsourced claims and marginally related tangents via User:DTParker1000 over the last few months. This included using an outdated restoration report by John Bush implying the locomotive's current restoration status in a August 2023 revision [1], an extensive off topic tangent written in a non-encyclopedic tone of voice about the history of the Rio Grande added in January 2024 along with an unsourced claim about the styles of restoration Ogden City is considering for the locomotive [2].

This article requires protected status to prevent future edits from veering off topic and into speculation about the locomotive's potential restoration. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Xboxtravis7992: You need to make this request at WP:RFPP. Fork99 (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, I will look there and at some other templates to see if I can find how to best resolve the issue. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Further information, I have begun digging through past articles and I found this example Rio Grande 268 which does not confirm to quality standard guidelines. It seems much of the text here was the source of self-plagiarized fluff words that the author copied into the Rio Grande 223 article as well as D & RG Narrow Gauge Trestle. I am trying to clean up the older articles to the best of my ability, but Rio Grande 268 requires clean up from the foundation up due to it's quality issues. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with Xboxtravis7992 in his characterization of my recent posts on Wikipedia articles "Rio Grande 223," "D&RG Narrow Gauge Trestle" and "Rio Grande 268."
His charges against me are baseless and are nonsense.
Below is a recent exchange between the two of us. Judge for yourself which one of us makes more sense.
He sent me the three messages below:
February 2024[edit]
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Rio Grande 223. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.
Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at D & RG Narrow Gauge Trestle, you may be blocked from editing. Text self-plagiarized from text in Rio Grande 223 article with arbitrary tangent about railroad's general history
--Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Rio Grande 268. Same self-plagiarized text of fluff words from Rio Grande 223 and D & RG Narrow Gauge Trestle articles previously mentioned
--Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was my response to him:
You accuse me of "deliberately introducing incorrect information" and "vandalizing" Wikipedia. That charge is complete nonsense.
You state that if I believe the information I added was correct I should "cite references or sources." Yet, that is precisely what I did. I included citations for every single paragraph that I wrote.
You apparently think that my sources are incorrect, but you offer nothing to refute them.
Instead of offering ANYTHING to contradict ANY of the 11 sources I cited, you simply deleted the entire seven paragraphs that I wrote on the "Rio Grande 223" article (and you made the same sweeping deletion on the D&RG Narrow Gauge Trestle article).
Your actions are completely unreasonable and without any scholarly basis. DTParker1000 (talk) 04:36, 17
He then sent me this:
February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed paragraphs were self-plagiarism of text in Rio Grande 268 article, with noticeable errors in citation quality, generalization, broad claims and weasel words. In addition removed images in the Rio Grande 223 article included copyrighted Otto Perry photos owned by the Denver Public Library collection, and further copyrighted material has been noted as having been uploaded from the Otto Perry collection to other pages. For further discussion please discuss with fellow WikiProject Trains editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains under the Administrator Request: Protected Status for Rio Grande 223 tab. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was my response:
Your removed my text because of "self-plagiarism?" There is no such thing as "self-plagiarism." I'll buy you a dictionary if you like. Plagiarism is taking and using the work of another and passing it off as one's own.
In other words, you are removing my text because I failed to give credit to myself for writing it.
Sheesh. What nonsense.
You accuse me of making "noticeable errors in citation quality, generalization, broad claims and weasel words." Yet, you offer no examples whatsoever.
Speaking of broad claims and generalizations...
I, on the other hand, provided citations for everything I wrote. Perhaps you could learn from that.
Now, you go on to start deleting pictures I provided claiming copyright infringement. If the photo is old enough, it CAN'T be copyrighted. Just because it is posted someplace and with the word "copyright" attached to it doesn't make it valid. This is made clear on the Wikimedia Commons pages. DTParker1000 (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
If anyone should be blocked from changing these articles it is Xboxtravis7992, not me.
I will be happy to discuss this further if needed. Please advise me if I should be doing so in some other forum. Thanks so much for your attention to this matter. I appreciate it. DTParker1000 (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks but please be aware that most people are not going to read a wall of text. There is no reason to copy/paste comments from somewhere else to here. It would be much better to focus on one issue and explain why your edits were justified. That would allow others to give opinions on that one proposed edit. After that, another issue could be considered, etc. Johnuniq (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
To give a clearer view of why I stated those as issues and to clarify my actions:
Self plagiarism:
Duplicate publication
When recycling your own work can get you into trouble
US Copyright date information:
Public domain in the United States
Information Library of Congress
Otto Perry was roughly 35 years old at the time of current US Copyright expiration for works prior to 1929. His photos from then until his death in 1970, including the majority of his photographs of the Rio Grande narrow gauge photos in the 1940's fall under copyright protection. Without a rights release from the right holders of Perry's work (be that his living estate or the Denver Public Library archives) we can assume that even as "old photos" they are still under Copyright protection unless Otto Perry failed to extend copyright protection prior to 1989 when the laws changed to their current 95 year term length. Wikipedia has operated under the assumption Otto Perry photographs are under copyright in the past as seen in this template. I have noted similar usages of photos from the Friends of the Cumbres and Toltec archives and the Colorado Railroad Museum archives uploaded and used by this user which flirt with copyright expiration risks.
Broad Claims and Citation Errors
To use some sample text from the Rio Grande 268 article to highlight my concerns:
  1. "Engine 268 was part of this order, the largest order of narrow-gauge engines ever made." The Baldwin 10-12-D orders from France for use in World War 1 outpace the orders from the D&RG by a wide margin. Without further research claiming "the largest order ever" is to broad of a scope without further research.
  2. "Now farming became profitable. Now ranching became profitable. Now mining became profitable." While the railroad was certainly successful in opening the economy of the west, this argument is again to broad to constrain to the history of specific engines. Furthermore the existence of the Union Pacific, Central Pacific, Denver South Park & Pacific, Utah Northern, Santa Fe, and other railroads within the market served by the Rio Grande make the claim that the Rio Grande itself played a critical role in opening the region too broad to claim. The repetition of statements doesn't follow encyclopedic writing style and are an example of weasel text.
  3. "In the 1880s, the Denver & Rio Grande was expanding rapidly. It was hastily constructing a main line to Ogden, Utah." The Denver & Rio Grande terminated in Grand Junction, Colorado and the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railway continued construction westward as a separate company based in the Utah Territory. After William Palmer was expulsed from the D&RG, he retained control over the Utah based D&RGW.Ry transforming it into the Rio Grande Western a standard gauge line that met the Colorado Midland in Grand Junction. The two companies would not be a unified D&RG again until the 1900's at which point the only remaining Rio Grande owned narrow gauge in Utah would have been the Little Cottonwood Canyon line. Stating the D&RG was building to Ogden, although it and the D&RGW.Ry briefly shared the same corporate roots, lacked specificity as to the accurate history of the Rio Grande's expansion westward.
  4. "The railroad dramatically transformed Utah and Colorado." Again too broad of a statement. This can just as easily be applied to the Central Pacific, Union Pacific or Kansas Pacific Railroad. It has little bearing on the history of the locomotive itself.
  5. "There are well over a thousand steam engines still in existence in the United States (on display in parks, museums and in operation).The vast majority of these were built in the 20th century." Weasel text that is irrelevant to the subject of the article. There are over millions of people in the United States, however when writing an article on a pop cultural figure we wouldn't start off by pointing out how many other people live here; what bearing does this statistic have on the actual locomotive's history? Why does it matter that 268 is a 19th Century engine instead of a 20th Century one beyond sentimentality? Why was the same text used for two other engines that the Rio Grande classified as the same class, especially considering their grouping together as a class is a result of later power schemes on the Rio Grande and as built a Grant 2-8-0 such as 223 would be considered a different machine than the Baldwin 2-8-0's such as 264? It is comparable to saying a 1960's Mustang and a 1960's Camaro are the same car just because they both have V-8 Engines and are "mid-century Muscle Cars."
Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I know I am digging up this dead horse again, but looking at the changes to Rio Grande 268 and I don't feel like the added citations fix the core issues. A few of my concerns (from the latest February 20th revision):
  1. At least two citations (#15 and #33) are to Wikipedia itself and not first or third party sources.
  2. Citation #22 is to User:DTParker1000's own post on another website.
  3. Multiple citations rely on the same author, Jerry Day's articles in The Prospector, which make me concerned that even when accurate third party sources are being used they are extremely limited to one perspective.
  4. The citations notably from Robert Athearn, Lucius Beebe & Charles Clegg, and Gilbert Lathrop don't allay my complaints of weasel words and fluff text since that might as well be the holy trinity of railroad fluff text in my personal opinion (not to mention the many complaints elsewhere regarding Beebe & Clegg's sloppy research suggesting they make poor sources to use in general). Regardless, the tone of Athearn, Beebe & Clegg and Lathrop while often making for a good story fail to imitate the encyclopedic voice of Wikipedia and support the fluff text used in the article.
Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Xboxtravis7992 is wrong. My response to his accusations is below:
1. I have no idea what he is talking about on his "Item #1." The citations he lists are not to "Wikipedia itself" as he claims.
Citation #15 was to the book "A Ticket to Ride the Narrow Gauge," by Herbert Danneman.
Citation #33 was to the book "High Road to Promontory," by George Kraus.
The section I submitted on the engine's historic significance was only 7 paragraphs long, yet it had 42 citations! Every one of them was to a book or a published article. None of them were to "Wikipedia itself" as xboxtravis7992 maintains.
2. Citation #22 was to the book "Rebel in the Rockies," by Robert G. Athearn. I presume what xboxtravis7992 is referring to is actually Citation #34, which was to an article I wrote entitled "The Significance of the Railroad," in the Ridgway Railroad Museum Newsletter. Just because I wrote the article doesn't mean that it is not factual, as xboxtravis7992 implies. This citation, by the way, was only one of three citations for the sentence in question. The other two were Athearns' book mentioned above, and Kraus's book, also mentioned above.
By the way, the sentence in question simply stated that railroad freight rates were lower than the cost of transport by wagon or on the back of a mule. This fact is so obvious as to belie the need for ANY citations. But regardless, instead of attempting to dispute the fact, xboxtravis7992 attacks the source.
3. Jerry B. Day is the highly respected author of three different articles on C-16 engines (D&RG 223 is a C-16 engine). I read recently that he is now in the process of writing a book on the subject. Again, xboxtravis7992 does not dispute the text, he simply attempts to attack the source.
4. Speaking of "fluff"... This is another example of xboxtravis7992 offering no refutation of the facts in the text, but merely making ad hominem attacks on the authors - in this case four of them. Sheesh.
When I was in school, we were taught that in a debate, it is fair to attack the opponent's facts or logic, but not to make personal attacks.
I stand by my text and citations. Xboxtravis7992, for reasons best known to himself, is displaying a pattern of finding any imaginable excuse to reduce or eliminate the section in this article on the historical significance of D&RG 223. This is the THIRD time he has done this.
The first time he did this, he disputed a couple of facts, and claimed that the historical significance section was inadequately sourced (even though it had sources cited for every single paragraph). Using this pretext, he then ELIMINATED the entire section.
I resubmitted it, and modified some of the text and doubled the number of sources.
Then, he ELIMINATED the entire section again, claiming it was "extraneous." He replaced the section on the historical significance of the engine with a section going into exceedingly meticulous detail on the mechanical history of the engine and its movements. Speaking of "extraneous" information... He included nothing on its historical significance.
I strongly disagree with the editorial philosophy displayed by xboxtravis7992. If we were to apply his definition of "extraneous," then the Wikipedia article on the Cotton Gin should be limited to the mechanical history of the relic, and not include a section on its historical significance.
Similarly, if we apply the editorial philosophy of xboxtravis7992, then the Wikipedia article on the Titanic should only be history of the ship itself, and not include information on its historical significance.
He wants the article on D&RG 223 to go on for page after page on the mechanical aspects and movements of the engine, but can't stomach 7 short paragraphs on the engine's historical significance?
And, then he accuses ME of being "unencyclopedic?" Sheesh.
This is nonsense.
Now, he accuses my section on the historical significance of D&RG 223 as being "fluff" and he attacks my citations. This is also nonsense. He is simply finding any excuse he can to eviscerate the section on the engine's historical significance.
As xboxtravis7992 himself admits, he is "digging up this dead horse" again. Yes, he is. And, he is wrong to do so.
I disagree with his editorial policy. I have cited multiple sources, and they are written by respected authors. Xboxtravis7992 doesn't even bother to challenge the accuracy of the text. He just accuses it of being "fluff." I strongly disagree with this accusation, and would appreciate it if a panel of other Wikipedia editors could review this series of malicious edits by xboxtravis7992 and put a stop to it.
Thank you. DTParker1000 (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
@Xboxtravis7992 @DTParker1000: No one is going to read this huge mountain of text, as was already pointed out above. Just be straight forward about the dispute.
This is probably the wrong venue to complain about a significant content dispute, I would suggest you go to WP:Dispute resolution first and carefully read the instructions for either asking for a third opinion, mediation, OR if urgent and blatant policy violations/editor conduct are in question, then go to WP:ANI (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) directly.
If this goes to ANI, please read the instructions there before making a editor conduct complaint against another editor. I would also suggest reading a few closed/settled archived discussions to see how ANI discussions usually work.
Also, note that WP:Assume good faith is one of Wikipedia's guidelines in regards to editor conduct. Fork99 (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, I will consider moving it to Dispute Resolution. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion has still be going on and off, and I admit escalating it here in hindsight was probably no the best way to handle my concerns with the DRGW 223 article.
However, I am wondering if any neutral members of WikiProjectTrains would be willing to join in on Talk:Rio Grande 223. I have ideas on an approach to the article, but I feel like neutral voices will be needed from outside observers to help find consensus. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Japan's Keikyu Wikipedia Page Concerns

