Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2019

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


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines (2nd nomination)

FYI. postdlf (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, there will be changes to Manchester Metrolink's City Zone on 13 January 2019. It will be renamed Zone 1 and Cornbrook will now be in both Zone 1 and Zone 2. The change can be seen on the official map here. I'm not sure how to make this change on the following templates:

I would appreciate any help from those more skilled at this than me. Thanks, Del♉sion23 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Manchester Central Metrolink lines draws the zone boundary by using overlaid shapes from the the "hub" icon set. Unfortunately, this consists primarily of icons like   (HUBlf-R),   (HUB-Rq) and   (HUBrf-L) where the hub lines are all drawn offset to one edge of the square, so that on the RDT they are drawn around stations in order to group them together. I don't know of any that are drawn through the middle, with which we could indicate that Cornbrook lies in both zones.
Template:Metrolink RDT is different in that instead of using hub icons, it colours the background grey; but it's not possible to set the background colour for only one half of a square. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes it is. Useddenim (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and advice everyone. Del♉sion23 (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

RfD on East Coast Main Line diagram

There is currently a proposal to delete this at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 14#East Coast Main Line diagram. Useddenim (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

It was moved back to Mainspace, where it had originally been created. Mjroots (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Module:Adjacent stations/Amtrak

Just a friendly heads-up that I've defined Module:Adjacent stations/Amtrak for use with Template:Adjacent stations. For the moment this only affects Infobox station styling and perhaps line color display with {{rail color box}}. If there's an outdated or missing alias there will be a big ugly LUA script module error. It's an easy fix; please drop me a line or comment at Module talk:Adjacent stations/Amtrak. I'll be watching Category:Pages with script errors as well. Best, Mackensen (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Do we have any template for station list

I am currently discussing with other people on Chinese Wikipedia. That user want to have standard on station list, and my suggestion is to make a template instead. Do we already have any templates for station list, so that I do not need to reinvent the wheel? If there is no such template, I will make one on the Chinese wikipedia as well as a module/template that can automatically generate a station list based on wikidata. -- VulpesVulpes825 (Talk) 18:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Metro arguments on Merseyrail / Glasgow Subway

Afternoon all. I am not particularly invested in rail as a project but came across a particularly determined IP a few years back pushing POV on multiple articles (associated with an original banned user like MerseyWaters or something like that). Anyway either the original user is back, or similarly belligerent end user is pushing the same POV edits. If anyone is able to contribute with a 3rd opinion over at Glasgow Subway it would be much appreciated. Bear in mind, IP gets quite personal with his attacks. Koncorde (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that you mean Waterspaces (talk · contribs). See also Talk:Tyne and Wear Metro#Semi-protection. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Stations along the proposed New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail Line has been nominated for discussion

Category:Stations along the proposed New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail Line, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Hartford Line stations. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Sources to cite

I don't know how to save searches on Pubmed anymore, so I created this RSS feed of Pubmed reviews on "Indian railway."[1] PMID 16649742 and PMC 5446373 seem interesting, as did PMID 27534355 and PMID 30146953. EllenCT (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Rail transport articles in need of updating

If anyone is monitoring Category:Rail transport articles in need of updating and wondering why it has more articles in it, the sudden influx of 56 articles is because the template Update after has had it's category field fixed. - X201 (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Harcourt Street station

There has been a seem to have been a complete takeover of nondescript tram stops from historic railway stations in Ireland. Since user Cuchullain moved Harcourt Street railway station to Harcourt Street station its become an excuse to a picture of the tram in the street. Is it only me who thinks like this ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

This is part of the WP:IRLSTATION guideline. If a station serves more than just heavy rail, it's not just a "railway station" and should be called just "XXX station" - which is usually the more common local form anyway.--Cúchullain t/c 18:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
That's one of those classic guidelines, adopted by—err—in this case, as so often, three editors, that has the traditional two consequences: one editor or clique gets fully invested, other editors and a bigger clique are irritated by it. Everyone falls out, Wikipedia is, as usual, the loser. Tá sé iontach :D one might say... ——SerialNumber54129 19:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Yup. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
We were informed that it was being proposed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
For better and possibly worse I subscribe to Wikiprojects:Computing and avoid Wikiproject:Trains to avoid becoming too involved in too many projects. The first I knew was when stuff started changing. And its had negative implications in my opinion.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
It was also advertised through the WP:RFC process for thirty days, at WP:RFC/STYLE and WP:RFC/HIST and consequently at WP:RFC/A. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The result is shite. And the station really just served heavy rail. The tram stop (and the one outside) ... is merely incidental. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I confess I don't see a connection. The article discussed both the historical station and the current tram stop long before Cuchullain moved it. The page move was according to the guideline. Ideally the article could be expanded to better differentiate between the two; I agree that there couldn't be a standalone article about the tram stop. Mackensen (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Then help to expand that article without giving undue weight (WP:UNDUE) to trams. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
To Serial Number 54129: The guideline was up for a formal RfC and I tried repeatedly, including on this Wikiproject page, to get more editors to participate, to no avail. The main purpose of the writing up the guideline was to get consistent disambiguation on Irish station articles, which was inconsistent to the point of being confusing.--Cúchullain t/c 20:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Is the discussion still ongoing? There's a lot of consequences by IP editors round the Dublin area? 20:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
It looked like we were going to sit around and tell sad stories about RfCs. My mistake. If the IP or IPs are committing vandalism, then we can report them in the necessary places. If the IP has a different point of view about article content, then the appropriate place to discuss that is on the individual article. If you want the naming guideline thrown out because you think, as you expressed in the discussion, that it's somehow connected to a rise in vandalism, then I think that's a non-starter. Mackensen (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move discussion

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Template talk:Adjacent stations#Requested move 10 February 2019, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 18:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Réseau Albert

I redrew the diagram on the Réseau Albert. Can an editor with knowledge of the French rail system double check that the standard gauge lines shown open/closed are actually open/closed. I used the French wiki articles on the various stations as a basis for their status, but my French is limited. Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC India railway stations

PROCEDURAL CLOSE
Per remarks made by WBG, this is being procedurally closed as No Consensus. Future RfCs are encouraged to have a clear proposal with simple (and standard) formatting for anticipated responses from participants. Further, discussion in this RfC essentially was framed around an issue that was never addressed in the initial proposal. (non-admin closure) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 03:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

India has 8,500 railway stations. Two thousand have stub articles. We need guidance for promotion to non-stub status. Conversely, we need criteria for a mass redirect of articles with no references or timetable-only references. Rhadow (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Promotion from stub status

Some objective standards for removal of the {{India-railstation-stub}} tag would help reduce the size of the category. These articles are often short because there is nothing to say. I think the stub tag should be removed when the following criteria are met:

  1. The article has two references that are not from an official timetable site. A newspaper, for example.
  2. The lede is well written,
  3. The town or nearest town is wikilinked.
  4. Indic script is removed in accord with WP:INDICSCRIPT.
  5. The article has coordinates. A map is a nice-to-have.
  6. Timetables are removed. The trains that pass do not confer notability.

I raised this previously at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Criteria_for_promotion_from_{India-railstation-stub}.

Redirects for non-notable subjects

A railway station article is a candidate for redirect to and merger with its parent railway system when it has insufficient verifiable material to be considered a comprehensive article.

Many India-railstation-stubs, have no, one, or two sources. The typical article is a recitation in text of characteristics and numbers from the Indiarailinfo website. Likewise, references to NDTV are not press, but are recitations of a similar database. These articles add no value to the user. Many were edited by rote or programmatically. They share the same sentence structure with attendant errors in style. A list of the trains that pass the station is problematic. It provides insufficient information to a traveler (notwithstanding WP:NOTTIMETABLE and is likely to become stale in time anyway. Images of the station sign alone do not convey any useful information, except for the existence of the station.

There are 8,500 railway stations in India. It is not systemic or cultural bias to assert that they are not all notable. An article does not add value to a reader if it simply duplicates the information in NDTV or Indiarailinfo. This station is an example of a non-notable topic as described in Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations). There is no significant press coverage in English at least.

There are many thousands of railway and subway stations. The question is sometimes raised as to whether one of these places is notable enough for a standalone article. Wikipedia:Notability says: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
It may be considered that if enough attributable information is available about a station on a main system to verify that it exists, it generally is appropriate for the subject to have its own article. For proposed or planned stations, historic railways stations that only existed briefly, or stations on metro, light rail, tram, people mover, or heritage railway lines, if insufficient source material is available for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the station in an article about the line or system that the station is on.

I suggest we develop a consensus to REDIRECT the these station articles to their parent rail line. If at such time as a particular station becomes notable and can support its own article, the original article text including infobox and photo of the station sign can be recovered from the REDIRECT history. Rhadow (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

