Map visualising passenger flow, using 2021/2022 ORR open data
I'm planning to import a set of 2,567 maps, of which the one above is the first, to Wikimedia Commons. There will be one for each current station in England, Wales, and Scotland.
It is difficult to see the routes where there are low flow volumes, even when opened full screen. Could you use something with a higher contrast? Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I didn't make the maps, but I can ask the person who did to consider using a different colour. Alterniatively, as both the data and code are open source, anyone else, with the relevant skills, may do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits12:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Why do we need this? Clicking on random stations, it appears that the same national routes are highlighted for most. Why should someone looking at an article for a station at one end of the country need to know that people from all sorts of other areas have bought a ticket to it - if that is what the map shows, because it's not really clear. Rcsprinter123(chinwag)22:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
They might be useful for the really busy stations, but for the majority of average or below traffic stations they seem pretty useless, since their usage is obviously to low to register as a visible line. G-13114 (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
The vehicle numbers could be useful, but they would be better if combined into the table with the unit numbers. Although I do recognise that units often get reformed over time when it could get messy or need some footnotes. Geof Sheppard (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Useful... to who? To me, it's far too much detail for wikipedia in my opinion. Better left to technical manuals or something like LTSVTurini2 (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I tend to agree - people that want that level of detail are likely to know of other sources for finding it. Whether it should be removed is a different question though! Mwsmith20 (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Having looked at the 701 article, I would be tempted to remove. For example, I have no idea what "diagram" means in the context of the table (not explained really). It is far too detailed and I imagine completely meaningless to the lay reader. Elshad (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
In a railway context, a "diagram" is not a technical drawing used for manufacture, but a general outline elevation and plan showing the positions of significant features such as cabs, doors, windows, seats and lavatories. It is primarily of use to the operator of the train, helping them to decide if a particular vehicle is suitable for a given job or not. Shown on the diagram are important dimensions, figures and other information useful to this task - such as overall length, width and height; total weight and axle loadings; seating capacities, wheelchair accessibility; maximum permitted speed, minimum track curvature; type of coupler, electrical and pneumatic connections.
Railway people might talk about a second class corridor coach as being Diagram 146 or Diagram 147 - the difference was solely in whether armrests were fitted or not. This might seem minor, but the presence of armrests in Dia. 146 meant that only three people could be accomodated across the seat instead of four, giving a total seating capacity of 48 or 64 respectively - a difference of 16 seats is something that is very important to those processing seat reservations. This is particularly significant if a group of six people want to share a compartment - seat numbers 7–12 are all in the same compartment for Dia. 146, but in Dia. 147, two are in one compartment and four are in the next.
A hundred years ago, the diagrams would be bound together as a diagram book, issued by a railway's headquarters to the main depots; updates were infrequent because of the cost of printing whole new books. Fifty years ago they were of a loose-leaf form enabling new diagrams to be added easily, and amendments to be made by simple replacement of the affected pages - an update might take days instead of years. Nowadays it's all digital diagrams on computer updated almost in real time, but diagram numbers still exist - now known as design codes (for example, Diagrams 146 and 147 became design codes AA201 and AA202 respectively). Until the 1980s, the differences needed to be quite major for a new diagram number to be issued - such changes as fitting fluorescent lighting in place of tungsten would go unrecognised in the diagram numbers, but removal of four seats to make space for a refreshment trolley would create a new disgram. With modern diagrams, two design codes may differ in a very minor way, such as the type of lock on the toilet door. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Well I've been bold and removed it - I will direct people here. (did we decide whether we liked the giant side on illustrations or not?) Turini2 (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, I went through a few more articles - not sure who started adding extremely excess details regarding the exact number of seats per carriage of a train (e.g. British Rail Class 390 and British Rail Class 373), but I took the bold decision to remove that too. That's far too much detail!