There are missing pages in the Keikyu retired rolling stock. These missing pages being the Keikyu 230, 400, and 500 Series. I also have concerns that the Keikyu website and the Keikyū Main Line websites aren't merged, since they are very similar. ThisUsernameThatIsNowTaken (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The Keikyu article covers the company, and the Keikyu Main Line article covers the railway line. They should not be merged.
Not to mention that if you want an article created, be bold and start it yourself. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Iarnród Éireann#Requested move 16 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Iarnród Éireann#Requested move 16 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. JuniperChill (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Article Merge Potential

Pages East Broad Top Railroad Mikado locomotives, East Broad Top 12 and East Broad Top 16 all carry significant WP:OVERLAP in their subjects. Would it make sense to merge the two individual locomotive articles into the larger article on the 6 EBT Mikados? I don't know if there is enough unique in the 12 and 16 articles to justify such overlap between pages. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I just disambiguated a few links to dab Seongnam station. On any other topic, this would have been a simple matter of replacing the links by piped links to Seongnam station (Incheon), taking a minute or two with DisamAssist or ten minutes manually. However, railway stations have to be special and different. They use arcane templates such as {{stn}} and {{Adjacent stations}}, which require the editor to unravel a complex web of templates and modules before they can attempt any sort of fix or improvement. Despite my longstanding interest in railways and many years' experience of disambiguation, templates and modules, I spent well over an hour disentangling these links and am still not sure I got everything right. I could have spent that time much more profitably fixing a hundred legible and transparent wikilinks on any non-rail topic. Although I am sure that everyone involved has acted in good faith, the casual observer could be forgiven for thinking that the system was designed to make the articles as difficult as possible for anyone other than their owners to edit. I have never dared to replace the templates by legible links deliberately, and when I once did so accidentally (using a now-defunct tool which didn't show diffs clearly) the changes met with a hostile reception. I know you will never change your ways, but I do want you to understand that this project is unique in making its articles so inaccessible, and causes major problems to generalist editors, most of whom will just give up. Certes (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll just say for my part that I still have User:Certes/Reports/Ambiguous rail links watchlisted and that I check it every morning, though apparently a few hours after you do. Mackensen (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Great Train eXpress

Hi. regarding Great Train eXpress, I need some expert opinion on whether this is now considered as part of the Seoul subway system or not. This article is confusing, as it says the operator will be Seoul Metro which runs the traditional metro lines in Seoul and that GTX-A runs entirely in tunnel. So it is subway or not. Should it be featured in Seoul Metropolitan Subway article, or not? Thanks a lot. Xia talk to me 14:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge requests

I've started requests to merge Pennsylvania Lines LLC and New York Central Lines LLC into Norfolk Southern Railway and CSX Transportation, respectively. I have also proposed a merge of Regional railroad and List of U.S. Class II railroads. Editors are invited to comment on all three requests. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Capitol Limited (B&O train)

Capitol Limited (B&O train) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for California Southern Railroad

California Southern Railroad has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for SR Lord Nelson class

SR Lord Nelson class has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for LNER Gresley Classes A1 and A3

LNER Gresley Classes A1 and A3 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Category for alleged train incidents?