A good effort to systematize and control the rather chaotic scenario. I support the move. Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@Rhadow: I believe that there has been discussion on this matter elsewhere in the last week or so. Please link that discussion so that everybody here is aware of the background and of what views have already been expressed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Cesdeva, yeh, there are three pages of stubs in the India-railstation-stub category (600 more or less), and another eleven subcategories for stations in named states with another 1,400 or so. My math is not precise. Rhadow (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Rhadow thanks for your reply; it seems i missed out the sub-categories. I get 1608 for the sub-categories, so we are looking at about 2130 stubs. Some articles may populate the category and the sub-category; i'm not sure how to run a comparison. Cesdeva (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
2102 different mainspace pages according to PetScan, including one redirect: Lalru railway station. Certes (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Random data point: of 65 stub Bihar articles, 39 are candidates for redirect (or substantial editing and references). Rhadow (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
There should be no redirects that are in a stub category. There should also be no articles that are in both Category:Indian railway station stubs and one of its state-level subcategories. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
There are no more REDIRECTS which are also stubs in this group (until I make my next mistake). Rhadow (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I've removed 23 articles from Category:Indian railway station stubs which were also in a state subcat. List of offenders (was 23; should now be empty): PetScan. Certes (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Certes: If they were all like this, thanks for that - stub categories should not be used directly, only via stub templates. I went through the whole of Category:Indian railway station stubs and its subcats about two years ago, cleaning all of this up. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
22 were like Tolasampatti; the only odd one was Murshidabad. Certes (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Those redirects were based on postings to the relevant talk pages that antedated this RfC. There were no objections, so I took action. There is a proposal (below) to escalate this discussion from comment to policy. I will hold off. Rhadow (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I noticed that Rhadow has added the issue of notability in a few Chinese railway articles as well. I would like to see that if this mass-redirecting exercise will also be carried out for Chinese station stubs, then editors of those articles be notified as well and given an opportunity to discuss and provide comments, including but not limited to WPCHINA. Previously, what I've seen is that when editors who have not actually contributed to articles related to the topic make mass moves or redirects without substantive discussion or explanation, there is opposition from editors of those articles themselves, as in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_139#RfC_on_naming_of_Chinese_railway_line_articles. Second, I am not speaking for others, but I believe there is the notion (at least among Chinese railway station editors) that all railway stations are notable. But even with the current essay on notability, it's not clear as to what would constitute notable. Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A non-independent source would be the rail agency website, yes. Reliable sources – for Chinese articles, the main sources are typically in Chinese. English-speaking newspapers may cover some large openings like if a new high-speed railway line opens or metro line opens, but they wouldn't cover every single small extension, new station opening within an existing line, etc. What would be a reliable source? Would any Chinese online news site be okay? What about articles from sites which tend to post content in social-media like small tidbits rather than formal articles (these are very popular with mobile users in China)? If there is significant coverage of a railway line/metro line opening, does that automatically make all stations along it notable? Does each station need to receive independent news coverage? What about metro stations, there are dozens to hundreds in the same city, is there going to really be in-depth coverage about every single station? I am in agreement that (a) railway stations shouldn't be inherently notable and (b) there needs to be a more well-defined set of criteria, but I just wonder about the efforts here to make such criteria so strict that basically most stations won't qualify. I think there needs to be a balance to identify, for example, that if there is sufficient reliable sources about a line, with each station mentioned, then that should qualify as notable. Heights(Want to talk?) 00:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Heights, yes, I have gone through a thousand Indian railway station articles and discovered several hundred that fail WP:GNG. In marking them, I thought each time about the possible systemic and cultural bias in comparison to U.S. or British rail station articles. That's not a judgement of importance of the station to riders or neighbors. In India, at least, there is no lack of supporting press available. I intend to raise the topic of rail station notability as schools were two years ago. The discussion will split editors into an inclusionist camp, who presume notability for all railways stations, and an exclusionist camp which will call for more referential support for articles, irrespective of topic. I won't make my arguments here, but I will tell you about what I saw in the small sample of China articles I looked at. It would be irresponsible to propose a global policy on railway stations without looking at articles from many countries. There was plenty of press on Chinese rail. The Chinese-language press is simply translated by my browser. Some was of lesser relevance -- routine schedule announcements, for example -- but others announced new line openings and other significant facts.
As we pursue this discussion, we need to keep in mind that the goal is to serve Wikipedia readers, not just Chinese railway station editors and Indian railway fan club members. Without the possibility of deletion or redirection for the most atrocious articles, the reader will be faced with articles that include the most useless kind of drivel. In India (but not in China), I discovered a series of articles with gratuitous references, citation footnotes that mentioned the station, but had nothing to do with the article text. They served only to fill the references list.
You are right, there are many questions that need to be answered by a proposed policy. Such a policy must be brief and crisp, to avoid WP:CREEP. It must have enough teeth and support that it is not summarily disregarded, as Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations) is regularly in AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shankarpalli railway station.
Thank you for your comments. I look forward to your thoughtful participation is this discussion. Rhadow (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I would think that the same sort of approach should taken here that was taken in the February 2017 secondary schools RFC. Use WP:N and WP:NGEO, stations are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist; WP:RAILOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning; references to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD; and editors should not flood AFD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 16:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    I wholly agree with this. I do not think that station articles should be above WP:GNG --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    I fully support this. Just declaring a station notable without any base in policies or guidelines is a recipe for endless discussions and damage to the good working atmosphere. The Banner talk 19:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • We have always considered that all railway stations (proper stations, that is, not tram stops) are notable. There is no reason to change that. Consensus over many AfDs has been to continue it. Yes, as we're all aware there are deletionists on Wikipedia (I see some of them here already!) who oppose the idea and would prefer to delete rather than create (which appears to give them some sort of bizarre satisfaction), but I see no reason why their opinions should carry more weight than the opinions of those who have established this consensus. In pretty much every station AfD I've seen there have been one or two dissenting voices at most. Shouting loudly and claiming you're right and those who oppose you are wrong is not a reason to go against a consensus which has stood for many years. Stations are central to a community and are major parts of transport infrastructure. There is a very good reason to keep them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
    Necrothesp, well GNG is a very low bar and I think that all articles need to pass at least that.
    Failing that, the page could exist as a redirect to the article on the line the station is on. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Hello Necrothesp, I disagree that precedent is an indicator of virtue. For centuries, we denied all sorts of people the right to vote. That changed. I disagree that the argument here is to delete railway stations, just to take the minuscule amount of useful information in some articles and put it elsewhere. I disagree that simply being a major part of transportation infrastructure makes each station notable. Highway interchanges and pipeline pumping stations are important too, but they aren't presumed notable. And they often cost more than railway stations. I disagree that anyone is shouting here. They are seldom heard voices, perhaps in the minority, but that's no reason for a tyranny of the majority. Your seem to be advocating a principle that every whistle stop should get and retain an article. They can, once a well-crafted and useful article is put forth. That's what WP:GNG is all about. You've spilled plenty of ink here defending railway-stubs, but not much reviewing them or fixing them lately. I have. Rhadow (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The point is that we're still having AfDs and editors are still predominantly voting to keep all railway stations! How on earth anyone could deny that is a consensus I have no idea. Consensus isn't set in stone, but in this instance it is continually re-established every couple of weeks. Coming along and saying "I don't agree with it and I must be right because I know more about Wikipedia policy than you do", as many deletionists appear to do, doesn't change that fact and is arrogant into the bargain because it ignores the views of the editors who continually opine that all railway stations are notable. Frankly, I'm tired of this attitude and I've been fighting against it a long time, despite being insulted and mocked by the deletionists (who appear to be incapable of accepting that anyone else has a valid opinion and think that anyone who opposes them is a valid target for personal abuse). I have no idea why they don't devote their energies to deleting the large quantity of patent rubbish on Wikipedia instead of attempting to delete articles on notable topics. Sadly, they see any suggestion (like this one) that a class of articles may not be notable as a bandwagon to jump on in their quest for mass deletion, and that is not beneficial to Wikipedia in any way. We establish consensus at AfD to avoid just this sort of thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    Necrothesp, but using the essay that says stations are usually kept to argue that all articles on stations need to be kept, regardless of the quality is not right too. And name calling and attacking those who want not notable articles to be deleted is ad hominem. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 09:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    You misunderstand the purpose of WP:RAILOUTCOMES. It is merely a statement of consensus which is used to illustrate that there is a consensus. Criticising the deletionist tendency and stating that it is damaging to Wikipedia can in no way be interpreted as an ad hominem attack (trust me, I have been subject to those from deletionists). I am as much in favour of deleting non-notable articles as any other sensible editor. I do not consider that these articles are non-notable. I'm not aware that I've called any editor a name. Would you like to specify who? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    Necrothesp, well you made broad strokes about people who wish to delete non notable articles.
    Also I think that article is being misused at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapa Road railway station as it promotes circular reasoning. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    No, I made a comment about deletionists, not about people who wish to delete non-notable articles. They're not deletionists. They're sensible editors. Nope, it's merely a statement of consensus, as I said above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Necrothesp, and yet it is misused. The keep voters argue that it should be kept on the mere basis that station articles are previously kept. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, good grief! Yes, because that's the consensus! Because many editors over many years have determined at AfD discussions that all stations are notable (just like they've determined that all generals are notable and that all national legislators are notable and that all settlements are notable). I really don't get why this is so very hard to understand! Wikipedia works by consensus. We have a consensus here that's been established over many AfDs. You may not agree with the consensus, but that's the nature of a consensus. If everyone had to agree then we'd never, ever have one for anything and we'd never get anywhere. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Here is another example of an article that I suspect would fail NPP - Talk:Warangal_railway_station#Redirect and subsequent article quality. Nevertheless, it was restored from REDIRECT. Rhadow (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Since the incarnation of WP, WP:CONSENSUS, which is the primary governing policy, has decided that rail stations are to be retained. With the exception of some articles on minor tram stops, they have always quickly been kept in the handful of times they've been challenged. If this project suddenly due to this prime example WP:CONLIMITED decided to change that, there will have to be tens of thousands of rail station articles that will have to have hundreds - most likely thousands - of editors to spend valuable time dissecting and fleshing out the retaining standards of each and every one. This would be a colossal waste of editors time when editors should be focused on creating new articles of notable topics and improving existing ones. The respected editor User:DGG made this sentiment years ago and wisely the project heeded that advice. Oakshade (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep all railway stations I think the policy of keeping all railway stations is fine. In many Indian villages, the railway station is often the most important landmark and is used by most people. In addition, stations don't close and are generally not moved. If I consider local landmarks, I think the railway station is the one I would choose to preserve. I understand that there could be many stubs, but I think this is important to keep as this is information many people expect to find in an encyclopaedia. Given that Wikipedia also acts as a gazetteer for some areas, I think railway stations should be preserved (even if they are stubs).--DreamLinker (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Further discussion

I think the first step here should be to nail down the criteria for a railway station to be considered notable. I see that an essay already exists, which is a good starting point.

Second step would be to get it ratified as an actual policy, through an RfC at WP:VP.

Third step, compile a list of railway station articles that fail the notability criteria. Nominate them for redirect en-masse at AfD.

That's my two cents. This current RfC tries to be too many things at once, and this page is a rather small forum for a change of such magnitude. Cesdeva (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand your proposal is to escalate this discussion from comment to policy -- a policy already described in Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations). That essay has not changed much in the last three years. It is not much different from the criteria I described above. It describes that primary sources (which I interpret as India rail database information and its copy NDTV) may be used to support the article, after notability is established. The fundamental question here -- the one that will stimulate emotional responses -- is whether all 8,500 Indian railway stations are presumed notable. If that is the consensus, then I will abandon my two proposals. If not, then we need to attack the 2,000 stub articles, promoting some and redirecting others, until the stub list is manageable. The stub list continues to grow by the day. I started by commenting on individual talk pages. It was suggested to me to bring the matter to this RfC. If we need to take it to a larger forum, I'm okay with that. I look for someone more experienced that I to craft the text for that, as my RfC has been corrected and criticized. If this is the direction we take, do I understand that each affected article needs another tag from which we compile a list? Rhadow (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
You'd be right that one listing from the IndiaRail database doesn't prove notability per WP:GNG. Railway station articles have sometimes incorrectly been treated as if they have inherited notability from the populated place that they service. The population of that town uses/moves through the station ergo the station has inherited notability. So basically prove it exists and you are fine.
There's holes in that logic, it presumes that the population frequent the station, which they may not. It also works on the basis that an intermittent and transient population is the same as a settled population, which it isnt.
As you've drawn attention to, that kind of thinking (and other logic) has led to a plethora of articles which aren't notable in the slightest.
A notability policy wouldn't just cover India articles, it would cover every station article on en-wiki. By nature, it would be the stub articles that are at most risk of redirection or deletion.
You wouldn't necessarily need to compile any lists. The RfC would simply be on notability policy, not a deletion discussion. Although it would be good to highlight the previous discussions on redirection.
The closest comparison I can think of is how WP:NSCHOOLS came about. Previously schools were presumed notable; now they have to meet WP:ORG. Unless they are degree-granting, in which case they are often presumed notable.
To simplify things, rather than propose an entire policy on railway articles, just proposing a policy page on railway stations may be an idea.
If you would like, I could help draft a policy and proposal? I have at least one sandbox free for this. Cesdeva (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Cesdeva, I started with discussions on individual talk pages. Then I created a [[Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Criteria_for_promotion_from_{India-railstation-stub}]] discussion. Now we are at an RfC for India related railway station stubs. Now the suggestion is to propose a policy for railway station worldwide. Wow! We could start with the essay already identified. It is cogent and relatively complete. I can join you at your sandbox. (And a personal note: "dearth" is a small number. perhaps you meant "plethora," a big number.) Rhadow (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out! Fixed. I'm not sure what the word was that I was after, but it has the similar meaning to plethora. Cesdeva (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The essay is rather complete, but it beats around the bush bit too much for my liking. Its more effort to defend a multi-pronged policy proposal as opposed to a policy on a specific type of article. Cesdeva (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The challenge for us is to make a short policy, like the U.S. Constitution, not a WP:CREEP document like the E.U. Constitution. The devil of course is in the details. Indiarailinfo is the subject's own website. NDTV is some kind of copy of that. IRFCA, while probably accurate, doesn't describe its own fact-checking process. That makes it unreliable to some extent. Rhadow (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe this is a distinct policy issue which can be addressed in its own right.

Whether those sources are primary or secondary, or whether they are reliable or not, could be a matter for a different debate.

At it's most basic, the policy would only detail the notability guidelines, not instruct editors as to what is a reliable source or not.