Total number of seats on a train, sure! First class in carriages 1 and 2? Sure! A giant table comparing seating in individual carriages before and after a refurb? Def fails the NOTEVERYTHING criteria. Turini2 (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I would support keeping it. It may not meet WP:RS, we don't require it to. For one thing there is no policy on WP stating that all references must each meet WP:RS. They might not achieve WP:V if they don't, but it's not justification for removing them. The content "between withdrawal and scrapping, 10000 spent some time in storage at Derby" is already sourced, but there is also value in linking to a photograph showing this, especially as it also shows one of the Bulleids behind it. This is a photo at Flickr. If not for the lack of a free licence here, we'd place the same photo on Commons and embed it in the article directly. But we can't do that, this is our nearest option. The third removal here and its edit summary really is clutching at straws: "It's a reference because it's a reference" and also failing to appreciate the need for free licensing on images that we host ourselves (I can't claim that this image would meet NFCC given that we already have other images).
No objection to that. Using it as a footnote would be a possible too. But we deprecate inlined ELs and the 'external media' template has always been clumsy.
What I'm still not seeing here is how the suitability of the link (which no-one has presented any real argument against) seems to suddenly become unacceptable, just because of the format by which it's used. That's stretching WP:RS far beyond any real purpose it was ever intended for. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm inclined to agree with @Danners430:'s perspective here. I think a citation needed template is appropriate, as that indicates that the statement needs a citation to a reliable source. As you've said, the statement "between withdrawal and scrapping, 10000 spent some time in storage at Derby" is already referenced, and I'm not sure what else the photograph could be used to reference without relying on the WP:UGC description. I don't see any value in having two citations for the same statement in this case, especially when one is not an WP:RS. You mentioned that the photo also includes the Bulleids, now I'm not overly familiar with this area of content, but if that's identifiable by the average reader, then that may add some value in keeping the reference. In my opinion, having an image included in the article as opposed to it being linked to, makes a major difference to the reading experience, so I'm not sure if that's relevant in this case. FozzieHey (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
While an article about a person will normally always display their real/legal/official/full name followed by the common name (article title) if appropriate.
I made this edit to HS1, swapping HS1 and CTRL before getting reverted. Is the case of HS1s alternative names different to Southeastern or Northern since these are companies (and will display their legal name not used in sources), but HS1 is a railway?
HS1 isn't a company, so why? Where in MOS:LEAD is priority to legal names given? MOS:BOLDLEAD allows for the widely accepted name too, while MOS:LEADSENTENCE states that if the article title and legal name are related then the latter can be put first, like the UK's full name first at United Kingdom. TOCs probably refer to MOS:FIRSTCORP as it is a company, HS1 isn't. But have seen recent "official name-mania" being enforced across Wikipedia recently, so clearer guidelines are preferred. The infobox has National Rail not Network Rail, but if HS1 is part of another continental system would make sense to add something else too, but Eurostar itself isn't a "system"? DankJae14:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I made the decision to withdraw my plan to swap CTRL and HS1 in the lead, since I thought legal/official names always goes first like in the case of Southeastern.
Neither National Rail nor Network Rail are operators. Network Rail do not own or manage HS1, their only connection to it is that a subsidiary company is contracted to act as infrastructure manager and to carry out maintenance. Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
As the first contributor of a book reference to the list, I've gone with {{sfn}} for book references. I've had a look at Quick, and it seems pretty comprehensive. A number of different sources is better than relying too much on one source. Mjroots (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I love adding references and it is one of my pet peeves of articles in general without references. Pardon my ignorance on this, but is there a list of UK railway articles apart from this one that need attention? GRALISTAIR (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
"route" parameter for services on station articles
Hi, @Skivermac16111994, has been massively changing the route= parameter at {{rail line}} from the name of the line to the destinations of the line on station articles (mainly those starting with "H" for now).
With some errors added along the way, for example they changed "Wirral Line (Chester branch)" and replaced it with "Hooton - Liverpool Lime Street or New Brighton or West Kirby" (trains don't go to the latter two from Hooton),[3] as well as "South West Main Line" replaced with "London Waterloo - Weymouth". Just raising due to the scale of the edits, but could be justified, but consensus first? Although using the destinations may require more maintenance and accuracy.
The examples at {{rail line}} state the company and rail line (e.g. Great Western RailwayCherwell Valley Line ), not the destinations I believe?