See Nowy Dwór Mazowiecki train disaster and Rzepin train disaster. I did some c/e - they were described as facts where in fact they seem more like old fake news (CIA?) or urban legends. Do we have any categories better than Category:Unexplained phenomena? Note that other categories are for confirmed incidents (ex. Category:Railway accidents in 1952). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Input needed on requested move for People mover to Automated people mover

Please visit the discussion at Talk:People mover#Requested move 23 April 2024. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Amagasaki derailment#Requested move 28 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Amagasaki derailment#Requested move 28 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Gulf & Atlantic Railways

Hello, WikiProject,

This WikiProject doesn't look active but if anyone does happen by, could you check out this article? We might be looking at a possible Merge discussion as a new editor is renaming the article a variation of another existing train article. Thanks if you can help. Liz Read! Talk! 17:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Liz appearances are deceiving! Mackensen (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Railway nationalization

At present, Railway nationalization has its first word in its name using the non-American word, whereas the second word uses the American spelling. The article also inconsistently switches between British and American English, notwithstanding the obvious need to use American English for discussion of North American railroads. Considering MOS:ENGVAR, any thoughts on how to standardise (or standardize) this article a bit? Fork99 (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

My understanding of MOS:ENGVAR is that one standard of English should be followed throughout. That would be British English, given the international character of the subject. Mackensen (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I've just WP:BOLDly made the move to Railway nationalisation and changed "-ize" to "-ise" and "-iza" to "-isa". Please feel free to let me know if you disagree and/or revert so we can continue discussion. Fork99 (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
It looks like it might have been first written in Canadian English to me. I never noticed Canadian, it looks sort of half British and half US. I doubt that anyone would care much, I just used to try for ENGVAR (Hint: put a flag on the talk page). Sammy D III (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sydney R-Class Tram#Requested move 4 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sydney R-Class Tram#Requested move 4 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ultra (rapid transit)#Requested move 29 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ultra (rapid transit)#Requested move 29 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Japan railway line/station name and place name in general

Currently, there is a discussion on Talk:Sōtetsu Shin-yokohama Line about the spelling of the title. I would like to request broader comments to discuss how to address the apparent lack of grammatical consistency in Japanese names when utilizing hyphens and capitalization.

For context, Japanese organizations do not have a consistent approach to handling hyphens and capitalization in place names. The same organization can have various iterations; for example, the Yokohama municipal government website uses "Shin Yokohama," "Shin-Yokohama," and "Shin-yokohama" on different occasions for translating "新横浜".[3] JR, the largest railway organization in Japan, consistently uses "Shin-(Capitalized stem)" in all of their "Shin-" station signage,[4] but this is not adhered to by other organizations such as Sotetsu,[5] Tokyu,[6] Yokohama Municipal Subway,[7] and the government department responsible for road signs,[8] which, in turn, use "Shin-(all lowercase stem)".

While other commenters prefer to follow JR's practice, I am in favor of replacing the hyphen with a space and keeping the proper name capitalized. My rationale is that "Shin," which means "New," is rarely followed by a hyphen in Anglophone countries such as "New York", "New Zealand", "New Cross", etc. JR's practice is unusual, no less than other Japanese organizations, if not ungrammatical in English. I fail to understand the rationale of making an exception for Japanese proper names, if the whole point is to adhere to English grammar and English naming convention.

Another issue is that if we should rename all Japanese railway line and station articles to use the lowercase "line" and "station", similar to UK railway articles. I know there was a consensus about the change to use the lowercase "line" and "station" but am unable to find the archived discussion and relevant policy page. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

While I'd love to hear more voices on this, let's try to keep this discussion on Talk:Sōtetsu Shin-yokohama Line instead of rehashing the same arguments here.
Whether we lowercase line/station would potentially require reworking basically every train-related article for Japan. I have no strong opinions either way, but this is an entirely separate topic that needs a better forum that the talk page of any obscure regional line. Jpatokal (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Lowercase "line/station" aside, this discussion is not just about the Sotetsu line article but also a broader issue that will affect many articles, not least those with "Shin Yokohama" in their names (Shin-Yokohama, Shin-Yokohama Station, Kita Shin-Yokohama Station, Sōtetsu Shin-yokohama Line, Tōkyū Shin-yokohama Line, Shin-Yokohama Rāmen Museum, Shin Yokohama Prince Hotel, Shin-Yokohama Park.) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I have more to say on this topic but have not yet had a chance to post my reply at the main discussion. Very briefly, it is important to note that there is a preexisting guideline regarding how many of these things are written in English on the English Wikipedia: MOS:JAPAN. Things like the systematic capitalization and spacing of "Shin-" have been discussed there since at least 2006 (note that this is not a problem that only pertains to trains), and you can also read many past discussions about why the station names are capitalized. Dekimasuよ! 03:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I am not against the capitalization of proper names; my issue lies with the hyphen. MOS:JAPAN does not address the hyphen issue concerning prefixes like "Shin-" and directional indicators like "Naka-", "Kita-" etc. The closest guideline in the MOS page pertains to Japanese islands, which recommends against hyphenation. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I will be sure to reply again later at the main discussion. For "Shin-", checking the archives on the talk page may be helpful, as it has been discussed more specifically there. Dekimasuよ! 06:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Australian railway station codes

Hello, I have several questions related to Victorian station identifier codes, but please direct me to another place if one exists.

  • All but two Victorian stations have an identifier code in the infobox, e.g. Malvern railway station, Melbourne is "MAL". What are these codes called, i.e. is there a name for the system? Looking for something analogous to IATA code for airports.
  • Is there a central database where I can look up a station's code? It doesn't appear to be on the PTV website, e.g. "MAL" is absent from the Malvern station's page. It's on the VicSig webpage, but that site's pages sometimes lack the codes.
  • Huntly and Sherwood Park don't have any infobox codes at all. Any idea if they have them (and the articles are just missing them), or if the stations have no codes at all? Many stations have signs near the station (apparently for the sake of drivers and other railway staff), but Huntly and Sherwood Park are hundreds of kilometres away from me, so I can't just go there and look for signs. VicSig doesn't give any codes for them.
  • BEN and CFD are used twice, for Benalla and Bentleigh, and Caulfield and Clarkefield respectively. How do I ascertain what's wrong? I go through Bentleigh and Caulfield routinely, but again, the others aren't near me. It seems absurd that these codes would be used twice, since that defeats the purpose of unique identifier codes.

Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello Nyttend.
I'm not sure what those codes are officially called, but those codes are used for internal identification of stations. Those codes are not meant for public use, and you won't find them on the PTV website or the Metro Trains Melbourne website. VicSig is a railfan website and is therefore not a reliable source. The only somewhat reliable source I can find talking about those codes is Daniel Bowen's blog, at [9]. He says that "Every station (and a good many other places, such as passing loops and sidings) in the state has a three letter code, used in railway circles. Occasionally you’ll see them creep into the public arena". He also lists all the station codes, but they are sourced from Wikipedia, which means we can't use that list as a source.
In my opinion, those codes should be entirely removed from Wikipedia. They are generally only used internally and there aren't really any useable sources for those codes. As for why they are even on Wikipedia in the first place, at least some of them (possibly most of them) were added by User:Sw2nd around 2012.
By the way, if you aren't aware, there is a WikiProject Australian Transport where there might be some other people who are more familiar on this matter than me. Steelkamp (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm in full agreement with Steelkamp here. Internal codes don't belong in infoboxes; only the rare systems that use them in public-facing materials (notably Amtrak) should have them listed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gulf & Atlantic Railways#Requested move 8 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gulf & Atlantic Railways#Requested move 8 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for SR Q class

SR Q class has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for SR V class

SR V class has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Electric-steam locomotive

The electric-steam locomotive article has been moved to electric–steam locomotive (en-dash instead of hyphen). I'm pretty sure that the hyphen is correct. Should the move be reverted? Mjroots (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it should be a hyphen, it is a compound word not a from/to situation. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I've moved it back to the former title. Mjroots (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

ok I'm kidding but please tell me if there's a good place to ask bc I know someone knows this immediately but I'm failing Google:

What train did Underground Railroad passenger Charlotte Gilchrist take to get to Canada in 1854? I'm pretty sure she stopped in St. Albans (town), Vermont and Rouses Point, New York. TY for any guidance you can offer. jengod (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jengod: The most likely route from Rouses Point into Canada would have been the Champlain and St. Lawrence Railroad, which enters Canada just a mile from Rouses Point, though it's possible she instead went west on the Ogdensburg and Lake Champlain Railroad and crossed on one of its connecting lines. If she arrived in Rouses Point by train, it would have been on the Vermont Central Railroad, which passed through St. Albans. You can see these lines on commons:File:1854 Rail Road Map of the New England States.jpg. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Incredible. Transportation history at its finest. Thank you so much and I'm going to add this map to the article, TY so much for surfacing it @Pi.1415926535:. <3 jengod (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Identifying an early part of the NYC subway system