You could have a separate debate on whether those sources are considered reliable. Cesdeva (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

On a different note; the current essay linked above actually dwindles off into content guidelines about timetables and such. That's a question of manual of style rather than of notability. Cesdeva (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Rhadow: At 21:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC) I asked you to indicate where you had been discussing this recently; your response concerned WT:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics. Now you say that you created a Village Pump discussion - where was that, please? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
My error. It was here: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Criteria_for_promotion_from_{India-railstation-stub}. Rhadow (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


I haven't read the prior long discussion, but here's my two cents: I think the railway station articles shouldn't be excluded from the WP:GNG, which is the most basic notability check. Currently, it is being argued that ALL stations are notable and somehow the station articles are above the WP:GNG guideline. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Railway stations are not excluded from GNG. It is presumed that the vast majority of them will be capable of sustaining a stand-alone article, but such an article still needs to demonstrate verification is met by solid reliable sources thus establishing notability. Where this cannot be done, stations are best covered in the article on the line(s) in question. Mjroots (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, Mjroots, but they are excluded from WP:GNG. Look at the conversation going on here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hapa_Road_railway_station. Rhadow (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Mjroots, then look at Hapa Road railway station and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapa Road railway station where everybody seem to think that the article needs to be kept despite failing the very low bar of GNG --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion noted. I've looked at the article, and only the first reference actually mentions the station. All the rest seem to be concerned with the line that the station is said to be on. Thus WP:GNG is comprehensively failed in this case. Mjroots (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Mjroots, and yet everybody is voting to keep on the basis of that essay and the argument that ALL stations are notable. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:GNG is a guideline, which means we usually make use of it, not that we always make use of it. To see what we usually do, the way is to actually look at discussions at AfD. From experience there, d permanent transportation infrastructure is one where we have almost always kept; the usual disagreements are what counts as permanent. But notability is not the only question--if you read all of WP:N, you will see that for notable subjects with not much to see we can justify combination articles. Since WP is NOTPAPER, they can always be expanded whenever anyone finds enough information for the purpose. My suggestion is that at least for stations in India, and similar places where we have relatively incomplete geographic coverage, the most logical place to merge is into the article for the town or city, and additionally list for the railroad line. Considering that for many towns, which are agreed always to justify an article, we have relatively little information yet in WP, adding information on the RR station would help those articles. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Relevant AFDs

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from a passer-by

This is precisely going nowhere and shut this down, please. And next time; write better proposals that target something more worthwile than what's the parameter for removing stub-template. Sigh. ∯WBGconverse 07:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AfD notice

The Sousse–Kairouan Decauville railway article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Correct name for a commuter rail station

There is a discussion about this at Template talk:Gautrain route diagram. Comments are invited. (Pinging Amakuru, Cuchullain, Dicklyon, SMcCandlish who have participated on this topic before.) Useddenim (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Route Diagram Templates

Zackmann08 (along with Pppery) seem to be embarking on a campaign to subst and delete single-use RDTs (Template:Bakerloo line extension 2014 plan RDT and Template:Brescia Metro, for example. You are invited to comment on these discussions. Useddenim (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Two navboxes, {{Railway stations in Nottinghamshire}} and {{Railway stations in the Borough of Scarborough}}, have been nominated for deletion by user:Zackmann08. Please see the discussions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 1#Template:Railway stations in Nottinghamshire and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 1#Railway stations in the Borough of Scarborough. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

NJ Transit template consolidation

I think it makes sense to merge the Newark Light Rail and Hudson-Bergen Light Rail line templates into the main NJ Transit templates. The River LINE is already there (always has been), and they all belong to NJ Transit. No need to duplicate. I've converted Grove Street station (Newark Light Rail) as an example. Best, Mackensen (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Simultaneously, it would make sense to include a reliable reference aside from Google maps that Grove Street station (Newark Light Rail) exists and is a notable topic for the encyclopedia. For ten years this article has been unreferenced. Rhadow (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
One Sisyphean task at a time. Mackensen (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Coordinates display=inline,title

I noticed an edit at New Garia railway station which changed the coordinates infobox entry by replacing display=inline,title with display=inline. A discussion at 2013 archive pointed out that using title 'makes the article discoverable by the "nearby" function of our mobile app, and in things like Google's Wikipedia layer'. The doc at {{coord}} includes 'To ensure that coordinates are seen by these tools, one set should be displayed beside the title'. It seems the particular article mentioned is just one where title has been removed. What is the current consensus regarding title? Johnuniq (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Coordinates should always be in the title - there's absolutely no reason for them not to be there. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Seconded. Mjroots (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Thirded. Mackensen (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
There is no reason to duplicate the coordinates in the title, infobox, and occasionally in text. The infobox already includes the address of the station. The coordinates are logically placed close to it. I suggest that the infobox is the best place for coordinates in a railway station article. It would make more sense to check on the the operation of the "nearby" function. The last discussion was six years ago. Rhadow (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that an article might refer to several buildings, for example, and give the coordinates for each building inline. The nearby function wants to know the coordinates for the main topic discussed by the article. That is what title coordinates mean (there should only be one one title). Johnuniq (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Closed Lines

I've just stumbled on {{Closed Lines stations}} and related templates. These apparently support a couple closed railway lines in the Sydney, New South Wales area. These should really be grouped under the appropriate former operators and not the generic "Closed Lines"; does anyone who edits Australian topics have insight as to the correct former operator? Mackensen (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mackensen: I think the reason the articles don't state an operator is that the New South Wales Government Railways "administered rail transport in New South Wales, Australia, between 1855 and 1932". Jc86035 (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'll take a stab at making some appropriate templates such as Module:Adjacent stations/State Rail Authority. Mackensen (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of Short description template

I've observed use of Template:short description on a number of articles on from the set of DW&WR locomotives that were at AfD (Usually via the User talk:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper) and wonder if we are using them in an optimal and consistent way ... and absolutely no disrespect to any who have used them). I'll admit I haven't followed this through fully and am only picking up from observing results. Anyway what we seem to have ended up with includes:

Neither of these forms seems like a perfect description to me though combined they might be a little better. But:

  • a recommended standard might be useful (Perhaps there's one I haven't spotted).

I think it is beginning to dawn on me that the helper, that I have not used, is picking up things from the Infobox.

  • What items can usefully be picked up from the Infobox
    .e.g ( (operator(1st)) or (locale) (whytetype) (powertype) locomotive (builddate(1st)) )
    Example of DWWR 2 : DW&WR of Ireland 2-4-0T steam locomotive (1885)

Of course life in the article set is way more complex than one use case. Any thoughts? Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I was under the impression that shortdesc-helper got its information from Wikidata. There's plenty to imply that at Wikipedia talk:Short description. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

List of railway lines in France

I've put forward a proposal to completely reorganise the list of railway lines in France at the list's talk page. Comments there please. Mjroots (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Rarely used flag stops

The "133. McGregor station (BC)" issue directed me here. User_talk:Mackensen#McGregor station (BC)

My question is whether a rarely used flag stop, which comprises merely an information post in the ground, qualifies to have its own Wiki page? A series of Via Rail flag stops each have their own stub articles that provide little useful information, and the contents range from misleading to largely inaccurate. A comprehensive "Railway" section exists within the respective Wiki articles for these mainly former towns. The stub articles attempt to duplicate a small part of this information.

To enhance the value of category searches and reduce duplication, the simple solution would be the elimination of these stub articles and the restoration of the railway category links to the town articles.

Do Wikipedia guidelines exist regarding such insignificant stub articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMBanks1 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The rule we usually work to is "did it have timetabled passenger service?". In general, I find it makes more sense to include the little-used flag stops in the article on the line (see the listing for Church Siding here for an example). ‑ Iridescent 17:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resolution needed

Can someone please take a look at the dispute between User:Moylesy98 and User:Tony May? It revolves around which photos to use, but gets rather heated and nasty, so some outside interference before this gets out of hand may be useful. I have been otherwise involved with one of them, so my opinion may not be welcome or helpful. User talk:Tony May is probably a good place to start. Fram (talk) 09:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Both of them have posted to my talk page, there are several threads including: User talk:Redrose64#Indept Pedantry; User talk:Redrose64#I wonder what the policy is...; User talk:Redrose64#User Tony May. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I cannot pay any attention to this until Tony May informs me what is important and what isn't was inspired  :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Dave, who has taken lots of photographs of steam engines, wants to put said photographs into the articles ranging from Hogwarts to Excursion train to LMS Royal Scot Class, basically anywhere he can get them in, he has tried. He then has reacted angrily when it has been pointed out that we have better images available. He says I'm "slagging him off" and "making him look like a shit photographer", this not only is untrue, it is a personal attack. Dave refuses to discuss whether the photos that he has taken are sufficiently illustrative to include in articles. He constantly refers to the photographs concerned as "my photographs" (or in this case "MY F*CKING PHOTOGRAPHS"), suggesting WP:OWN violations and engages in edit warring. Good luck to anyone who has to deal with him. Tony May (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I've left some strong words of advice at Tony's talk page. If there is need for action arising from them, let me know. Mjroots (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Drama resumed, have take this to WP:ANI#User:Moylesy98 with a proposal to end this for once and for all. Mjroots (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Multiple unit big renames?

Eyeballs required at Talk:Multiple unit:

WP:NEOLOGISM seems to be an issue here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Coupling articles

I want to draw the WikiProject's attention to the editing by a person who has used the name NBTwain and a number of different IP addresses, including

They favour articles on different types of railway couplings, including railway coupling itself. Their MO is to alter captions of images in four principal ways: capitalising words that are not normally capitalised; removing spaces so that words run together; altering descriptive phrases to obscure technical abbreviations; addition of <br> tags where none should be necessary. The first two, when used together, create CamelCase words, causing the third way. Initially they usually left an edit summary of "CleanUp Image Formats" (note the CamelCase again) on an edit that usually left a mess behind. They have now stopped leaving edit summaries. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

UP 4014

Someone's changed the build date in the article from September to November, which I was keen to switch back on grounds that its not in the given citation, however in a look in the citation it really isn't in the given citation. If anyone has information about the build date, could they add a source for the information for the rest of us? It'd be appreciated. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

150th anniversary

So, the First Transcontinental Railroad had the Golden spike completion at Promontory Point on May 10. If there is any interest or hope in getting a place on the Main Page say at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 10, the first two articles especially need some citation improvement/general copy edit. More importantly, aficionados here, would be doing the pedia and it's readers a good service, just getting this editing done. Thank you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: It'll be there for sure. By coincidence, I made an IAR request for File:East and West Shaking hands at the laying of last rail Union Pacific Railroad - Restoration.jpg to appear on May 10 specifically for that reason, so the articles will be linked from the photo on the main page. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
TomStar81, Still hoping someone with knowledge will fix the articles, for our readers, anniversary of otherwise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Help please

There is a circular argument going on at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Taiwan stations). Could someone knock a couple of heads together and help form a consensus? Useddenim (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Current only vs. complete historical information

consolidated from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport, User talk:Lost on Belmont & Talk:Purple Line (CTA)

London Underground rolling stock numbering and classification and User:C2A

C2A repeatedly insists on removing a reference to the East London line, claiming variously that "it no longer exists", it "is no longer part of the london underground [sic]", and "it was outdated". However, since the ELL was part of London Transport and predecessors' Underground network for over 140 years, I feel that it absolutely warrants inclusion. What is peculiarly odd is that C2A is only deleting that single piece of information (as opposed to, for instance, all stock that has been withdrawn). Am I correct in attempting to keep the historic record complete? Useddenim (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

It depends. If this (and similar) are the only edits in question I think C2A is probably right. The ELL was operationally always a part of the Metropolitan Line rather than treated by LU as a line in its own right (even for the decade or so at the very end of its existence when LU treated it as a separate line on the tube map, operationally it was just a Met branch); if we're going to list the ELL then it's hard to argue against listing the Brill Tramway or Northern City as well, both of which were also operationally part of the Met. ‑ Iridescent 13:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@Iridescent: I'm not sure that you're adding any clarity to the discussion. The Brill Tramway was pretty much an entity unto itself, and the NCL—despite being tunnelled using tube technology—was built to mainline loading gauge and has had its own unique trains for the majority of its existence. Useddenim (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
To borrow from another editor:

I’ve noticed … a move … to leave only current [information]. This has always seemed like violating the spirit of WP:NOTGUIDE in its bias toward stations “you can use.” My understanding of Wikipedia is that it’s supposed to be as complete as possible. History is part of that completeness.
… While the station is (technically) gone, it was part of the Green Line service and the map gives a visual of where it was in relation to other stations and/or other related features.
Additionally, by including former stations or services … this gives an indication how how [things] have changed or developed over time. By showing the open *and* closed stations, there’s a more complete view of the service of what was and what is.