Some of their edits local to me have some errors,[4] there may be more due to how many, but likely good faith! Thanks DankJae22:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Unless you are an admin, or have a valid alternative account, it is not a crime to not have a user page: this merely means that the user hasn't created one yet. It is also not a crime to not have a user talk page: this merely means that the user hasn't yet been sent any messages. But I don't know why you say that they don’t have a ... talk page - User talk:Skivermac16111994 has existed since 08:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC). Anyway, if you have concerns over the user's activities, send them a helpful message, observing WP:AGF. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Oh I didn’t see the talk page, thank you for pointing that out. That solves the concern I had that I wouldn’t be able to use a talk page to send them that helpful message. JamesVilla44 (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@JamesVilla44: Even if a user talk page doesn't exist, you should always be able leave messages. The only time that you can't will be if the page is protected; and that is extremely rare for user talk pages.
Depending upon your skin and other preferences, a non-existent page may show preset text reading "Welcome to this talk page Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. Use this page to start a discussion about the edits made from this IP address. What you say here will be public for others to see. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several people." plus a button Start a discussion which may be clicked.
Whether you see that or not, you should still see an "Add topic" tab (or equivalent, like "New section" or "+") between the "Create" and "Tools" tabs; and even if you don't have that either, there will be some kind of "Create" or "Edit" tab near the top. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I have proposed that the map in the Severn Valley Railway article should be edited to remove the excessive detail north of Bridgnorth so that it correctly reflects the subject of the article, the heritage railway. Please respond to that article's talk page and not here. Robin84F (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Within the last year, a contributor had added Sturtom station (shown in red) that was situated between Gainsborugh North Junction
and Clarborough Junction, east of Retford. Quick shows it opening on 11th July 1849 and closing on 2nd February 1959. That line section was once part of the Sheffield and Lincolnshire Junction Railway.
Would it be possible for a Wikipedia article be opened on this station, as at the age of 79, such matters are beyond me.
Following some back-and-forth editing on GWR loco classes, I started this thread on Talk:GWR 4073 Class (hence the GWR joke). I have moved it here as suggested by @Danners430, to get a wider perspective. For reference, here are links to WP:CAPTION and - specific to Infoboxes - MOS:CAPLENGTH: note the distinction between succinctness and brevity. Also pinging @Murgatroyd49.
Can we come to some consensus about what infobox image captions should contain? It may be assumed that the image represents the subject of the article, but a caption that just says (in effect) 'This is a picture of <subject>' isn't adding anything helpful. Also, clicking through to the image page will give more information, but not every reader knows that or wants to interrupt their reading of the article to do that. In relation to locomotives, I suggest:
Even though 'all GWR locos look the same' (joke) , there were detail differences between members of the same class, therefore it is not only interesting, but useful, to know which specific loco is pictured. (I personally dislike pictures - eg many calendars - that do not identify the loco.)
Individual locomotives were modified over time, so knowing the date of the picture is relevant. (Also, locos in preservation, while providing better pictures in many cases, may not be representative or may have modern modifications.)