I've been working on Richard Harper Laimbeer, whose NYT obit says "He was one of the commissioners appointed to determine the present route of the first Interborough subway between City Hall, New York and Borough Hall, Brooklyn". I haven't found any other references to this yet and would like to know exactly which part of the modern subway system this is so I can add that detail to his article. Does anyone here know what this refers to? Thanks for any help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: That should be the Joralemon Street Tunnel (Lexington Avenue Line to the Eastern Parkway Line). Cards84664 16:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks; added a link to that article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to contribute in new article, List of busiest railway stations

Hi. Gare du Nord states that "It is the busiest railway station in Europe by total passenger numbers, and the busiest outside Japan". I tried to check, but there is no world ranking reasonably up to date, so I created List of busiest railway stations as a humble stub. To make it right requires A LOT of work, you are most invited :) --Jbaranao (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

County Durham articles

Hi User: Pi.1415926535 redirected four stations at Demons Bridge railway station, Stillington railway station, Simpasture railway station and Saltersgate Cottage railway station. I've written these using sites like Disused Stations, Historic Rail Maps and some other news articles. Can we see these as being notable or are there any other links needed like books articles etc worth linking? DragonofBatley (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

None of these articles meet the notability guideline because there is not significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Adding sources that scarcely mention the stations (if at all) does not demonstrate notability. I've nominated them for deletion:
Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mezhdunarodnaya (Moscow Metro)#Requested move 7 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mezhdunarodnaya (Moscow Metro)#Requested move 7 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 13:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Parameter Tagging for Article Assessment

Hi! I'm a relatively new wikieditor (be kind!) and I have been working on rating WikiProject Trains articles. I'm using WP:RATER and I see where I can add parameters. Can someone give me an explanation of the parameters within WikiProject Trains? Some I can figure out myself but others I'm not sure about. Other questions: Is there a difference between "needs-map" "map-needed" "map-requested"? Should Stations be marked as a parameter within WikiProject Trains or Project Stations? Is there a good definition of what counts as a subway? Is it always underground? Thank you!! Pencilsforall (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Pencilsforall: The various parameters should all be documented at Template:WikiProject Trains#Parameters. As shown at Template:WikiProject Trains#Aliases, |meeds-map= is the primary parameter, the others are aliases with lower precedence. {{WikiProject Stations}} isn't often used for railway stations, for which setting |stations=yes in the {{WikiProject Trains}} is normally sufficient. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Some of these parameters are duplicates, as a result of templates being merged or different terminology being used in different parts of the world. When in doubt, try adding parameters manually and then previewing the result before submitting the edit, or copy formatting from established articles that are in good condition. I will say that I started out with doing assessments as a new editor, but quickly found it unrewarding compared to editing articles directly. It can seem intimidating at first, but improving articles is what servers our readers, 99% of whom will never even look at article talk pages or assessments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! This was helpful. Pencilsforall (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

GA review requests

I’ve recently nominated a steam locomotive page, Texas and Pacific 610, and I was wondering if anyone could take the time to look it over and let me know if it’s eligible for the Good Article grade or not. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

After an investigation it appears that the original version of Chesapeake and Ohio Railway is a copyright violation from the Chesapeake and Ohio Historical Society. Please see Talk:Chesapeake and Ohio Railway#Plagiarism for discussion. A complete rewrite may be necessary. Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

RtM of interest to US editors of this WP?

For info, I have initiated an RtM at Talk:Right-of-way (property access)#Requested move 23 June 2024 that proposes Right-of-way (property access) → Right of way (railroad) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Frisco Station#Requested move 8 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Frisco Station#Requested move 8 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Railway stations by company

Is there any guidance about whether "station" in this context means "depot", as in "building" or can it mean "place on a timetable where the train stopped" as in a location, not necessarily with an existing building? Thank you! Valfontis (talk) 04:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess anything where trains (passenger or freight) stop and which has some infrastructure related to this stop? Ymblanter (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! So former stations would be the same thing? A place named on the timetable where the train once stopped? I ask because the category people didn't like a similar category I created years ago that was similar and I had trouble explaining that "station" does not equal "depot". Could you define "infrastructure" in this context? For former stops it's hard to prove they had any. Maybe a train orders office, or a siding, but what if there's pretty much nothing there? I assume there would have been a sign. Valfontis (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
If the question is specifically for former stations, the list/category must define whether these are included. I would say whether anything from the former station still exists is irrelevant, what is relevant is whether at any time moment the object was defined as a station (and sources can demonstrate this). Ymblanter (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
The word "depot" has WP:ENGVAR issues. The U.S. meaning seems to be a small passenger station; there are two British meanings: one is a goods-only station (these range in size from the huge Somers Town goods depot in London down to some that consisted of one or two sidings plus an office), the other is a maintenance facility for locomotives and coaches. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Ymblanter and @Redrose64. Yup, I'm in the U.S. I've noticed that people who aren't into trains just assume if you say "station" that this means there was a structure with a sign on it with the name of the place that acted as a waiting room. The categories I was looking at didn't have any usage notes so I wondered if there had been a centralized discussion anywhere. I personally think station means "place where the train stops/stopped". Full stop, haha. Valfontis (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
This whole discussion does pose some questions. FWIW, "freight depot" is also a common term for a railroad freight house in the United States (e.x. this freight depot in Connecticut). Perhaps the resolution here is to split this into "railway passenger stations" and "railway freight stations", though I have a sneaking suspicion we have many times more articles on passenger stations than freight ones (let's put it this way, I have both the only GA and the only FA on a rail yard/freight facility in all of Wikipedia last I checked, while there's at least 200 passenger stations at GA status). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
I think that's overcategorization, honestly. And the defunct ones would take some research. The line I am thinking of stopped passenger service in 1960, and all service in the 1970s. I have no idea if they let passengers get off at every station. Just for context, in the American West, there are thousands of places that only have a name because there was a railway station there. Often a larger area is referred to by the name of the station, or an actual town will grow up around the station, but for WP:GEOLAND purposes, being a mere station is not enough. I put a former station cat on a redirect but I wanted to see if my usage was correct. (An AfD determined the place wasn't really a place per WP:GEOLAND. Fair enough, but it was a station.) Valfontis (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Editing map diagram for the North-South Commuter Railway

Hello, can I request that you edit a route-map template for the North-South Commuter Railway? For the New Clark City station, this should be underground, while the tracks will also run at grade before running elevated again, as well as an at-grade section beside a spur leading to Clark International Airport and transitioning into elevated again before a bridge above Clark Spur Road. Also, the spur line runs at grade up to Mabalacat Depot and a tunnel going to the airport station. Then, we put the elevated alignment above expressways like the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway, the NLEX Harbor Link and its C-3 to R-10 segment, Skyway Stage 3, and the CAVITEX C-5 Link. The spur to the depots is located south of Meycauayan station and north of Calamba station. Thank you!Jussie2024 (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jussie2024: - you are the best person to edit the diagram. I would suggest that you copy it to your sandbox, and work on it there. Just change one line of the diagram at a time, preview and if it looks good, save. That way you won't mess up. Icons in use can be found at C:Template:Bsicon. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Short descriptions

Wikipedia talk:Short description#Changing descriptions to a bland triviality, by heavy pruning of anything implicit from the name

Comments invited. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Joondalup line#Requested move 14 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Joondalup line#Requested move 14 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 22:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Newton Dale Halt railway station#Requested move 8 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Newton Dale Halt railway station#Requested move 8 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Original research / POV-pushing at Railway electrification

I don't want to go further into 3RR territory, so please can someone take a look at the recent addition to Railway electrification and make appropriate adjustments. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@10mmsocket: I've had a look at the cited source and could not find the 0.56% emissions claim from rail transport in 2021 in the US. The only thing I could find was The largest sources of transportation greenhouse gas emissions in 2022 were... and rail (2%). Fork99 (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @Mackensen as they reverted the IP's latest edit. Yeah, I agree that this is original research. Fork99 (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Took a look through the source cited. Even if the editor's claims are true, none of them are supported by the source. I agree that this is OR as well. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
A source saying that rail transportation has a somewhat negligible overall contribution to greenhouse gases in the United States cannot be used to support the claim that electrification would not reduce emissions. These are two entirely different claims. Mackensen (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

TransPennine Express has an RfC

TransPennine Express has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. JuniperChill (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

This is about changing the hatnotes on the TPE article. JuniperChill (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Chatsworth station#Requested move 17 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chatsworth station#Requested move 17 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Remaining 26 Template:S-line sub-templates

3 and a half years ago Template:S-line had 18335 transclusions. That number is now down to 1440 and 26 sub-templates. Anyone who is familiar with the remaining lines and can help finish this list off would be of great help.

Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Mostly Italy and the Czech Republic. As I think I mentioned somewhere before, the Italian route templates are about a decade out of date so it's not a 1-to-1 conversion job. Mackensen (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Help w historic railroads of Georgia (U.S. state)

Hello! Hoping this is an OK place to ask for help improving A. J. Orr and D. W. Orr. They were slave traders who were hired by several antebellum railroad companies in Georgia (U.S. state) to provide "hands" to build the tracks. I think I found one of correct links to the corporate successor of the company they worked for, but no luck figuring out South-Western Railroad and Milledgeville Railroad. Any guidance would be much appreciated! Thanks for looking and thanks in advance for any help you can offer. jengod (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Basil W. Duke

Basil W. Duke has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Midland Mainline#Requested move 9 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Midland Mainline#Requested move 9 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. JuniperChill (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Train Stop Priority

Hi all, I am currently looking into an extension of the Altamont corridor express and Amtrak San Joaquins as part of a rail agreement. I wanted to know, at a point where both trains have service, do I put the Altamont Corridor as the template style for the page here on wikipedia, or do I use the Amtrak template style? Cloudsarepretty (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Who owns the station? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
There's no hard-and-fast rule. Generally it comes down to whatever the most visible presence at the station is: whether one style of signage is used, who owns the station, whether one system runs by far the most trains, etc. It's also fine to omit the style parameter entirely. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

New source needed for BART annual ridership and List of United States rapid transit systems page

The source for the 2023 BART annual ridership and the entire source for List of United States rapid transit systems now leads to a 404. Needs a new source. I will try to go on Wayback machine, but please help me find a current source. Maybe from BART's own website? Alexysun (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Rewrite of JGR Class 150 from ja:国鉄150形蒸気機関車 on Japanese Wikipedia

(I understand this is better suited to Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains in Japan, where I have also posted this, but that project has recently been marked as Inactive, and I'm not sure that I will find anyone to help there.)

I have just finished rewriting the locomotive article JGR Class 150 almost completely, basing the rewrite on a translation of the Japanese version ja:国鉄150形蒸気機関車, including its list of sources cited. However, I have made many further edits for style and content, including rearranging some portions of text, and I also omitted a few parts of the Japanese version (mostly concerning appearances in modern media) as probably not wanted on the English Wikipedia.

I am still pretty sure about the basic correctness of the results, but I really want people to look this over, particularly people knowledgeable of Japanese railways and people fluent in both Japanese and English. My Japanese ability is, in my own judgment, non-existent; while I have learned some features of the language on my own, and I do know bits of vocabulary, I've never been anywhere near Japan and I'm pretty sure that I couldn't so much as read a road sign or ask a cop for help on my own. I'm utterly dependant on machine tools like Google Translate (carefully applied and checked — I'm well aware that it can't be simply trusted as is!), the "10ten" dictionary-lookup browser plugin (an invaluable aid), and Google Lens (for OCR-reading graphical Japanese text) to do something like this.

Unfortunately, the original Japanese article does not have inline citations of its sources, and none of those sources are online anyway (they're rather old and Japanese-only), so I haven't been able to check them directly. Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Colin Douglas Howell, does this article still need checking? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, please! I haven't done anything new with it since I posted that message, but it doesn't look like anyone else has really looked at it either. Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
@AlphaBetaGamma Sorry, when I wrote that reply, I forgot to ping you on it, so I'm doing that now. Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Weird thing to point out, but the ill seems a bit odd for me. The page leads to a page in jawiki describing events leading up to the first railway in Japan, so the title is probably appropriate when considering that, but another thing is that the jawiki article seems to be already translated in History of rail transport in Japan. Therefore, I've retargeted both links to that article instead. Will complete this in the next 24 hours if it goes smoothly.ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Design - Can't point out as the section seems to be different from the corresponding section in jawiki, and the section has no footnotes. Some similar statements are verified.
    • I have zero access to books, and therefore the statement that the stock might have entered service 2 days earlier is unable to be checked off. Although on the jawiki info box it does mention the date as the date of entering service, the mention of the date in the main part is... just not there. The rest looks good.
    All done. Well-made translation imo. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Line colors

Does anyone know how to change the line colors on the diagram maps? Template:Greenbush Line is very confusing to read, because the MBTA Red Line is shown in blue, and the commuter rail line is shown in red. (The normal system map color for MBTA Commuter Rail is a dark purple.) -- Beland (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The convention for RDTs is that red is for heavy rail and blue is for light rail. It is possible to use other colours, but there needs to be a consensus established to change the diagram first. Mjroots (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Where would be a good place to discuss the question and move toward consensus? I'm unsure if you mean there should be a consensus for this specific article, for all MBTA lines, or for systems that color-name or color-code their lines in general. -- Beland (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, what about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Boston Public Transit? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
That project is marked as semi-active and it looks like only one human has posted there in the past 7 years or so. I've posted a link to this thread there anyway. How would we go about changing this for MBTA lines, assuming no one objects? -- Beland (talk) 06:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
@Beland: I don't oppose such a change, but I'm not optimistic about it being worth the effort. If there is a consensus to change, then all the icons would need to be swapped into the desired color palette. If any of the correct color icons don't exist, then those would need to be uploaded (and any future modifications to the RDTs may require that as well.) It would only make sense to do if all of the relevant templates in Category:Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority line templates were converted - having a single RDT with a different scheme would not make sense. My off-the-cuff guess would be somewhere in the 40-80 hour range for a moderately skilled editor to do it all. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
@Beland: These are all of the different icons used in Template:Greenbush Line, including Template:MBTA South Station Quincy rail approach which forms the upper two-thirds of the diagram. They are divided into groups according to whether you can use them unchanged, whether you need to change some of the coloured portions, or all of them.
  • Spacers (no need for change)
      (c)   (d)   (o)
  • Icons where none of the colours may be changed:
      (lACC)   (lhdSTRae+L)   (lv-ACC)   (lvINTACC)   (POINTER4)
  • Red set, where part of the icon should not be changed:
      (d-KRZ2+4u)   (HSTACC)   (KACCxe)   (KINTACCa)
  • Blue set, where part of the icon should not be changed:
      (uACC)   (udACC)   (utdACC)   (utINT2+4)
  • Mixed set, where part of the icon should not be changed:
      (mvÜWBr)
  • Red set, where all of the colours may be changed:
      (ABZg+l)   (ABZgr)   (ABZgr+xr)   (cSTRq)   (CONTfq)   (CONTgq)   (dCONTfq)   (dCONTgq)   (dSHI3+l)   (dSTR)   (dSTR~R)   (dYRDa)   (exCONTf@F)   (exSTR+r)   (SHI1+l)   (SHI3gr)   (STR~L)   (STR~R)   (v-SHI2r)   (v-STR)   (v-STRr)
  • Blue set, where all of the colours may be changed:
      (uCONT3+g)   (udCONTgq)   (udSHI2g+l)   (udSTR+4)   (udSTRc1)   (udSTRc3)   (udYRDe)   (uSTR)   (uSTRr)   (utCONT2)   (utdSTR)   (utdSTR3+1-)   (utSTR+4)   (utSTRc1)   (utSTRc2)   (utSTRc3)   (utSTRc4)   (utv-STR3)   (uv-SHI2r)   (uvABZg2-)
  • Mixed set, where all of the colours may be changed:
      (mvSTR)   (umtdKRZ)   (umvSTR)
For all of the blue icons, a red equivalent exists and this is produced by removing the initial "u":   (uCONT3+g) →   (CONT3+g)
For most of the red icons, a blue equivalent exists and this is normally produced by adding an initial "u":   (ABZg+l) →   (uABZg+l)
But to produce other colours, you add a suffix:   (ABZg+l black)   (ABZg+l orange)   (ABZg+l yellow)   (ABZg+l green)   (ABZg+l violet) - see c:Category:BSicon/railway/other colors for a list
Not all alternative colours have a full icon set. Consider the red set, some of the matching icons in the green set are missing:   (ABZg+l green)   (ABZgr green)   (ABZgr+xr green)   (cSTRq green)   (CONTfq green)   (CONTgq green)   (dCONTfq green)   (dCONTgq green)   (dSHI3+l green)   (dSTR green)   (dSTR~R green)   (dYRDa green)   (exCONTf@F green)   (exSTR+r green)   (SHI1+l green)   (SHI3gr green)   (STR~L green)   (STR~R green)   (v-SHI2r green)   (v-STR green)   (v-STRr green)
HTH. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, where there are two colors in the same image, the number of needed combination gets a bit excessive. The names for all these icons and how they are put together seems not very editor-friendly, so maybe a better solution would be to come up with a new way to do this.
One way would be to make normal images, either by screenshotting the existing template and editing the colors. Another would be to use a simple table to list the stops and other elements. I like the idea of a simple table because it would cut out some visual clutter, making the diagram more accessible, and it would be easy to edit and easier to keep the links to stations and whatnot. -- Beland (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
RDTs are inherently a very complicated system because railroads (and the other linear features such as waterways and paths that RDTs are used for) are complicated. There are something like 300,000 BSicons currently on Commons, and that necessitates a system of abbreviated file names. That complexity is worth it: it is possible for users to create useful and visually consistent diagrams entirely within a template on Wikipedia. No need to use an external program (unless you're creating new icons), no need for graphic design skills, and every diagram across Wikipedia uses the same visual language.
I don't disagree that a better way to create and edit RDTs would be desirable. A graphic editor that makes it easy to find and choose icons, and get everything properly aligned, would be a great Community Wishlist item. But there's no need to reinvent the wheel, especially by screenshotting RDTs. Many line and service articles already have a station table, such as Greenbush Line#Station listing. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
The same benefits could be achieved with a far less-complicated markup, if we take advantage of modern wiki and graphics technology instead of using the 1990s hack of putting tiny images together in a table. Adding a visual editor on top of an overly-complicated markup I think makes things a bit worse, given that it will be very difficult to reliably render GUI inputs into the markup, at least without putting the burden of keeping track of all the little pieces on the user.
The existing markup does not have some critical user-friendliness and bug-avoidance features, for example by having a single point of truth defining the color of a line, and using English words that make intuitive sense to users who are seeing the markup for the first time. Consider how much cleaner this would be: 
connections:
- Red Line (MBTA):
  icon: red_line_mbta.png