Although he was talking specifically about closed stations on the Green Line (CTA), the sentiment is just as apropos here. Useddenim (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@Useddenim: That is not relevant to the topic. The discussion is about the London Underground, not the Brill Tramway. Anyway, why I think the mention of the East London line is unnecessary is pretty much the same reason as what Iridescent said above. For almost all of those 140 years that it was part of the London Underground, it was just a branch of the Metropolitan line, only to become an independent line in the 1990s. C2A (About | Call | Edits) 16:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The ELL was conceived, built, and operated as an independent entity; it was merely administered as a Met branch (the same as the Brill Tramway). Also, your math is somewhat off: 'almost all of those 140 years' is actually closer to 100 of 140 (or only 70%). Useddenim (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
C2A, you still haven't given a compelling reason to remove relevant historical information. Yes, we all know that 'the ELL is no longer part of the London Underground'. That historical datum is covered by the words 'and formerly'. Useddenim (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Prior to Nationalisation at the start of 1948, the East London Railway was jointly-owned - for the period 1933-1947, the joint partners were: London and North Eastern Railway one sixth; London Passenger Transport Board one third; Southern Railway one half. British Railways inherited the LNER and SR share (and thus owned two thirds); but soon after Nationalisation, most of the BR interest (excepting the southern ends of the line, at New Cross and New Cross Gate) was transferred to London Transport, which simultaneously handed to BR its interest in the southern ends of the line. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

CTA Routemaps

Hello! I'm a fellow Chicagoan who has been doing some editing work on routemaps, and I noticed that, unlike in other cities, Chicago's maps include stations and track sections that have been demolished. It makes sense in my view to have the stations that are closed included, but it seems like the inclusion of demolished stations and track sections exceeds the bounds of usefulness for a routemap in an infobox (it makes sense for them to stay in the routemaps of the individual branches, I suppose). It looks like you have done a lot of editing of these, so I wanted to check with you before I did anything. WMSR (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I’ve noticed in other maps a move toward the removal of closed or demolished stops to leave only current stops. This has always seemed like violating the spirit of WP:NOTGUIDE in its bias toward stations “you can use.” My understanding of Wikipedia is that it’s supposed to be as complete as possible. History is part of that completeness.
If we look at the Green Line, the routemap up includes stations like Homan. While the stations is (technically) gone, it *was* part of the Green Line service and the map gives a visual of where it was in relation to other stations and/or other related features.
Additionally, by including former stations or services (like with the Blue Line) this gives an indication how how the service has changed or developed over time. By showing the open *and* closed stations, there’s a more complete view of the service of what was and what is. Lost on  Belmont  3200N1000W  (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
To me, it seems that while Wikipedia is WP:NOTGUIDE, it should also reflect reality. If a station no longer exists in any form, my view is that it should not be on the map. Stations like California on the Blue Line are still standing, and thus should remain, but since historical maps exist for the CTA (see Category:Chicago 'L' line templates), it does not make sense to keep demolished stations on the maps of *current* services. The Stock Yards Branch is not shown on the Green Line route map, and rightfully so. Why should stations be different? WMSR (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
the closed and demolished stations are on the route maps specifically to reflect reality. The reality is that the station existed and now it doesn’t. That’s why it’s designated with a differently colored dot. Removing such stations presents an entirely false picture not in line with reality in that it suggests that said stations were never part of the services in question. Whether or not a structure physically exists is wholly irrelevant. A station that is closed and demolished serves exactly the same function as one that is closed (never to reopen) but still stands. Such stations do not impact current operations or use and are only relevant in terms of history. Which is, of course, the whole point; the maps reflect the historical and current situations.
The Stock Yards Branch is not shown on the Green Line map because at no point did those services ever interact or have any impact on each other in any way. They were separated by a number of decades. The stations are different because they operated as part of the service in question.Lost on  Belmont  3200N1000W  (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
That's fair, but at the same time, I believe that everything you've said is excellent justification for keeping these stations on historical maps. A map of current service should contain current information. After all, the goal of a map is to show structures or services that presently exist. Historical maps show structures or services that used to exist. You would not expect a map of Chicago to include the Morrison Hotel because it isn't there anymore.
A closed (but not demolished) station differs from a demolished one because it is there. Even if the two have the same impact on the service, one cannot argue that there is no relevant difference. There is significant precedence for this; maps of NYC Subway services do not indicate demolished stations, while the maps for individual lines and branches do include them. London Underground, SEPTA, Barcelona, Boston, and several other maps omit them entirely, while retaining labels for stations with some remaining structures. It is also worth noting that the BSicon catalog dictates that the lighter-shade icons should denote "disused or planned" trackage/stations, as opposed to demolished trackage/stations.
Seeing as no information would be lost due to the existence on Wikipedia of other historical maps, and that doing so is in line with clearly set precedent and definitions, I have decided to be WP:BOLD and make the edits.WMSR (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree with Lost on Belmont on this. RDTs are intended to give an overview and context for the entire article. (A series of) Historical diagrams are appropriate when it is necessary to illustrate major and/or complex changes that would not be clear otherwise. So I have reverted your WP:BOLDNESS. If you want to pursue this further, I'd suggest you bring it up at WT:TRAINS to get more opinions. Useddenim (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Useddenim, just a heads up; this discussion is being continued at Talk:Purple Line (CTA)#Demolished stations in route maps. Lost on  Belmont  3200N1000W  (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I also have to agree with Useddenim and Lost on Belmont. The main difference for me, between the New York and Chicago diagrams, is that the New York service diagrams explicitly omit a lot of complexity, including tunnels and bridges, whereas the Chicago diagrams are more of a blend between service diagrams and line diagrams (even if the current "lines" would be more accurately termed "services"). Furthermore, it's not too different from including planned stations in diagrams; at least, neither planned nor demolished stations physically exist, and it's not like planned stations must be omitted from these diagrams. Jc86035 (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Demolished stations in route maps

Currently we have a difference of opinion on the inclusion of demolished stations on route maps for current "L" services. Per WP:BRD, I'm opening this up for discussion here (as opposed to the templates in question) because I believe there may be more visibility on the article.

The beginning of the discussion between myself and WMSR can be read here: CTA Routemaps.

In the last message in the previous iteration of this discussion, WMSR states three things: 1) the in maps of existing services are maps of current service, 2) no information is lost by the removal of demolished stations, and 3) the stations in question are retained on "historical maps."

I disagree with these points.

1) It is my belief that the maps are not (and should not be) illustrations of the current service, instead being depictions of the existing services. This may sound like semantics, but it is not. As it is, there are eight existing "L" services operated by CTA: Red, Blue, Brown, Green, Orange, Purple, Pink, and Yellow. The issue here (for me) is when each of these services originated:

  • Brown: August 1, 1949 (strict Kimball to Loop operation via elevated)
  • Purple: August 1, 1949 (Linden to Howard, with rush period express trips to the Loop via elevated)
  • Blue: June 22, 1958 (pairing the northwest side with the west side via subway)
  • Yellow: April 20, 1964 (reactivation of trackage as express service connecting Howard and Skokie)
  • Red: February 21, 1993 (pairing Howard and State Street with Dan Ryan)
  • Green: February 21, 1993 (pairing Lake with Englewood and Jackson Park)
  • Orange: October 31, 1993
  • Pink: June 25, 2006

With this in mind, the maps should reflect each service from its inception to present including stations that were in service after the start date, but have since been demolished.

2 and 3) Information is lost because there are no historical maps for the current services. For instance, there is no pre-rebuild Green Line map and there shouldn't be because it would be a waste of space as most information would be duplicated. Yes, all stations are listed on the branch maps, but the branch maps don't give any indication of service. By removing the station from the service map, there is only the information that the station existed on the branch because the context has been removed.

I'd appreciate everyone else's thoughts. Lost on  Belmont  3200N1000W  (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here, Lost on Belmont. I think it's also worth noting (as I did on your talk page) that lighter-shade shapes are intended to indicate closed or planned stations/lines in route maps. There should absolutely be a difference between those and demolished infrastructure. My opinion is also formed on the basis of what appears on traditional maps. Obviously, buildings and roads that are open would be featured, as would a major building or road even if it is closed. That said, a building or road which has been demolished would not appear on any map, as it is no longer a part of the infrastructure at that location. The same is true of rail maps.
The information "lost" from removing this from current service maps still exists both in the articles of the lines (it is my view, this alone is sufficient), and in maps of individual branches. Removing these stations would also put CTA maps in line with precedent on Wikipedia, as rapid transit route maps for nearly every city exclude demolished stations.WMSR (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Continued consolidated discussion

@WMSR: You claim that "a map of Chicago [would not] include the Morrison Hotel" and "London Underground, … Boston, and several other maps omit [demolished stations] entirely". On the contrary, an architectural history map of Chicago most certainly would include it (I remember seeing it noted on a walking tour guide a number of years ago), and {{MBTA Red Line}} shows the gone-for-three-plus-decades Harvard Stadium branch. Citing London Transport is a straw man argument, as – with the exception of the Brill branch – some infrastructure (mostly in tunnel) exists for all "demolished" stations. Useddenim (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, please provide examples for your claim that "rapid transit route maps for nearly every city exclude demolished stations". Useddenim (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Useddenim: I don't think the maps presented for current services should be historical maps. An architectural history map is certainly a niche document, and not what Wikipedia routemaps aim to recreate. In terms of other routemaps that do not include demolished stations, see List of former SEPTA Regional Rail stations - those stations are not shown on routemaps. I hardly see London as a straw man since those stations that are completely demolished do not appear on the map. The three stations of the Barcelona Metro that were demolished and relocated (Santa Eulàia, Espanya, and Universitat) are not shown on routemaps in their former locations (i.e. the "old" station does not appear, even though it was a physically different structure). Closed sections of the MBTA Orange Line are also omitted from its routemap.
Even if the consensus ends up being to keep the stations on the maps, it would be nice to have a way to differentiate between stations that are closed and stations that are demolished. University should not look the same as Racine. WMSR (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a difference between RDTs that are to show a service, and RDTs that show a line (i.e, a piece of infrastructure). The vast majority, including these, show the service. Former stations (regardless if anything remains) were part of the service, and should be shown. But the difference between closed-and-extant versus demolished is not relevant to the service, and should not be included on such RDTs. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: The operative word there is were. They are no longer a recognizable part of that service. Information about them certainly should remain in article text, and I would actually argue the opposite: that they should also remain in line RDTs as opposed to service RDTs.
Regardless, the difference between closed-and-extant verses demolished is enormously relevant to anyone accessing the map, because it is a map. If a road map did not clarify whether a building site was closed (with the theoretical potential to re-open) or permanently destroyed, it would be far less effective. That said, I still believe RDTs for current services should show the situation as it currently exists.WMSR (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Help from an editor familiar with the El would be appreciated: please see Template talk:Douglas branch (CTA)#Station links. The list of former Chicago "L" stations may be useful but also contains some rogue links. Thanks, Certes (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Cards84664 (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hermann Park Railroad

Hermann Park Railroad is currently a redirect to Hermann Park. Any project members interested in expanding the redirect into a short article?