The location is not needed, unless it is significant to the loco (eg Caerphilly Castle at the British Empire Exhibition in 1923)
Absolutely "GWR No. 4079 Pendennis Castle at Didcot Railway Centre in 2023" (which it was, but then reverted). Or even "4079 Pendennis Castle at Didcot Railway Centre in 2023" if we want to be as minimal as viable, because the rest is obvious and implicit, but its identity as Pendennis Castle is relevant and of interest to the reader. More so, in fact, than it being at Didcot, or in 2023 (AFAIK 2023 isn't a significant year for it). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
2023 is relevant, being the year it's overhaul was completed and its first return to steam after its return from Oz. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Though, as you say the reference to Didcot is superfluous. I'd recommend "4079 Pendennis Castle in 2023" as a succint caption. The GWR bit can be taken as read as that is what the article is about. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I would say it’s worth having a broader discussion about infobox captions instead of just focussing on the one example… would it be worth deciding on some kind of “standard” format? Danners430 (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Problem with a "standard" format is that each example is context dependent. In the above example; you don't need the reference to GWR as the article is about a class of GWR locos. However use in another article might make the identification as a GWR loco relevant. The guidelines at WP:CAPTION and MOS:CAPLENGTH should be sufficient for most purposes. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I know this is not the place to be discussing user problems, but has anyone else been noticing problematic editing by this user, specifically in edits to railway stations, TOCs, and List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom that might seem like nonsense? I've already given them a final warning about using edit summaries, since all of their edits don't use one, but I'm not inclined to send them to an administrative venue. Does anyone have any opinions on this issue? Jalen Folf(Bark[s])19:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I've noticed similar issues where the user is making unexplained edits to pages that in many cases, involve introducing incorrect or nonsense information to articles. I've done my best to correct as many as possible but I do wonder if potential administrative assistance could be beneficial due to their continued failure to comply? Aaroncrudge (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I honestly think that may be the best/only option now. We've all tried to warn them on multiple occasions which have all been unsuccessful and we shouldn't have to be correcting and reverting edits that are damaging the articles impacted. I'd definitely support administration getting involved if we agreed it was the best option. Aaroncrudge (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I think on the basis of the opinions shared so far, involving administration to take action sounds like the best option given the users comtinued disruptive edits. Aaroncrudge (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The user has resumed editing over the last two days, at least one of which was reverted due to being unsourced. Danners430 (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Following edits by @Anamyd over at Class 197, what would be the consensus on multi-lingual nameplates on trains? 197001 and 197004 carry nameplates which are in both Welsh and English… should we keep the Welsh text as well as the English translation, given that’s what the nameplate physically says, or should we only keep the translation?
Dual language nameplates are nothing new, Some class 47s had them, eg 47772 Sir Gwynedd/County of Gwynedd. the inimitable Ian Allan ABCs always showed both, I think we should do the same. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Assuming that a mention of any kind is WP:DUE, then we should stick with what the nameplates say (or what sources say the nameplates say)
If the nameplate is in Welsh then we should include the Welsh name, if the English translation can be verified then we can include that too.
If the nameplate is bilingual (or the loco/unit carries nameplates in both languages) then we should include both languages.
If the nameplate is in English only then we shouldn't translate it to Welsh unless there is some particular and verifiable reason to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
We should show what is actually on the nameplate. If appropriate, we may also mark up Welsh text using {{lang|cy|...}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. We should show both languages if they are given equal prominence on the nameplate. Of course, there is GWR's HST version to consider. Some had English on one plate and Welsh on the other! Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Agree too, seems a logical procedure. Concerning the 197s, in that case we should show both names in both languages, especially as some sources do too [6]. The Welsh should be minimally tagged as Welsh using {{lang}}, and the Welsh can be in parenthesis afterwards, unless it is argued to be a dual-name used in English (which it likely isn't). The Wrexham AFC-named trains' nameplates show both names in equal prominence on the nameplates, doesn't appear to be a translation as TfW uses the English name in its announcement, and the name isn't exactly a translation of the Welsh. DankJae18:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
197001 - Philadelphia Robin (Robin Goch Philadelphia)
197004 - Vancouver Red Dragon (Ddraig Goch Vancouver)
or similar to the current, Welsh first and then English? In the end, this is English Wikipedia, non-English names are usually second unless the common. DankJae18:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
If the two names have equal prominence then English first as this is the English Wikipedia, if they aren't equal then put the most prominent first. Thryduulf (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
@Thryduulf. I am guessing here they are equal? I believe so. Even if Welsh is above the English on the plate, that is standard on bilingual signs in Wales. Would an unequal scenario be like the English name being smaller, italicised, descriptive or in parenthesis on a nameplate? (or sources) DankJae18:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I've not seen pictures so I'm not offering an opinion about whether this one is equal or not, but one language being smaller or in parentheses would definitely be examples of them being unequal. Italics, a different font or colour would depend on context. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi - not a controversial move, but I want to check the logic is correct and when this should be carried out.