metro_line:
  name: Greenbush Line
  system: MBTA Commuter Rail
  color: violet
  accessible: yes
  stops:
    - Quincy Center:
      miles: 7.9
      connection: Red Line (MBTA)
    - Weymouth Landing/East Braintree
      miles: 11.8
    - East Weymouth:
      miles: 14.6
    - West Hingham
      miles: 16.2
    - North Scituate
      miles: 23.3 
    - Greenbush:
      miles: 27.6
  branches:
    - Old Colony Lines:
      after: Weymouth Landing/East Braintree
  rail_yards:
    - Yard:
      before: Greenbush
  continuations:
    - end: [[South Shore Railroad|South Shore RR]] to Plymouth
-- Beland (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
The number 300,000 has got me wondering how many railroad lines there even are in the world. It seems a bit silly to have just as many, if not more, reusable icons than there are objects those reusable icons are supposed to describe. I also wonder if loading and arranging lots of little images isn't slowing down page rendering, compared to loading one pre-assembled diagram per article. They are small and partially cached across pages, but I'm not sure that's a net benefit. -- Beland (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
The icons don't use English words because they were devised by the Germans. For example, for this icon,   (BHF), the letters BHF are a contraction of Bahnhof. More at de:Wikipedia:Formatvorlage Bahnstrecke. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and that's very user-unfriendly to anyone who doesn't speak German, which is nearly everyone. A well-designed system could be localized into any language, for example by translating the keywords in the YAML-like syntax above. -- Beland (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
All this for the Greenbush Line? Mackensen (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
No, presumably this would be a project-wide alternative to the BSicon system that could be used by any article, and which if significantly better, would be something we'd migrate to en masse. -- Beland (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Not another migration. We've had two in the past, and have only recently (mid-2023) finished migrating all of these RDTs to Template:Routemap from Template:BS-map (many of which were migrated from older forms like Template:Railway line header/Template:BS-header/Template:BS-table). The icons that were created for Template:BS-map (and those older forms) are also used with Template:Routemap: the icon names (like BHF, STR) are completely unchanged, but the syntax that is used to fit them together is completely different. Compare this: 
{| {{Railway line header}}
{{BS-header|Example}}
{{BS-table}}
{{BS|CONTg||Somewhere to the north}}
{{BS|BHF||High Street}}
{{BS|HST||Market Street}}
{{BS|CONTf||Somewhere to the south}}
|}
|}
with this: 
{{BS-map
|title = Example
|map =
{{BS|CONTg||Somewhere to the north}}
{{BS|BHF||High Street}}
{{BS|HST||Market Street}}
{{BS|CONTf||Somewhere to the south}}
}}
where the middle part is exactly the same but the beginning and end are different; now compare that second one with this: 
{{routemap
|title = Example
|map =
CONTg~~Somewhere to the north
BHF~~High Street
HST~~Market Street
CONTf~~Somewhere to the south
}}
where the beginning and end are (almost) the same, the icon names and text are the same, but the rest of the middle part is different They all use the same four icons (  (CONTg)  (BHF)  (HST)  (CONTf)) and produced a reasonably-similar output. Some people still can't manage the routemap syntax. Imagine the additional confusion if we introduced a "project-wide alternative to the BSicon system". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
These appear to be slightly different versions of the same relatively user-unfriendly BSicon system, rather than an overhaul that meets usability criteria like single-point-of-truth and intuitively understandable keywords.
What was the motivation for creating a LUA module to power all of this in the last migration? -- Beland (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I can't imagine any of these existing markup styles are good for editor retention. The last one in particular looks nothing like Mediawiki syntax, and gobbledegooky enough that even as a professional programmer who could figure this out with some hours of effort, my first instinct was to run in the other direction. I'm impressed and somewhat horrified that editors have managed to use this system to create a huge number of useful and good-looking diagrams in existing articles, but given the unrepaired malfunctions of the existing system, it also seems like we are in danger of having a legacy system we can't maintain. If new editors can't be easily recruited, we'll have the wiki equivalent of trying to find COBOL programmers. Small-language wikis are going to have a really hard time finding enough people both very interested in trains and willing to plow through this user-unfriendly syntax to make and maintain diagrams, which means we're probably going to have problems getting railroad diagrams for countries where those languages are primarily spoken. -- Beland (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I think the primary impetus was performance; under the old system sufficiently large templates exceeded the expansion depth limit. Mackensen (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Beland, the code you are suggesting would require an entirely new parser to dynamically generate the map. It would only be able to handle extremely simple RDTs - a much larger amount of code would be needed to replicate the existing {{Greenbush Line}}, much less complex track arrangements like those seen in {{JFK/UMass station}} and {{Harold Interlocking}}. Instead of the simple process of creating SVG files (much of which can be done in a few seconds in a text editor), any new function would require new functions to be added to the parser. That would require rigorous testing to ensure nothing gets broken, whereas uploading new SVG files carries no risk to the core system.
To be blunt: You don't seem to be very familiar with the routemap architecture and why it is how it is. If you want to improve this system, get more experience learning how it works by editing and creating RDTs. Right now, you're just tossing out vague ideas that would require a huge amount of work to implement, and that doesn't help anyone. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, you suggested a visual editor as a Community Wishlist item, which would require a huge amount of code that could both parse the BSicon format as written by human editors and also output this format. That would also require a lot of rigorous testing to make sure that the system both produces correct output when using the GUI and that round trips don't break existing diagrams. And it would have the same problem when people create new icons.
I don't think that would work nearly as well as a Community Wishlist item for building an easy-to-use transport mapping system from scratch. If we're going to be asking programmers to spend time on this, I think it's helpful to think through the pros and cons of feasible alternatives.
In the short term, I'll try and tweak the colors using the existing system, and get a better sense of the pros and cons of abandoning this system (even without a nice replacement) and merging information into the existing redundant station tables. -- Beland (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
It appears we already have problems with colors being inconsistent; Template:JFK/UMass station is already using red for the Red Line and violet for Commuter Rail. That template (and many other diagrams) are also malfunctioning in dark mode in ways that editors have tried and failed to fix (see Template talk:Routemap#Dark mode problems), and they have typological problems like from one line running into text on the line below it. Unfortunately, because everything is composed of SVG images instead of being laid out by a more intelligent rendering engine, I think if text height is increased to avoid the overlapping problem, we would be in danger of breaking the diagrams by introducing whitespace between segments of a given line. -- Beland (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm a programmer and do my code-thinking in the shower, which is where I just realized I've run into the same testing problem (generally speaking) at previous employers. The problem is that when you make a change that should make no user-visible changes to a complex processing system (for example, refactoring some messy code, or adding a new icon no existing pages are currently using), you want to make sure you didn't break any existing functionality. An easy solution is to make an automated test (all quality software has lots of automated tests) that runs all instances in existing wikitext through the system, both with and without the proposed changes, and diffs the result. Any differences detected should be a red flag to the code reviewer that the changes not be deployed.
Another problem with the existing system is that it doesn't allow sharing across languages. I was just looking at the English and Spanish versions of the MBTA Red Line map. They have gotten out of sync, with the English one showing more details on abandoned stations, and the Spanish one having a more readable design (though it has CSS layout issues, overlapping the References section text). The German one is yet another design that uses different symbols for some of the same things on the English diagram, but is slightly broken (there's visible whitespace between some of what should be continuous segments) and adds unnecessary details (like the shapes of crossing lines) which make it harder to read. It's missing information about accessibility. (Though the accessibility icons on the English version are sometimes too small to be able to make out clearly, and increasing my browser zoom level doesn't help; it looks like some SVG files have been rendered into PNG files just a few pixels square.) The Chinese Wikipedia doesn't have a diagram at all; just a station table. Even though there's a big Brazilian popuation in metro Boston, the Portuguese Wikipedia only has an MBTA article, and none on the Red Line at all, though the geographically-accurate system map is very good.
A typical modern web site would provide a spot to put translations of individual snippets. For example, this YAML-like syntax could have "name_en", "name_es", etc. so that the source code could live on Commons and maps could be produced for any language for which there are translations (perhaps defaulting to the native language of the rail system where there are holes). -- Beland (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
The German one is yet another design that uses different symbols for some of the same things on the English diagram - which symbols? The icons are all held on Commons, they should all have the same names. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
(Correction: Found the route diagram for Chinese; it was hidden by default, as are most. It's very similar to the English one.)
I mean, if you just look at the English and German ones side by side, you'll see lots of differences. The German one uses blue dots (which vary in size for no discernible reason) to represent stations, and white-center circles to represent train yards. The English version uses both white-center circles and fork-like icons to represent train yards. For stations, it has a variety of symbols which vary for no discernible reason - person in wheelchair in a big blue disc, a small blue disc, a white-center circle, or a white-center oval.
The German one has splotches of red next to the terminal stations, which are unexplained and are not accessible to people who are color blind. The English one doesn't have those, but it does have icons showing connecting services. They are linked to explanatory articles, which is nice, but the icon for the Commuter Rail is confusing. It's a generic black T-in-white-circle, which is the logo for the entire MBTA, rather than having the violet color that system maps use to indicate the Commuter Rail specifically.
Unfortunately, the English version is also lacking a legend, so it's unclear if the dashed lines mean proposed, closed, underground, part-time, or what.
It seems like we're failing to achieve the promised consistency (even within the same diagram, much less across articles) because editors are sometimes picking slightly-wrong icons. I assume this could be prevented if instead of hunting manually through a large icon set, they were specifying the properties of stations and connections in words and an algorithm was picking the correct visual representation. -- Beland (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
There are only two sizes of station icon: a big one for the more important stations where everything stops, and a small one for the minor stations. Solid circles are passenger stations. Icons with a wheelchair symbol denote accessiblity. Blue or red rings with a white centre are freight-only stations but black rings with a white centre are passenger interchanges between two lines (think Tube map). A legend is easily added, there's a parameter in {{routemap}}. But using non-standard colours can defeat the legend.
We are not in a position to tell the Germans how to draw their RDTs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Sure, each language Wikipedia can do what it wants, but if there's a standard map already published on Commons, I expect most language wikis to use it. To the degree it's adopted, this reduces undesirable discrepancies and allows every wiki to benefit from the contributions of editors working in various languages - especially the one local to the railroad system. We already do that with lots of language-agnostic photos and maps.
It looks like the Red Line diagram does not follow your big/small rule at all; all trains on the line stop at all stations, other than the fact that there are two branches. Template:Railway line legend says the large ones are supposed to be used for "Terminus" and "Major station" and the small ones for "Minor station". "Major" and "minor" are not defined, and I'm not sure it's helpful or necessarily even neutral to distinguish between them. The legend actually has a different symbol (there's a gap between the two halves of the disc and the track line) for "limited service" where presumably only some trains stop.
That legend also says the blue ovals are supposed to be used for interchange on the same mode, so it looks like the Red Line diagram has an error, since at Ashmont there's a change from modern heavy rail to historic light rail trolleys.
I have enabled the legend link for this template; weirdly, it was apparently intentionally disabled in 2016. -- Beland (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
A "limited service" stop is one where very few trains call; perhaps only at the beginning or end of the day, or peak times only, or a seasonal working. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Is that definition documented anywhere? -- Beland (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think so, we don't make rigid rules - but we do expect people to be sensible in their choice of icons, so that we don't end up with cases of an icon having one meaning in 90% of uses but a completely different meaning in the other 10%. So   (pHST) would never be used to mean a major transport hub. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
If there's no specific definition for e.g. "minor" station, that makes it hard for me to tell if the MBTA Red Line diagram has the correct icons. It would be an inordinate amount of work for me to look at a dozen different diagrams from rail networks across the world to get a sense of how the icons are used there, because I'd need to be familiar with the train schedules for each of the stops I'm checking up on. If there's no documentation, these symbols don't mean what you say above that they mean; they mean whatever the last editor to put them there thinks they mean, possibly reflecting a personal bias of some kind.
The German Wikipedia seems to distinguish between what Google Translate calls stations and stops, the former being the only ones that have rail switches. That may be an artifact of German vocabulary, since they seem to have different words for these with different German Wikipedia articles, whereas English only has Train station.
English Wikipedia readers only have the documentation that big dots are "major" and small dots are "minor", with no way to know what that distinction actually means for their potential journey. Given that symbols in small dots are actually hard to read, it would make more sense to me to simply use large dots for all stations. If we feel like there are useful distinctions to be made, we should document them so they are made consistently and so that readers can actually benefit from them. -- Beland (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Stations