---Another Believer (Talk) 17:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Wooden toy train mergers?

Should minor manufacturers of wooden toy trains on the BRIO system be kept, merged or deleted? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choo Choo Track & Toy Co (2nd nomination) Andy Dingley (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Copenhagen Metro reassessment

Copenhagen Metro, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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. HawkAussie (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This has been a somewhat contentious issue for a number of years at least going back to 2015 when it was also raised on this page, pointing to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sydney/Railway_stations#Transport_Links. With the opening of the Sydney Metro in the past week, the NSW Transport Info website has improved information to the point for the new stations and four existing stations where it appears unnecessary to list all bus routes which provide transport links at the station concerned. Hence this has again been raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sydney/Railway_stations#2019 where the current consensus appears to be that we should no longer list the transport links for each individual route but instead links to two different pages which provide all the required information - one page with a map and full details of the stands from which the routes operate and the other page with links to current timetables. Hence we have updated one of the new stations Rouse Hill railway station to show such links only. It is also believed that is less likely to be a contravention of the no travel guide rule and that the information for other stations will also be updated to the same level in due course. Any other comments would be welcome.Fleet Lists (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Tram line diagrams nominated for deletion

Tram line diagrams (RDTs) linked from the Trams in Warsaw article have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 2#Template:Warsaw Tramways Line 1. Please comment in the linked discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Notability of railway stations

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability#Train stations and comment on the RfC that you find there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Overcrowding Problem of Template:Seoul Metropolitan Subway stations

It contains 20 Rail or Subway Lines. So we can't add Gimpo Goldline on this template. 

Gimpo Goldline is scheduled to open in 27 July 2019.

This problem was mentioned in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2018#Problem of Template:Seoul Metropolitan Subway stations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:E199:301F:0:0:2A0A:20A1 (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and I gave advice there. Did you follow that advice? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
As I said at the time, it should probably be deleted, or disaggregated into individual navigation boxes for each line. Mackensen (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a requested move at Talk:WTC Cortlandt (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) that could benefit from your opinions. Please come and help out. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  16:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Updating Kalmbach Media Wiki entries

Hi. I am new. Very new to Wikipedia. I've been asked to update the various Kalmbach Media pages related to railroading and started in on Trains and the Kalmbach main Wiki entries before I realized the conflict of interest rule.

I'd like to suggest updates to the Wiki entries and am willing to help with Project Trains entries where I have no conflict. Please let me know how I may begin and with whom I need to communicate. Full disclosure: I am a full-time Kalmbach employee. Best — Kalmbach Digital Editor Kalmbach Digital Editor (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I left a note on your talk page. I would be happy to help. Slambo (Speak) 12:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Mill Hill (The Hale) railway station

I just read the rather short article, I inputted the cords into map app and it pops it right up next to Mill Hill Broadway train station, it doesn't say it in the article, but were the two stations connected to each other? It doesn't really describe it's exact location in any detail. I was just really interested about the station and wondered if anyone has more info to add. Govvy (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The coordinates are slightly off; the site of Mill Hill (The Hale) is a little south of Mill Hill Broadway, opposite the Bunns Lane entrance to Lyndhurst Park. (If you switch on satellite view, you can trace the former Northern Heights line as a row of trees from Edgware to the surviving stump of the line at Mill Hill East.) The stations were very near each other, but not physically connected (LNER and LMS rarely cooperated on anything). The definitive book on the Northern Heights is Northern Wastes by Jim Blake, but it's quite hard to find; Jim Connor has also written a number of books on London's abandoned stations, but only skims over the Northern Heights. If you don't mind spending silly money, I'm sure Middleton Press will have published something as well. ‑ Iridescent 17:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
(adding) In fact, scratch what I said about Northern Wastes; if you're interested in the history of the Northern Heights scheme, you want By Tube Beyond Edgware by Tony Beard. ‑ Iridescent 17:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Iridescent, that was really interesting looking at the tree line, never noticed that before, I will add that book to my reading list. I've got a bit more interested my my local history around Mill Hill, so finding out about that lost station really spark my interests. Govvy (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Govvy: The old Northern Heights stations at Highgate High Level and Alexandra Palace (the original in Dukes Avenue, not the station that now bears the name) are still standing, if you want to get a feel for what The Hale would have looked and felt like. (LT very occasionally opens Highgate High Level to the public, generally as part of London Open House in September.) It wasn't just a proposal that never got anywhere, it was well on the way to completion when LT abandoned it (it got as far as being added to the official tube map). A surprising amount of Northern Heights infrastructure still survives 65 years after London Underground abandoned the project (a long complicated story about expansion of the green belt reducing the economic viability of the suburban stations that were supposed to provide the revenue to pay for it, and the military seizing the depot that would have stabled the trains for war work and it being needed after the war as a workshop to refit buses): the lines from Finsbury Park to Highgate and from Cranley Gardens to Alexandra Palace survive as linear parks with the station platforms still in situ, there are massive earthworks that carried the line to the east of Mill Hill East, the shed which would have housed the new tube trains was only demolished in 1996 and its footprint is still clearly visible in the landscape, and much of the never-completed Brockley Hill station is still standing in Edgwarebury Park here. The London Railway Record will also have published at length about the route and about LT's doomed scheme to generate more passengers by convincing London to expand into southern Hertfordshire,* but its index could politely be described as "completely shit". ‑ Iridescent 20:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
*Not as harebrained a scheme as it sounds; it's the strategy the Metropolitan Railway successfully used to create the Buckinghamshire commuter belt.
Middleton Press have covered the line to Alexandra Palace in London Suburban Railways: Finsbury Park to Alexandra Palace, but none of the other routes beyond Highgate. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
No great loss; MP books are great for photos but not much else. If you really want to go down the rabbit hole Capital Transport published a doorstop-sized book by Anthony Badsey Ellis a few years ago called London's Lost Tube Schemes which goes into detail on all these things; I doubt it's still in print but Robert Humm will probably have it for sale and the LT Museum archive will certainly have it to read if you can blag your way in. Mr Beck's Underground Map and Underground Maps After Beck are also quite good for charting the "proposal–grand announcement–realise how much it costs and quietly abandon it" cycle of LT's megaproject schemes. ‑ Iridescent 21:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Iridescent and Govvy: The Ellis tome is on eBay for a fiver, as it goes. No more slamming doors! ——SerialNumber54129 09:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Amtrak infobox headers, redux

There was a discussion in 2018 about using state abbreviations in the infobox headers for Amtrak stations: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2018#Amtrak_infobox_headers. My sense of the discussion is that people agreed we shouldn't do this. MOS:INFOBOX says that the name field in an infobox should either be the common name or the full, official name. The postal abbreviation is neither. MOS:POSTABBR also says we shouldn't do this. Leaving the manual of style aside, I think it looks weird aesthetically, and it's inconsistent with any station Amtrak stops it which has a different styling (which is also arbitrary, but never mind). I think the abbreviations should come out, but I'd like to hear from other folks. Mackensen (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the common name has the abbreviations. It's almost always on signage, and if you look through timetables it's always presented in that format, save for stations with unique titles. Cards84664 (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
If the common name includes the abbreviations then that would imply our articles are named incorrectly. Mackensen (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Help with commons:Category:Southern Pacific 1258 identification

Please help to identify commons:Category:Southern Pacific 1258 by adding relevant categories. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Request

  1. Is it possible to make the station template a bit more user friendly by adding proper documentation to it? Too often I run into templates with links to disambiguation pages and why I try to solve them, I fail. Mainly because the station link templates are poorly documented and offer no clue how to solve the problems. Every rail system seems to have it own templates with its own unique system to sole links to disambiguation pages.
  2. Can de following templates and links be solved? Template:BART 1976 (19th street station), Template:BART Green Line (Berryessa station), Template:BART Orange Line (Berryessa station), Template:East Bay Train Stations (19th street station)

Thanks in advance. The Banner talk 08:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@The Banner: 1. I agree, but Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Guide#Railway stations may be helpful. 2. I fixed these cases simply by completing the name of the station. Certes (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Notability of travel time in railroad station articles

I recently removed travel-distance time information from MNRR articles, of which I assumed were out of line with WP:NOTTRAVEL. As brought up by User:Mackensen on my talk page, "Travel times are a function of timetabling and therefore can potentially run into problems of reliability, verifiability, and triviality." An example of said information as shown here is being upheld by User:Beyond My Ken simply because no discussion regarding consensus has been held before now. Is the information in question notable, or should it be removed? Cards84664 (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Reposting what I posted on Cards' talk page: Wikipedia is not a timetable, but I don't know that WikiProject Trains (or anyone else) has determined the limits of that principle with respect to this specific issue. We give mileage, after all, which serves two purposes: (1) it satisfies the railfans and (2) gives the reader a vague sense of the location of the station relative to its inbound terminus. Arguably travel times can help satisfy the second point, and are perhaps more useful than mileage for the traveler, but that's not necessarily what Wikipedia is for. Here are past discussions which touched on this question:
I don't claim the above is exhaustive, but I don't recall this specific issue being raised. Mileage is common, but then mileage doesn't change often. Travel times are a function of timetabling and therefore can potentially run into problems of reliability, verifiability, and triviality. Mackensen (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The other issue with travel times is they can vary greatly with stopping patterns, which, especially for commuter routes, are not necessarily consistent with differing limited and express runs. I don't think they're useful, and would leave them out. oknazevad (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTTRAVEL says, in its entirety:

Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should only list those that are actually in the city. If you do wish to help write a travel guide, your contributions would be welcome at our sister project, Wikivoyage.