Two stations in England will soon have identical names and National Rail functions. The Northumberland Line is about to open (summer, according to their website), so there's likely to be much confusion between these two – in fact, on my way here online, I found one when searching for the other:
The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations)#Disambiguation guideline says to clarify using country name (England) or "County/local community, for cases where the station name is ambiguous within the same country". So, in this case, I would use:
Am I missing anything? And when should any changes be put into effect? The Northumberland Line isn't ready to start operating yet, and Northumberland Park won't be among its first stations to open.
I agree that leaving the London station as is, moving the Tyne and Wear station from "Metro station" to "station" and updating the already present hatnotes is all that is required here. With one at the "station" title and both other options already unique there will no longer be a need for the existing dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
It will be the only article correctly titled that, and being an interchange between networks will be the more significant. A dab page means that nobody will arrive at the correct article first, whereas with the article at the base title some people will and everyone else will be only one click away. Putting it all together, I don't see a justification for not having the Tyneside station at the expected title. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Actually, hold on. Northumberland Park, Bedlington and Blyth Bebside have all been delayed until either October 2024 or until 2025. We might not need to move these yet. News reports are only saying Seaton Delaval, Newsham and Ashington will be ready when it first opens. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 11:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
If the tram and railway stations are sufficiently integrated that they are considered the same place (I don't know off the top of my head in either case) then they can just be moved (via a WP:RM/TR if necessary) if there is nothing the new title is ambiguous with. If the new title would be ambiguous then a normal talk page discussion to decide the best title followed by an RM will be fine in most cases. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm interested in people's views on UK heritage railway articles. From a general browse, they seem to be very inconsistent from one railway to another, with a lot of outdated / trivial / unsourced information. Before attempting any bold editing, I'd like to ensure I'm not going to make things worse!
1) What are the views on "current status"? Much of the loco information is unsourced, let alone the wagon information that appears on some pages. My view is that much of it is non-encyclopedic, and of limited interest.
2) Should pre-preservation history be in a separate article, or combined?
A few examples to illustrate, from a random survey of some of the more established / longer lines:
- the Severn Valley Railway rolling stock article is well referenced, and contains only key information - this is my personal preference for such articles. However, the article on the railway itself seems a bit unsure as to whether it's attempting to cover earlier history, preservation, or both - and some sections (e.g. the 2007 landslips) seem a bit excessive.
- the East Lancashire Railway article barely even mentions rolling stock / locos etc. The article limits itself to the preservation era.
- the West Somerset Railway article covers the entire history of the line, with the preservation era a relatively minor part of that. It has a separate rolling stock article, which to my mind has too much trivial unsourced information.
- as a volunteer, my main interest is in the Watercress line. I'd like to improve their pages, but in my opinion, they have the most issues!. The main article refers to a separate earlier history page, but then repeats much of that information (under an inaccurate heading). There is a separate rolling stock article, which attempts to record the current status of wagons (surely doomed, and almost all unsourced). However, possibly uniquely, there is also a page of locomotives formerly resident on the line - which even tries to record the current status of those - even more doomed to failure (the Severn Valley version just includes a brief bulleted list on the rolling stock page, without current status). To add to the complication, the Watercress line also has an incidents article (unique again?). Finally, the main railway article is illustrated by photos of "Tornado" and the "Sans Pareil" replica! (which I'm happy to change to something more recent and representative, but which show the number of issues to be addressed).
Forgive my rambling, I'm still a relatively new editor, this is the first time I have posted on a project page and I'm still not fully up to speed with the multitude of WP policies etc.. I want to improve some of these articles (starting with the Watercress line), but want to know if there are any general thoughts on what should / shouldn't be present. I would discuss any particularly bold editing suggestions on the individual article talk pages.
I suggest that any stock information derived solely from the heritage organisation itself should not confer sufficient notability for a mention in an article. I know that this is a different issue from the stock being notable enough to have an article of its own, so perhaps a lesser level of notability should be applied. But if we rely solely on an organisation's own website/publications, we end up duplicating their stock list (and trying to keep it up to date) and that is not an encyclopedia's job. We should leave it to them. There are enough reputable railway magazines and websites for any truly notable events - restorations, new builds, significant steamings (dieselings?!) and other celebrations - to be covered by independent sources. -- Verbarson talkedits19:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I think a summary of a railway's stock is more encyclopaedic than a stock list. I'm not sure how best to summarise though. Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
If there is a separate article for the line while it was open then the heritage railway article only needs a brief summary. If there isn't a separate article then the heritage railway can usefully have a longer description of its history.