Tracks and lines are somewhat different types of things, so a representation with different semantics would probably be helpful, though a lot could be shared. {{JFK/UMass station}}, for example, could be represented with something like the below. The system could generate much better hover text, for example "MBTA Red Line Track 4 (Alewife)" instead of "vSTR red". (Directionality is assumed in places to be top-to-bottom and left-to-right.) 

station:
  name_en: JFK/UMass
  tracks:
   - service: MBTA Red Line
     name: 1
     direction: Ashmont
   - service: MBTA Red Line
     name: 2
     direction: Alewife
   - service: MBTA Red Line
     name: 3
     direction: Braintree
   - service: MBTA Red Line
     name: 4
     direction: Alewife
   - service: MBTA Commuter Rail
     name: 5
     # bidirectional
   - service: MBTA Commuter Rail
     name: Greenbush Line
  flow:
   - crossing:
      name_en: Columbia Road
      type: road
   - segment:
      - track: 1
      - platform: Outbound
      - tracks: 2, 3
      - platform: Inbound
      - tracks: 4, 5
      - platform: Commuter Rail
   - crossing
      name_en: Southeast Expressway
      type: road
   - segment:
      - tracks: 1, 2, 3, 4
      - track_branch:
         left: 5
         right: Greenbush Line
   - segment:
      - tracks: 1, 2, 3, 4
      - track_crossing:
         moving_track: 5
         moving_to_after: 2
         type: tunnel

Lots of track_crossing syntax could represent the complicated interlocking further north, adding type=at_grade and type=bridge, with tunnel_exit indicating where to render certain tracks as underground. Yeah, there's a bunch of code to write to transform any given combination into a diagram, but it seems nicer to write out and verify those rules once for all time, and have a computer implement them flawlessly every time, instead of having lots of different humans try to learn them incompletely at various times and implement them in a mistake-prone way. There is already a lot of software for making diagrams that automatically connects entities that humans drag-and-drop into the right places. -- Beland (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced articles

These railway stations are currently tagged with {{unref}}:

I made the list for a comment in Wikipedia talk:Notability#RfC: Notability and British Rail stations, and I thought that editors here might want to see how many could at least get upgraded to {{refimprove}} status. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, while a useful list for Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways, note that none of these are currently open National Rail stations, the subject of that RFC. Thryduulf (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
One of them isn't a station, either. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
And it even has sources – just not formatted as little blue clicky numbers. I've corrected the tag. Waldersea railway station appears to be a proposed railway station. I wonder if it was ever built. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I redirected that because I googled it and was surprised to recognize the images of the siding a railway trust built on that location. I must have read a news article about it awhile back? In any case, Wisbech and March line § Bramley Line Heritage Railway Trust proposal seems like the appropriate place for that article title until something more is built. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
The first two are on the RHDR. Unfortunately, there is no coverage in One Man's Railway by J. B. Snell. Mjroots (talk) 07:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bellevue Transit Center#Requested move 7 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bellevue Transit Center#Requested move 7 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 20:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Lynnwood Transit Center#Requested move 7 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lynnwood Transit Center#Requested move 7 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Eryholme–Richmond branch line#Requested move 13 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eryholme–Richmond branch line#Requested move 13 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Alvarado station#Requested move 13 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Alvarado station#Requested move 13 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Scott Special

Scott Special has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Railway lines category organization