I concur with what I believe is the consensus view that Wikipedia articles should not include extensive timetable information, but the information that is being deleted by Cards84664 is on the order of "and travel time to Grand Central is about 51 minutes on local trains and 36 to 42 minutes on express/semi-express trains", which was removed from Irvington station (Metro-North). This single sentence is not in any way a violation of NOTTRAVEL in text or spirit, and provides the reader with a single relevant fact, which is not in any way the same as a timetable. As I noted on C84664's talk page, that travel time has been a near-constant for many decades, and is therefore a fairly inherent fact about the station. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Journey times vary between different editions of a timetable. They also vary according to how often a train stops (consider these services - anything from 13 to 25 minutes). Mileages don't change twice a year. They're also independent of the places that the train stops at on the way.
See also WP:NOTTIMETABLE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
In point of fact, the travel times on the Hudson line have not changed significantly from when the NY Central ran steam trains on it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Travel time does not belong in the vast majority of station articles unless the travel time is of particular note, or belongs as part of other information in the article. Some examples where it might be worth including (and possible to cite from sources other than timetables):
    • That although the former Tufts University station was just eight minutes from North Station, the low frequency and high cost meant that ridership was low because students preferred the more frequent and cheaper bus. (I have a 1979 newspaper article to this effect to add).
    • That the 23-minute travel time from Blue Hill Avenue station to downtown Boston is a substantial reduction from that possible before the station was added. (Cited in the article.)
    • Noting the different travel times to downtown on different branches from Ridgewood station and Blue Island–Vermont Street station
Aside from specific and relatively uncommon examples like these, travel time does not belong on articles. Wikipedia is not a timetable, and we are not the website for the transit providers. Travel times are prone to variation, require continual updating (or checking to see if they have changed), and not relevant for an encyclopedia. Those that Cards has been removing are particularly egregious: they were added in 2006 and have not been updated nor cited since. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
So, here's an example of what I referred to above. this NY Central timetable from 1950 shows a rush-hour weekday train leaving GCT at 5:38pm and arriving in Irvington at 6:18, for a travel time of 40 minutes. The current Metro-North schedule shows a train leaving at 5:20pm and arriving at 6:00, and another leaving at 5:48pm and arriving at 6:18, for travel times of 40 and 39 minutes. Essentially, these travel times have not changed in decades.
I don'tthink anyone would argue that specific timetable information out to be included in articles, but it's a fact that for 60 years or more, the travel time between Irvington and GCT has not changed significantly. Thus, I would argue that the language above, i.e. "travel time to Grand Central is about 51 minutes on local trains and 36 to 42 minutes on express/semi-express trains" is relevant and should be included. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Pi and Mackensen. Travel time should generally not belong on articles unless the travel time itself is particularly notable or is relatively fixed (and cited to that effect). Travel times can change greatly depending on how many more stops the train has to make, and just because the travel time hasn't changed for years doesn't mean it won't change significantly in the future.
    Ironically, if the travel time does change significantly, then that's a case where it's notable enough to be included. An example is most of the LIRR, where East Side Access and various expansion projects are expected to change the travel time to Manhattan. epicgenius (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Google Maps for walking distance

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Harringay Green Lanes railway station#Distance from Harringay Station and comment there. This is in relation to HughJLF (talk · contribs) adding this three times. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Categorization of railways by city

Please contribute to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_14#Category:Transport_in_Jelgava. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Wellington, Grey and Bruce Railway

Could somebody take a look at Draft:Wellington, Grey and Bruce Railway and evaluate the sources? My take on them is that most look like blogs and thus fail WP:RS, but I'm not up on what the rail community considers to be good sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Japan

There's an interesting slow-burning edit war going on with various Japanese train stations:

2406:3003:2004:6A0:1443:46B:9DA3:4F04 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (possibly a sock of Calvinkulit (talk · contribs)) keeps adding literal English translations to the leads of station articles for the station names. (example and example)

2400:4051:1001:2E00:6538:B041:9CE3:66D1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the latest ip to keep removing them. (example, example, example)

I have no idea what to do about this, if this needs to go higher up just let me know. Cards84664 (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, obviously the general policy is to gloss foreign names where appropriate and the argument is about appropriateness. In the case of a city or community name, the gloss should be on the city's own page (e.g., Shanghai's page has an infobox glossing its literal Chinese meaning of "On-the-Sea") and the train stations shouldn't include translation (Shanghai North Railway Station isn't "On-the-Sea North Railway Station" to anyone).
On the other hand, if the station does have a peculiar name distinct from any larger community ("Across-from-the-Diet-Building Station" seems like a likely candidate), there should be a gloss of the meaning of the name. It doesn't have to go in the lead, though. Infoboxes or Name sections seem like they could be more appropriate in some cases. — LlywelynII 04:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization

So what happened here? Is it just that some Brits are much more into adding station info to Wikipedia? or is there a MOS guideline buried somewhere where we decided to use lower-case "station" and "railway station" in the names of all our articles? It's certainly jarring to most of our readers, so it'd be good to know if it's just a matter of WP:ENGVAR first-past-the-post or if there's actually a mandate somewhere to (mis)capitalize this way.

(If it's the latter, it'd be worth adding to your own MOS here so people could find it more easily.) — LlywelynII 04:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The standard approach is that capital letters are only used for words with are part of the name of the subject concerned. In the case of "station" or "railway staion", these are normally not part of the name and hence should not be capitalized.Fleet Lists (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not rigidly enforced (take a look through Category:Railway stations in the United States or Category:Railway stations in India), but some countries do try to adhere to a standard format, see WP:NCUKSTATIONS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Station opening dates

Question arising out of East Ventura station but applicable elsewhere: should we consider a station's opening date the date of the "grand opening" or similar ceremonies, or the date of the first regular service. For East Ventura (originally Montalvo) it's a question of November 8 (grand opening) vs November 11, 2002 (regular service). Both are attested to in reliable sources. Both are correct. In another case, Pomona station (California), regular service started on February 5, 2001, but the grand opening probably wasn't until early March. I think we should be consistent, pick one or the other, and document it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Style advice. Mackensen (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Regular service, without a doubt. Whether service is actually running is vastly more important than politicians having photo ops. The ceremonies can be noted in the prose. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I would use the ceremony date if there were trains leaving the station that were open to the public. That date will be the most likely to appear in later news reports and press materials, so as long as the public were able to ride, I don't see the harm. SounderBruce 19:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Our normal convention is to use scheduled passenger service. The ribbon-cutting sometimes happens on the first day of service, but not always - sometimes it's the day or week before, and there have been several cases when it was the day, week or even month afterwards, because the mayor's diary didn't have a gap that was convenient for the timetable planners. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Regular service. More encyclopaedic. Triptothecottage (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Either regular service per Redrose, or use both with qualifiers. The former seems to be the convention though, the Docklands Light Railway infobox notes "operation began" 31 August 1987. The prose (at the end of §Origins and devleopment) "The line was formally opened by Queen Elizabeth II on 30 July 1987, and passenger services began on 31 August.". All Saints DLR station was one of the stations that opened with the original system, the infobox there gives the opening date as 31 August 1987 and there is no mention in the prose. Thryduulf (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I would use the date that public services started in the infobox but qualify it in the main text. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everyone who participated, I've stubbed out Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Style advice#Articles about railway stations style guide. Mackensen (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Class 323s to be transferred to Scotland

The WMR Class 323s will be transferred to Scotland for use on ScotRail when they are replaced by Class 730 Aventras in 2020.

Northernrailwaysfan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northernrailwaysfan (talk • contribs) 12:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Platform layout templates

@Pi.1415926535: @J4lambert: @Oknazevad:

This obviously needs to be discussed. With templates like Template:MBTA Platform Layout Park Street, Oknazevad and I are for deletion and we moved the contents back to the mainspace, Pi.1415926535 and J4lambert are against leaving said templates in the mainspace. Cards84664 (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought we resolved years ago not to provide platform layouts. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Obviously not. I'll ping @C16sh: and @Mackensen: too. Cards84664 (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
For simple stations, yes, there was consensus not to have them in articles. The ones under consideration now are for stations like Jamaica station and Park Street station that are substantially more complex, and a diagram of some sort is often able to provide more information than prose. I believe that such diagrams (whether RDTs, rows, etc) should be separate templates - that way they aren't thousands of bytes of raw html or RDT code mixed into the article wikitext. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Keep, per Pi.1415926535. Useddenim (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a broad consensus, reinforced by hundreds of TFD discussions, far beyond station layout diagrams that templates should not be created for single-article use, unless it's for material that frequently changes (such as sport team rosters) to prevent edit histories being clogged up with a lot of edits. These layouts are not something that will change frequently (if ever) so there's no need to use a template. oknazevad (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I would say that's true, but at the same time there are many templates such as station layouts and rail diagrams which are single-use. For station layouts, there's a pressing need for a templated solution. That might mitigate the need for single-use templates by reducing the amount of markup in the article. Mackensen (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Links to prior discussions:

Article usage is inconsistent, but some systems have layouts for almost every station, even if it's a simple two-track station with an island platform. Mackensen (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

On the Thameslink Route Map Template:Thameslink, Luton Station has an accessible sign. According to National Rail, only platform 5 is accessible https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/LUT/details.html. Which symbol should be used for Luton and how do you code it in? Thameslinkrail (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Lead photo at Liverpool Street station

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Talk:Liverpool Street station#Lead photo. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Appropriate level of detail for services?

I'm currently working on a new "Services" section for Flinders Street railway station in a sandbox. I had a poke around for any discussion about an appropriate level of detail for these sections, but couldn't find anything conclusive. Would appreciate some input to clarify WP:NOTTIMETABLE, particularly on questions such as:

  • Should service information include platform allocations where they are in the source? (They are here.)
  • Should service patterns and frequencies be included, and if yes, with more or less detail than I have here?
  • Is commenting on frequencies by reading the timetable a violation of WP:SYNTH or is it a WP:CALC exception?

All this and more appreciated. My current version is based on FAs and GAs around the place, combining a table and prose, but I'd be happy to alter the balance. Triptothecottage (talk) 02:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

To the first two, no and no. We are not in the business of providing train service information - if people need this info it should be found from the railway company's website on or close to the day of travel. The railway company is obliged to ensure accuracy and to keep information up to date: we do not have these obligations, and so any information of that nature that we post may become incorrect at any time. Imagine if every article about a station had such information, there would be a huge amount of effort needed to keep it up to date when timetables change. I don't know about Australia, but in the UK the timetables are amended twice a year, and there are over 2,500 passenger stations (excluding the London Underground and rapid transit systems), so that would 5,000 checks and updates each year. We cannot hope to keep abreast of that.
To the second and third: if we do include service frequencies, it should be on the article for the line or the railway company, not the individual stations. This does not just reduce the maintenance burden (see previous paragraph), it also eliminates duplication. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
In fact in Sydney, Australia we are going in the opposite direction at least with bus route information in station articles which was becoming very hard to maintain. The Transport operator is now starting to provide lists of bus routes and a map where all bus stops are located. Where such records are now present as in Epping railway station, Sydney#Services we provide a reference to the operator record for the station https://transportnsw.info/stop-details?q=10101429#/ as well as a link to the map under External Image https://transportnsw.info/document/4151/epping-bus-guide.pdf and are in the process of deleting the bus route listings from the station articles. Train information is still kept but certainly not to the level as is proposed here.Fleet Lists (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Alright, thanks both, that’s good feedback, and especially a compelling argument about not including platforms. I’ll trim things back fairly considerably and might get rid of the table altogether. Hernes Hill railway station was one of my models but that is quite a bit more compact.
Thoughts on retaining some more concise comments on Loop direction? It’s a weird quirk of the Melbourne system and it strikes me as interesting and encyclopedic that a "terminus" should have trains departing to the same destinations in opposite directions depending on the time of day or phase of the moon.
Anyway, that was why I didn’t take it live straight away. I’ll make some changes in the morning and we’ll see how it looks. Triptothecottage (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Tyne & Metro usage figures

The recent 2017-2018 Tyne & Metro usage figures have been published and they can be located on a spreadsheet on this link. I am adding the recent figures to all the Tyne & Wear Metro station articles. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page

Does anyone know what the ambiguous link to an indicator shelter in SR Lord Nelson Class 850 Lord Nelson might be referring to? Narky Blert (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: It may house one of these devices for producing an indicator diagram. They are mentioned in several bios but I don't think WP has an article on the subject. Certes (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't know, but I put a link to this question on the talk page of the user who scanned and uploaded the image to Commons and asked him to disambiguate the link if he can. --Tkynerd (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

As noted at Indicator diagram, an indicator is a measuring device that produces a chart on a piece of card or paper. These are used to evaluate how much useful work is done in the cylinder, and so determine efficiency. They are connected to the crosshead by mechanical linkage, and have tubes communicating with the ends of the cylinder to measure the internal pressure. These tubes need to be short to avoid a false reading due to pressure loss by condensation, so the indicator needs to be mounted close to the cylinder - at the front of the loco.