As for rolling stock, I'm happy for us to list the stock but without "status" information or other short-term matters such as livery. Things that change frequently get out of date easily and these are the things that are often uncited too. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the responses - it's good to know that they are all similar to my views. I've found @Geof Sheppard's recent edits to the West Somerset Railway rolling stock page to be particularly useful - the amount of info against each entry seems to strike a good balance. I also like the approach of only stating when "previous residents" left the railway, and where they went from there, but not attempting to document any later history. The detail will obviously vary from one railway to another - some might have keen WP editors, others not at all. Ideally any lists need to be up to date and cited, or kept to a minimum. Mwsmith20 (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
An important point with "previous residents" is that the list needs to be kept to just that. I have spent a lot of time in various railway's pages weeding out short-term visitors. Some editors have added gala visitors or a seasonal loans, even through workings on railtours. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree totally, lists of short term and gala visitors quickly get out of date and very cluttered (in the unlikely event that they are fully referenced). They are also of interest to a very small section of the population, who probably get that information from elsewhere anyway. Mwsmith20 (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
If a locomotive spent a full season at a particular railway that might be worth including on the article about the loco (if it has one), but I agree it's not worth a mention on the article about the railway. Something short of a season shouldn't be mentioned anywhere unless something noteworthy happened during the visit - and unless it's significant enough for the RAIB or ORR to take an interest it's again more likely to be relevant to the locomotive's article than the railway's. Exceptions to the latter might be something like hauling the first train on the railway (or extension) during preservation (which could be notable for both). Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Since it was mentioned above, the Severn Valley Railway article is fundamentally about the preserved railway, hence my recent proposal to edit the map to reflect that. It's one of those heritage railway articles which includes the pre-preservation history rather having a separate article, mainly because the original "Severn Valley Railway" was in reality just a GWR / BR branch line, usually referred to as the "Severn Valley Branch", for all but a few of its 101 years. As such, the commercial history section is not overly excessive in my view. However the 'infrastructure damage section' could certainly be shortened/moved into the preservation history section, and the 'extensions to the railway' section could also go – it's a mixture of history and old proposals that won't happen. Any other views welcome, if not I'll do my proposed map edit and tidy up the article at the same time when I get a chance. Robin84F (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Reverted at least one so far, I'll keep an eye on. As an aside, I thought templates worked in edit summaries? Danners430 (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
No (see H:ES#Edit summary properties and features, fifth bullet), and that is intentional - otherwise an edit summary could potentially be as big as the biggest article ever, and then some. There was a bug in an early release of WP:Flow ten or so years ago, where it was possible to put a template into an edit summary - and it caused chaos until it was disabled. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
That explains why I couldn't easily ping you in my edit summary... although I admit I was being a little cheeky! Danners430 (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I wonder if I could ask for any thoughts re a Wikidata problem I'd like to try to tidy up.
Currently there are two different Wikidata items (corresponding to two different sets of articles across multiple wikis) that have the label "junction" or "railway junction" in English -- which is a recipe for confusion and mis-allocation. Can anybody suggest a better a label and/or description for one or both of the following, that would make them more distinguishable ?
The two items in question are:
railway junction (Q336764) (currently: "junction" = "place at which two or more rail routes converge or diverge") -- a rail junction, most commonly in the middle of nowhere, where a railway line diverges, the whole track configuration amounting to perhaps no more than two points and a crossing. The article Junction (rail) is linked to this.
railway node (Q24045957) (currently: "railway junction" = "railway structure where multiple railway lines connect") -- according to an explanation given to me on Wikidata Project Chat, at least as used in German and Czech, this is for a significant node on the railway network, eg perhaps somewhere like Reading or Crewe or Doncaster or Dijon, that may include one or even more than one station (eg Prague), freight yards or facilities, etc., with perhaps hundreds of points across the object in all. Not currently linked to any article here.