Should Category:Railway lines be organized the same way as Category:Railway stations? That would mean creating {{Railway lines in countryname opened or closed in YYYY category header}} in a similar way to {{Railway stations in countryname opened or closed in YYYY category header}}. This would help further organize the railway lines into subcategories like "Railway lines in Germany opened in 1957". I hope this request makes sense. Thanks! - OpalYosutebito (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Does it need to be that specific? I would guess there's an order of magnitude more stations than there are lines. Taavi (talk!) 13:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
I think you'll run into issues like lines being built and opened in phases over multiple years and cases where we have multiple articles for one line (eg an article on the historic line and one on the present day line, which may have been built by many different companies and at different times). Garuda3 (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#Notability of Croydon Tramlink stops that may be of interest to participants here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for BR Standard Class 7

BR Standard Class 7 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Name of VR Class Sr3

The article VR Class Sr3 breaks the naming scheme that's in use for Finnish locomotives (and for other countries AFAICS) as it's in use with two operators and not just VR. Is there any precedent on how to name articles in situations like this one? Taavi (talk!) 13:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this the case with many rolling stock articles? A lot of German train type articles named DB (or DBAG) Class something something, while also being operated by different companies. Question, is it an issue though? I'd say it depends; who is the first operator or operates significant parts of the fleet; what do the sources call the locomotives? Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
There's a similar issue with the "British Rail Class..." articles. Some people object to articles being housed under these titles when the class in question was introduced after the demise of British Rail. The answer is that they are TOPS class numbers, and TOPS was introduced by British Rail. Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
They do provide a consistency that allows for easy finding. If you know that the train that you're on is numbered 802104 and the one that just passed by the window is 220028, you can look these up as British Rail Class 802 and British Rail Class 220 respectively, and you don't need to know which train operator presently leases them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Big Four Bridge

Big Four Bridge has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

CalHSR

Some eyes with expertise in transit funding would be appreciated at Talk:California High-Speed Rail#DracaenaGuianensis as this seems like a rather sticky dispute over what it means for a project to be "funded". Jasper Deng (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Yüksek Hızlı Tren

An article that you have been involved in editing—Yüksek Hızlı Tren—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Template talk:1 Line (Sound Transit)

Could some of you have a look at the questions raised on Template talk:1 Line (Sound Transit)? Best, Sam Sailor 06:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Just one character needed to be trimmed. SounderBruce 07:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion potentially of interest to members

For info, there is currently a discussion ongoing at East Japan Railway Company regarding infobox captions whih may be of interest to project members. Danners430 (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

"In Fiction" Segments focused on Thomas & Friends Characters

I frequently see examples on various locomotive pages of "In Fiction" segments with brief one or two sentence blurbs dedicated to characters from Thomas & Friends, one example I just stumbled across was at the end of the Climax locomotive article.

I certainly am not opposed to mentioning major characters in the Railway Series and their respective real life counterparts where there is sufficient source material to make the connection meaningful (for example the Talyllyn Railway locomotives were such blatant inspirations for the Skarloey locomotives, and the fictional influence of the Skarloey has played a real role in the preservation of the Talyllyn with regular Awdry themed events ongoing on the line to the day). However in cases such as the Climax locomotive I pointed out above, it seems the characters mentioned are obscure and can't really add anything meaningful beyond just one or two sentences that sum up as "This locomotive was in Thomas & Friends, his name was Jeff." Considering how common this is on many pages of locomotives with seemingly little relevant information between the fictional counterpart and the real machines; can there be a standard of relevancy to mark the difference between "hey the only reason people know what an LBSCR E2 is anymore IS because of Thomas so we better explain that connection" vs. this practice of non-relevant blurbs naming secondary characters with no relevance beyond the fact the character just exists? I don't want locomotive pages cluttered by trivial segments if there isn't enough sources to establish the fictional character's relevance relating back to the real machine. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Unless secondary sources have made the connection, I believe "in fiction" sections should be deleted entirely. The example you linked certainly isn't appropriate. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I am going to go with that mindset and be bold and just cut extraneous fictional sources when I see them. I removed the segment from the Climax page, and also cut a similar segment from Pennsylvania Railroad K4 class. I think the sniff test that works is as stated strong secondary sources, and I just don't see that bar being met by many of these offending examples. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Our policy on this is very clear (although mostly ignored). It requires secondary sources. In practice, this means that everything in the books (Rev W. Awdry and Christopher Awdry) is supported by the substantial books of commentary on the Thomas series from Brian Sibley The Thomas the Tank Engine Man and a couple of others. Also the commentaries by both George and Wilbert Awdry, The Island of Sodor: Its People, History and Railways and by Christopher Awdry Sodor: Reading Between the Lines on Wilbert's writing a generation earlier would qualify.
But the TV series? I know of nothing secondary on those. So the Fat Controller's railway is almost all covered, as are the Skarloey and Arlesdale railways, even Sodor itself (although WP has now deleted these articles anyway). The later, more international, content is where the problem lies. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
There is a massive amount of Thomas the Tank Engine content on YouTube, some of it really quite in depth, but how much qualifies as reliable I have no idea (YouTube suggests far more of the content to me than I watch). Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Which era of Thomas is it referring to? Does it appear to meet WP:RS? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
The last video I watched covered every TV series and film but didn't mention (or at least not in any detail) the books at all. I didn't watch it with an eye to evaluating its reliability, but there were no glaring red flags (not that that specific video would likely have information relevant to Wikipedia). There is a wide variety of content out there though, with a very wide of purposes and differing reliability, so your question is similar to pointing at a large bookcase filled with an assortment of printed works that mention Thomas the Tank Engine at least once and asking "is that a reliable source?". No single answer is meaningful. Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Be careful about linking to stuff on youtube as it is very often copyvio. Call me the Fat Controller! 10mmsocket (talk) 07:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Well the last video I watched had a lot of copyrighted content in it, but fair use would definitely apply as it was being used for critical commentary. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Turkey

In a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TCDD Subdivision 3 I said “I think there are too many articles about Turkish rail.” and @Thryduulf replied “The nominator disliking the number of articles on a topic is not a valid reason for deletion, but the subject being at present better covered in the parent article is a reason for a merge.” As this is a general thing rather than specific to that article I think I should explain further here (WP Turkey is only semi-active) and hopefully we will find we broadly agree.

I should probably have said that I think there are too many uncited (about 20 are tagged in https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Turkey.html#Cites%20no%20sources) articles and low-quality articles. I agree that merging can often be a good solution as I think editors are more likely to fix wrong info if it is part of an important article rather than in its own small unimportant article. So if any of you guys are interested in Turkey and feel like doing some merging that would be great. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

British Rail Class 555 move discussion

There is a move discussion ongoing at British Rail Class 555 to move the article to Tyne and Wear Metro Class 555 which I would appreciate input in, as it was originally moved without discussion. Thanks. Danners430 (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Horten Station (1881-2007)#Requested move 14 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Horten Station (1881-2007)#Requested move 14 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

High speed rail in Turkey

Only 2 people commented last year so it would be great to have more opinions.

An article that you have been involved in editing—Yüksek Hızlı Tren—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Wolverine (train)#Requested move 23 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wolverine (train)#Requested move 23 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

S.W.G. abbreviation

Hello, I come from the German Wikipedia and have a question for native English speakers. In this locomotive diagram of the LMS Garratt I found the term "X 9 S.W.G." behind the superheater tube diameter. But I don't know what it means and hope someone can help me. Bahnfreund21 (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

"Standard wire gauge" presumably. Used to specify the diameter of a piece of wire. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
To add some more. SWG was also used to specify pipe wall thickness. So looking at your diagram 9 , 7 and 11 SWG equals pipe wall thicknesses of 3.658 mm, 4.470 mm, and 2.946 mm respectively. Hope that helps. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. Does the diagram mean the superheater tubes have an inside diameter of 1.5 in (38.1 mm) and an outside diameter of 1.5 in + 2 * 0.144 in = 1,788 in (45,4 mm)? Bahnfreund21 (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
It looks like the superheater tubes are 1.5 inches outside diameter i.e. "Dia. Outs.", so the inner diameter is 1.5 - (2x0.144) inches = 1.212 inches. 10mmsocket (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your helpful explanations. Bahnfreund21 (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
SWG is definitely Standard Wire Gauge; but besides wire and pipe walls, it was used for any sheet metal. In the aluminium industry - with which I was briefly involved - the term "sheet" is reserved for cold rolled metal, up to about 2 mm thick, and "plate" for hot rolled metal, from about 2 mm or thicker. We also had a term "shate", which was a hybrid of the sheet and plate processes, but I can't remember if it was cold rolled but more than 2 mm thick, or hot rolled and less than 2 mm. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Every day is a school day. Than you! 10mmsocket (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2024&oldid=1260565130"