In a locomotive, indicators are not permanent equipment, they are only fitted to a loco when it is desired to test out that loco. An indicator needs constant attention from test staff, who will engage the apparatus at times when a reading is desired, and disengage it once the reading has been made. They also change the cards for each test. Each cylinder requires an individual indicator, and since it us usually beneficial to test all of the cylinders simultaneously, a four-cylinder loco like a Lord Nelson will need four indicators and four test staff. The apparatus cannot be operated remotely, hence the test staff need to be physically present at the front of the loco. Thus, they need protection both against wind (and possibly rain), and against falling off whilst the loco is in motion. So a kind of three-sided wooden hut (open at the rear) is built around the front of the loco, and the test staff crouch inside. This is the indicator shelter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Belgian loco naming (again)

Two years ago, WT:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2017#Belgian_loco_naming, we agreed that Belgian locos on en:WP would be named SNCB Class 77 rather than NMBS/SNCB Class 77. Has this changed now? Re [2] and many others. @Jan olieslagers: Andy Dingley (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I was not aware of the previous discussion - maybe I was at one time but forgot. I do not however see any firm conclusion to that discussion; a good part of it seems to be about the German language being also applied or not. But I have quietly been renaming several articles on Belgian railway equipment from SNCB xxx to NMBS/SNCB xxx and those changes were left unchallenged. I do intend to continue on this, for consistency and for political correctness. Neither can I see how anyone could question it: NMBS is the Dutch language name of the company and Dutch is Belgium's first language. That many UK sources use only the French form is regrettable, though I think that must mainly be due to historical reasons. Time to set things right! Belgium is a bilingual country (actually tri-lingual indeed, but the German-speaking part is tiny, and content to keep its own ground) with Dutch being majoritary though not perhaps predominant; articles about Belgian institutions and their equipment ought to reflect this. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
But the point is (the same as it was in 2017) that this is en:WP, and in English-language contexts SNCB themselves stick to just SNCB. This concatenation of multi-lingual acronyms (SBB is even worse) seems to be (yet again) Wikipedia's invention. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Admitting that Belgium and its institutions are a confused and confusing lot, I still cannot see the point. The name of the company is "NMBS/SBCB". Not invented by (anybody on) Wikipedia, it is in the Belgian State Gazette. So its rolling stock is called accordingly, or at least it should. Suppose you were to come across an archive letter signed "xxxx, Mayor of Madras", will you than call an article Mayor of Madras? Nay, Chennai it is and thus Mayor of Chennai. Equally, Class 17 of the NMBS/SNCB is NMBS/SNCB Class 17. Even if there are perhaps documents where the company names itself incorrectly. Again, let us be consistent. And yes, multi-lingual countries are not easy to understand for everybody - there's nothing I can do about that. Jan olieslagers (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
This is a difficult discussion to have due to the political sensitivities in Belgium concerning language. The company doesn't have a legal English name, but it has a Dutch and a French name, both of which are on equal footing at a legal level. The fact that the company calls itself SNCB on its English website is most likely simply due to a French person being the webmaster or head of the department and nothing more. But that's only a calculated guess based on experience working with them professionally, so I'm not sure how much weight should be given to this. We could just ask them on Twitter whether they see "SNCB" as the official English version of their company name and get it over with like that? Glodenox (talk) 09:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, @Glodenox:. Your pointer to the KBO (a state publication!) is especially relevant: we are not discussing a theatre or a park or an exotic recipe or whatever, we are discussing a publicly owned company with a legally binding statute which includes its naming. Neither am I acting on "political sensivities" mentioned: I simply want to have our encyclopedia correct. A correct encyclopedia can never be based on incorrect documents, even if there may have been some such in the past. Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Consulting the company directly sounds like a good idea, but I wouldn't know how to start; the asocial media like Twitter are terra incognita to me. If you have any idea I'll only be grateful. Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I've just asked the company directly over Twitter. This should help dissolve this dispute. Jan olieslagers; until this is sorted, I'm asking you to refrain from updating any pages until this is concluded. Thanks. GWR 2019 (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for contacting NMBS, I'm really curious to the answer. I cannot however keep myself from suspecting them to keep far from firm answers, as far as they ever can. As for page updates: unlike you, I disrupted mine as soon as any dissension became visible. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
While waiting for an answer from the company, here's a remark I got on a Belgian railways forum: there are indeed many English language docs where the company calls itself "SNCB"; still it is not a general principle, at the contrary they seem rather inconsistent on the matter. Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a verry clear answer https://mobile.twitter.com/SNCB/status/1150779410141843461 83.81.132.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Clear it may be, and I could live with it; but where is the authority? A formal answer from the company itself is eagerly awaited. Thanks, though! Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Gone quite silent, this discussion. Most reactions seem to agree that some kind of bilingual descriptor is in order. Can we leave it at that? Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Their language setting page speaks of the "Belgian Railways" under the choice for English. --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
As stated before, themselves are not very consistent (in this matter as in many more). Yet it might be an answer: we would then have Belgian Rail series 41 DMU and so forth. Not very elegant, but the issue is awkward anyway. I could live with this as a compromise. Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Don't you mean Belgian Railways series 41 DMU, etc.? Useddenim (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I could live with that, too :) Thanks for proofreading! Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm tempted to fall back upon the Belgian Railways link, though that may cause confusion between Belgian Railways and British Rail if typed in initials. It's probably the smarter decision to go for that and leave the other languages for the translated pages they may concern. GWR 2019 (talk) 10:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Co-Co locomotives

What's the date of the first mainline diesel electric Co-Co (AAR: C-C) loco, with that wheel arrangement?

I'd always assumed that it was American and in the 1930s, but I can't find an example. They were mostly B-B and a few A1A-A1A (even a B-A1A). There are a few heavy freight electrics of Co-Co at this time, but the first diesels are the LMS pair post-war. Anything earlier? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Coronation of Queen Victoria

The Coronation of Queen Victoria article is up for good article review. Both the lead and the Public procession and crowds section have wording on the lines of the newly built railways were able to deliver huge numbers of people into London and it has been estimated that some 400,000 visitors arrived to swell the crowds.

Looking at the company articles, the London and Southampton Railway was open between Nine Elms and Woking Common; the Great Western Railway between Paddington and Maidenhead while the London and Birmingham Railway was not finished in time for the coronation of Queen Victoria on 28 June 1838, but aware of the lucrative traffic the event would generate, the company opened the north end of the line, between Birmingham and Rugby, and the south end from London to a temporary station at Denbigh Hall near Bletchley with a stagecoach shuttle service linking the two parts to allow through journeys to London.

Were there any others? Could these have made much contribution to the 400,000 figure? There is a ref for the role of the railways and the 400k [3] but the current wording, putting both in the same sentence, feels a bit much. Cavrdg (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Judging by
  • James, Leslie (November 1983). A Chronology of the Construction of Britain's Railways 1778-1855. Shepperton: Ian Allan. pp. 10–26. ISBN 0-7110-1277-6. BE/1183.
and ignoring tramways and mineral lines, the following were wholly or partially open on or before 28 June 1838 and which communicated with London or the Thames, or with each other:
Some of these were opened in stages, the year shown in parenthesis is that of the first section, not of completion. Crucially, the last section of the London and Birmingham Railway (Tring to Rugby) opened on 24 June 1838, giving direct communication to London from places as far away as Liverpool, St Helens, Wigan, Bolton and Manchester. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

East African Railways & Harbours Staff Magazine archives

This archive may be useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Trains

Proposal to delete all portals

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore (talk) 07:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Caledonian Sleeper

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Assistance is requested at Talk:Caledonian Sleeper#Hotel on Wheels. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Lake Shore Limited

The station in Hudson, NY was added to the timetable for the LSL in June, but Hudson has not been added to the maps or station lists elsewhere on Amtrak's website. Cards84664 (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Shenzhen metro

Hi,

I posted a comment on the Shenzhen metro talk page re the metro map on that page. Any help anyone can provide on that is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.162.90 (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC about station layouts and exits

CLOSE VACATED
Clearly this is a problematic closure; when most editors are arguing that this should be dealt with on a case by case basis, the closure stating that "these should be generally done away with" is an incorrect summary of the discussion and looks a bit like a SUPERVOTE (with the minority, that is). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original close
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

So, it appears that the general consensus here is that station maps should be removed in their entirety per NOTGUIDE. As a few editors noted, it may be better to have the layout in prose as opposed to markup, due to accessibility and maintenance issues, but for now I believe the general consensus is just to do away with the maps.Mgasparin (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Should railway stations include station layout and exits? (ie these). –Dave | Davey2010Talk 13:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been removing these as per NOTGUIDE and CRUFT (I see the layout as a guide around the station and exits being a guide on how to leave - could be wrong on this) but anyway Terramorphous disagrees with my removing of these so figured I'd get consensus for it. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 13:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thryduulf and Iridescent, Ah thank you I didn't realise these existed elsewhere, So just to clarify am I correct in thinking you both only believe layout and exits should stay providing there's either a prose on it or it's reliably sourced but if it's neither (like the example above) then they should just be removed?, Many thanks, –Dave | Davey2010Talk 16:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In general yes, but it's too vague for there to be a consistent rule. There are some cases I can think of without much difficulty where the layout of even an apparently utterly prosaic station layout can be notable, even though it's not immediately obvious. Clapham North tube station, which inherited an "island platform, single exit" design from the 1920s and which has been known for a century to be a mass casualty incident waiting to happen, or Union Station (Utica, New York) which has one of the most magnificent station buildings in the US but only has a single grubby pair of surviving platforms owing to the other 12 being converted into a parking lot, are a couple that spring to mind. ‑ Iridescent 17:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

    (adding) If you want an example of a station where the placement of the exits is notable, try Brookwood railway station, which has a discreet exit directly into the adjacent cemetery to allow mourners travelling from London to pass directly into and out of the cemetery without having to walk through the town. ‑ Iridescent 17:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah okay I'm with you, Unfortunately when creating this RFC I didn't realise station layouts etc were present on UK (and other) articles so ofcourse a policy on it would be hard and perhaps useless, Ah well thanks for kindly clarifying and helping here, Thanks, –Dave | Davey2010Talk 11:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Mackensen: Cards84664 (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that the number of platforms and tracks is notable, and I think where reliable sources have discussed the layout we should do so as well in prose. Having spent a good deal of time with the layout templates over the last few months as part of the adjacent stations migration, I think they're troublesome on several fronts. First, they're not reliably sourced (in general). Second, the markup is an accessibility nightmare and difficult to maintain. Third, they're really taking us into "not a timetable" territory. Imagine reproducing the Fahrplans for Swiss railway stations. The information is actually sourceable, but we'd just be duplicating information which can be linked to. More later. Mackensen (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Quainton Road track layout
  • Oh, I'd certainly think we should always mention the number of tracks and platforms; I'm talking about whether it's appropriate to discuss the actual layout in obsessive detail (Limerick Junction railway station, I'm looking at you). If you want a good example of an ultra-minor station where the track layout was undoubtedly unusual enough to warrant both illustration and discussion in detail, try the insane reversing-siding-and-turntable arrangement used to connect the lines at Quainton Road railway station. ‑ Iridescent 21:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, Quainton Road was on the Brill branch, so that comes with the territory. I agree that Limerick Junction is excessive (and in the manner of these things, unreferenced). Mackensen (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No general policy Hello everyone, I'm not advocating for station layouts to be allowed on all articles. For the record I do think exits should be removed under NOTGUIDE as generally there is no need to list them. Davey2010 has been removing platform layouts and exit directories everywhere and I didn't intervene. Not because I am not aware of these changes (I am) but because I agree there is no need to show all the exits and if the platform layout is just a simple side or center platform there is no need to show that too. Mention in the article in text that it's a center platform. I'm advocating against the wholesale removal of these layouts under NOTGUIDE. If there is a more complicated layout why not have a schematic for it. It is better than just describing it in text and simpler than opening up Photoshop and creating a small diagram image. I think everyone is in agreement of this but the question I guess is: What layout is unique enough to warrant a layout in the article? Terramorphous (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No general policy As others have said above, this isn't a one size fits all kind of issue. Stations with only one or two platforms serving a single or interlined service definitely do not need a table unless they have some kind of quirk (like split mezzanines or additional levels), but a transfer/junction with several lines and levels will. So far, cases of the former that I have presented at FAC have not been brought up as problematic, even in sourcing checks, so I don't think it's that big of an issue. Accessibility does need to be improved, as mentioned. SounderBruce 04:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No general policty. Per WP:DUE, WP:NOTABLE and WP:RSUW: if a station has layout that is unusual enough that is covered by multiple sources - then it's notable and should be covered here as well. For simple stations it won't hurt to write a single sentence or a word describing the layout but there is no need in detailed descriptions and diagrams. “WarKosign” 05:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No general policy: The information what layout / number of platforms and tracks a station has should be included in articles imo. Long, overly detailed sections may be removed or appropriately cut down, especially if they're unsourced. Nyamo Kurosawa (huh?) 21:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No general policy - summoned by a bot, I am persuaded by Thryduulf's and Iridescent's arguments. In many cases this won't really add anything, but in others it may be beneficial - I don't see any pressing need to remove them en masse, better to discuss on a case-by-case basis. GirthSummit (blether) 09:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • support removal as the baseline, off course there may be notable cases (as Thryduulf explained). I am thinking of the detailed information seen at the presented diff (as in "door open on the right side...", and "line X to line Y"). Which is actually so confusing as not to be even useful as a guide (really, will anyone look at WP to know by which side of the train should they step out...?). And then, we are not a guide, anyway. - Nabla (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Get back to basics. No general policy If there is anything helpful or interesting to say about the map, it should go in and stay in. For example, if the track layout is relevant to the importance of a station as a major junction, or if it had led to a major disaster, or if it explains something about a major architectural work, or if it explains something about trains replacing buses or vice versa in the city blah blah, then by all means include an informative map. But if it explains nothing relevant to the article, then sure it is cruft, but not till then. JonRichfield (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Clarification