If anyone can suggest any ideas for better names and/or descriptions that would do more to distinguish these two very different concepts, that would be really helpful. Thanks! -- Jheald (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure that these are actually distinct concepts - the two differ only in the scale of what other things (different concepts like goods facilities) are located nearby. Thryduulf (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikidata has some unusual ideas about scaling and singularity, that aren't necessarily going to be agreed upon here. Nthep (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree. It seems to be a rather artificial distinction between the abstract (two tracks/routes diverge) and the practical (passengers or goods need to join the right train for their chosen destination). Even if there is a junction 'in the middle of nowhere', there will be a prior station or goods depot where the choice of train for the right destination has to be made. Both are necessary to make a useful junction.
Wikidata's just following the lead of the other language projects; the German Wikipedia (for one) makes this distinction has separate articles. Mackensen(talk)10:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I have also pinged the question to ChatGPT, and it came up with "railway hub" = "significant point in the railway network with multiple connected lines, stations, and facilities, often a major transit hub" for Q24045957, which I am minded to go with. That looks on the face of it a reasonable definition for cs:Železniční_uzel_Praha, and I think gets over the idea of a feature on a larger scale than a principal station.
I do have some sympathy with what User:Thryduulf has said, but I think the starting point has to be User:Mackensen's comment -- if there are wikis that have this concept, then there needs must be a wikidata item for it, the freedom we have is what to name it and how to describe it.
Looking at what wikidata items are currently an instance of Q24045957 (query), there are currently 60 cases, of which 22 are in the UK and 26 are in Canada. Of the UK ones all should probably be instances of Q336764 instead, and that probably goes for most of the rest too.
Per Thryduulf, there is a sliding scale here, and it would pretty subjective to have to assess what would qualify as a "railway hub" and what wouldn't. Fortunately though it's not an assessment that's really going to be needed much (which the fact that very few items have been tagged with this for non English speaking countries is a strong indication of). For most places, it will be entirely satisfactory just to tag them as being a railway station, or if not that then a railway junction. But Q24045957 "railway hub" will be available for features with a wider footprint than just the station or a junction.
On further thought, having looked again at more of those international articles, I've updated the label/description to "railway node" = "significant point in the railway network which may encompass multiple connected lines, stations, and facilities, often a major transit hub" -- since they seem to be mostly maybe not indicating something on the scale of a full "hub". Jheald (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
In the case of British Rail and subsequently it is definitely a proper noun. Prior to that I think it varies - some definitely are, others aren't. Articles using names from the same classification system should be consistent, but different classification systems don't have to be. I don't know which set the example article falls into. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
On what basis? Even for BR, these (until recently) just derive from a TOPS classification and any real 'proper name' they had would have been the precursors, like 'Sulzer Type 4'. Modern types are (AFAICS) getting names like Azumas and the 'class 800' label is again incidental. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I had hoped that the RCTS (as a reputable publisher known for fact-checking and accuracy) would have a consistent house style, but it seems not. Their earlier partworks for locomotives of the GWR, Southern and LNER are consistent across around fifty books - in prose it's lowercased (e.g. LNER class D41); in chapter and section headings it's either title-case (LNER Class D41) or uppercase (LNER CLASS D41). But their later partworks, for the LMS and the BR Standard classes, seem to favour title-case in prose. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Then if the prose is sentence cased they're not proper nouns, and it's reasonable that the titles (according to their style guide) are pushed into title case. But our local style guide disagrees and doesn't promote capitalisation (even in titles), so ours should stay as sentence case. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
There is a great deal of confusion on here of what exactly is a proper noun. The definition is quite simple: the name of a particular person, place or thing. In this case, D41 refers to one particular class of locomotive and should therefore, in my view, be capitalised for exactly the same reason as we have the Jensen Interceptor and the Morris Marina. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Firstly, what is 'the name' here? D41? I think everyone's happy to treat that as a proper noun. But is 'class' just a descriptor wrapped around that? We hear of 'A4 Pacifics' often enough, and in that context I'd be happy to capitalise Pacific. But 'class'? Your point might best apply to Thryduulf's example of the BR TOPS classes, as we do regularly refer to 'Class 40s' in that sense (but is that an official name?). But I've never heard a D41 or B1 referred to in the same way.