It seems everyone agrees that lists of exits should be removed as per NOTGUIDE. However what is the opinion of everyone on just having a platform layout for more complicated stations such as this or those found across the NYC Subway.Terramorphous (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problem on Template:Seoul Metropolitan Subway stations

It contains 20 Rail or Subway Lines. So we can't add Gimpo Goldline on this template. 

Gimpo Goldline was opened in 28 September 2019.

This problem was mentioned in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2018#Problem of Template:Seoul Metropolitan Subway stations and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2019#Overcrowding Problem of Template:Seoul Metropolitan Subway stations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:216:F9A7:0:0:2E67:90A0 (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Why is "it contains 20 Rail or Subway Lines" a problem? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@Redrose64: I believe the wrapper template only accepts 20 templates. That's common for a number of templates on here; for templates with individually coded parameters, 20 is a reasonable upper bound. (For example, in {{SPI report}}, the template only accepts up to 20 sock names.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Update: I have nominated the template for deletion/breaking up: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 October 17#Template:Seoul Metropolitan Subway stations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
At one time, {{navbox}} would allow |groupn=/|listn= parameters numbered up to 20, but no further. This limit was removed several years ago, most probably when Toohool (talk · contribs) converted it to Lua back in March 2013. No limit is mentioned in the template documentation. So if you want 21 rows, do it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Metro station names

We currently have, unless I am missing something, three main standards for metro / rapid transit stations: Akademicheskaya (Moscow Metro) (Moscow, not consistent throughout the system but works as an example), Axelsberg metro station (example from Stockholm), and Sundby Station (example from Copenhagen), as well as various deviations like for instance Metro Bellas Artes (Mexico City) or Českomoravská (Prague, also not consistent throughout the system). I am not proposing to unify them (which is I guess impossible anyway), but has the naming been discussed anywhere? Is this a result of some top-down or some bottom-up approach? For example, I am now creating articles on Santo Domingo metro, and there were zero articles before I started. I have chosen the ... (Santo Domingo Metro) standard, mainly because someone else has chosen the same standard for Panama before me. Is it ok, or would someone come to move all of them at some point?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

There are several other naming conventions, some formal including WP:USSTATION, and others informal. I would recommend naming the articles "XYZ station" (the most generic naming convention) for now; they can be moved later if there's a particular argument for another system. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I have made redirects from XYZ station, and will use this convention for the next system I deal with.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Shalingzi West railway station#Requested move 24 October 2019, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Moscow interchange

I'm reviewing this edit. The Moscow Metro out-of-station interchange between Sevastopolskaya on Line 9 and Kakhovskaya on Line 11 is shown inconsistently. Do we have a standard for showing this sort of arrangement? There is a complication in that line 11 seems to have closed last month, and Kakhovskaya now seems to be on a temporarily diverted line 8A. Certes (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

INT should be used whenever there is an interchange. For out-of-station interchanges in Moscow, the walking pictogram Free out-of-station interchange with the same fare card is used next to the bullet of the line you can change to. WMSR (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
The whole Kakhovskaya line (Kakhovskaya, Varshavskaya, and Kashirskaya) is closed, and when it reopens it will be part of line 11.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I've left the interchange out for now and I expect the subject experts will add the new version when appropriate. Certes (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

discussion on use of railfan sites as sources on RSN

I currently have a discussion going on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard regarding the use of fan sites as references as I feel that they tend not to meet the general criteria of reliable sources guideline for Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

For those interested: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 276#http://utahrails.net and http://rrpicturearchives.net. Cards84664 (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Bullet trains

The BBC reports that ten bullet trains are to be scrapped following flood damage sustained in Typhoon Hagibis. Can this info be assimilated into the relevant articles please? Mjroots (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Paptilian would like to join discussions

Greeting WikiProject Trains, Paptilian is interested in the improvement of Rail transport articles. I have user pages with ideas for improvement in outline formats with a standard set of sectional headings. Just for starters a look at Train disambiguation. Loaded with everything and needs cleaning up. The outline of the article is a bit random. improvements would include a more rational approach. Trains > short description with image of locomotive (steam), tender, passenger rail car, and a red caboose > First Section/ Locomotive (train) > (by era) /Locomotive (steam), Locomtive (Diesel), Locomotive (EMD), Locomotive by White classification - 0-4-0, > Rail infrastructure - rail types, wood, iron, plate, steel, other > Rail structures broad enough to have Rail structures (buildings), Rail construction, technical drawings, Bridges, tunnels; > Rail companies, how for must we go for a concise article on Trains? Train comes as a sub category of Rail transport, Trains are historic in steam era technology, and innovative in high-speed trains today, and everything in-between. This train article is trying to be more than it should be and many things inside have their own place in the mainspace. What should be simple to navigate is a nightmare. (if) you have been working for years on Rail transport then you may not see the confusion, some human desiring to learn something about Trains finds oneself lost and confused. Oh, but there are so many ways to get where you want to be inside the encyclopedia, and that also lends itself to confusion. I have more, and would like to contribute, however I am not interested in user-warring over some non-encyclopedic way of doing things. Please consider this my formal introduction to working with the WikiProject:Trains. Paptilian (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A question about the copyright implications of linking to operator manuals hosted on third-party sites has been raised at Talk:EMD F7#Operator manual. Mackensen (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Joliet Correctional Center / State Prison station

At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 18#State Prison station the redirect State Prison station, which targets Joliet Correctional Center is being discussed. From that discussion it seems there was a station for the prison on the Alton Railroad (Illinois), but there is currently no content about it in the article. If you can add relevant content, or have other relevant comments, please comment on the linked RfD discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Train passenger data

Does any entity produce passenger data for train commuter transport? I am hoping to find a table that has yearly or monthly data saying how many ticketed or boarded passengers there were for each Amtrak origin and destination city pair. I have found this information for air commuter data from the Department of Transportation. E,g. in 2018, I can say that 187,748 passengers went from CLE to MDW or 502,414 went from ORD to DTW.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Bangkok rapid transit stations

I hope you don't mind my bumping this from the archive. Four new articles were created yesterday, none of which have any real content apart from the scheduled opening date, and I'm still not quite sure how to best handle them. Ymblanter's input is appreciated; it would be great to know if there are further opinions. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I just went through Category:BTS Skytrain stations‎ and Category:MRT (Bangkok) stations and removed excessive detailed info including station diagrams, elevator counts, exit listings, connecting bus routes, etc., most of which was probably original research. What's left is mostly stubs that mention nothing apart from the stations' locations and dates of opening. I very much think that most of the stations are run-of-the-mill and should be redirected to the articles about their respective lines, due to the lack of content that could be covered individually. The station layouts are identical. Those in the same phase opened on the same date. The content describing the locations really belong in articles about the stations' respective neighbourhoods. (I'd also say they aren't notable, as there aren't in-depth third-party reliable sources that cover the individual stations themselves, but I've seen how AfDs tend to go with railway stations, so I'm not going to make that argument.)

I'm sure, though, that there are editors who would prefer an article existed for every station. For one thing, it would be impossible to browse articles sequentially through succession boxes if not all of them existed. I did redirect most of the BTS stations back in 2012. That lasted little over a year. I'd like to hear what WP Trains editors think would be the best approach. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I would say we should have articles for individual stations. There is information such as when the station was open, as part of what section (all this can be referenced to Urbanrail for instance), what are the neighboring stations, what is the location on the Earth (coordinate, intersection etc), as well as a photo. This minimum information still can be put into the list (making its heavy but still readable); however, it is much easier read in individual articles than from the list. Anything else (incidents, details of the construction history etc) should be in the articles if available and can not be transferred to the list.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

(Bumped from the archive.) --Paul_012 (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I tend to think that heavy rail systems are better served by a large number of stubs than one long list, if only for navigational purposes. Mackensen (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

It is always difficult with the stations under construction, but at least the coordinates and location (street crossing) must be a low-hanging fruit. The information on the section to be open is already there.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

GWR 3-car units - 158/0s or 158/9s?

Does anybody else think the reformed three-car Class 158s with GWR are Class 158/9s? - Coradia175 (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't, and here is my source. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's a compilation of information by some dude based on what he heard, what he knows, what he gathered up and I don't believe that it meets our WP:RS standards. The discussion has been started at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#http://www.thedieselshop.us/_as_used_in_ALCO_PA Graywalls (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Robert Sarberenyi at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard

Editors are invited to comment at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#trainweb.org based rail fanning sites used on train related pages, concerning the propriety of linking to Robert Sarberenyi's pages. Mackensen (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not specific to that person. It's not on his page. It's on some dude David Thompson's fan site on Trainweb.org, whose personal space then hosts contents said to be provided by Robert Sarberenyi, but not maintained by Sarberenyi. I am talking about use of contents from Trainweb.org (which as I understand is Rail fanning themed Weebly/Freewebs like hosting) Graywalls (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm very confused by your comment, because your posting specifically focused on the use of Robert Sarberenyi's page on the EMD SD45. If you're seeking to bar linking out to trainweb more broadly, then the specific reliability of that page, and that author, isn't relevant. I asked that scoping question on the Noticeboard, but you didn't respond. I don't believe David Thompson is the proprietor of trainweb.org. If the assertion is that no site hosted on a webhost is a valid link target, I think you'll run into some opposition with that position. I think it would help everyone if you could be clearer about when you moved from the general to the specific. Mackensen (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Logos in infoboxes of Amtrak articles

I would appreciate additional opinions here about whether logos should be used in the infoboxes of Amtrak routes. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

New bot to remove completed infobox requests

Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Trains since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!

Sent on behalf of Trialpears (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Sortability of data on List of metro systems

Hi,

I've added a comment to the List of metro systems talk page with a proposal for discussion. Please contribute to the discussion on the proposal I added to that talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.148.221 (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2019&oldid=1093281336"