Secondly, this is Wikipedia. Which is (everywhere else) very against capitalisation. Look at Shem and Dicklyon's edits all across Royal Navy small boat classes, like the Motor Gun Boats (read the Talk:) where sourcing was very clear about the capitalisation, but WP still mashed it flat to motor gunboat.Andy Dingley (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't very against capitalisation. A small number of editors who are prepared to impose their point of view by attrition and bludgeoning are. The vast majority of editors don't care enough to resist excessive de-capitalisation (especially when some of the proposals are correct). Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I have fully protected the article for a week due to edit warring. Warning: A discussion in a new section on this talk page must occur to establish a consensus for any further edits regarding the disputed content. An editor making another change without such clear consensus is likely to be blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
At first, I was thinking about deleting the disambiguation page for TPE given that there is only one primary topic and two other topics. After that failed (and which I withdrew), I changed the hatnote to lead directly to the two former TOCs so that readers do not have to go thru a disambig page because its only two former TOCs. They can do so in one click and not two and the hatnote is just a single line. That is my proposal.
The user is new, but has also reverted my edits to Class 755 and Class 360 which I (tried) to make a primary topic redirect to the UK rollingstocks but are both under discussion with 755 about to close. This user also didn't provide an edit summary when reverting my latest changes which should be done as its not vandalism.
Just for the record - I was also involved in the Class 360 discussion... which honestly I disagree with, but haven't really gone anywhere on it. Not relevant here however. Danners430 (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
(To add from my previous comment), I think reverting should only necessary if its to remove vandalism or to remove good faith edits that lower the quality of the article Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. My edit on changing the hatnote so that it links directly to the two rather than via a dab may be an improvement (it definitely is to me) but definitely doesn't lower the quality so its at least neutral. JuniperChill (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
It is however worth taking note of WP:BRD - if a bold change is made, there's nothing wrong with reverting it and starting a discussion so that a consensus can be reached. In my opinion, if there's a content dispute, then the status quo should remain until consensus is reached either way Danners430 (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Please read BRD again. That page, and other discussions, point out the obvious, namely that every edit needs justification. Only revert an edit if you have a reason to disagree with it. Do not revert because you think a discussion should occur. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that edits need justification. I am disagreeing with JuniperChill's assertion that reversions should only be for vandalism - there are many other reasons why reversions would be used with good reason. But we're getting away from what this discussion is meant to be about. Danners430 (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
I did say 'or to remove good faith edits that lower the quality of the article'. But as others above states, we should move back to stating about which hatnote to use: either the current one (to dab page) or the proposed one (which links to the two former TOCs directly). JuniperChill (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
JuniperChill, you are entitled to make bold edits, but if reverted then the onus is on you to make the case for change. In this case (and the Class 360 and Class 755 redirects as you brought them up) you attempted to make changes to things that had been in place for some years and worked perfectly well. The TransPennine Express (disambiguation) hatnote has been in place on this article for over a year, you launched an AfD and then withdrew it, so please don't restore your version as if the AfD was successful.
But that links to four pages (not including the two erroneous ones(. The Virgin Trains hatnote is far too long but its doable if it only links to two other pages as in this case. Its literally only two other topics. Indeed, take a look at Great Western Railway which has/d a hatnote to the modern TOC, the Great Western Mainline, and the dab page. JuniperChill (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I think me and Weshmakui are using VT and GWR as an example regarding dabs. Maybe the Wikiproject should be notified about this since we still havent had a discussion from uninvolved editors JuniperChill (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Since the last comment, there has been an edit made to another page - CrossCountry - to remove most of the DAB hatnote, and replace with a simple "not to be confused by". I've reverted this as I feel it's not an improvement, and is also the reason why I have moved this discussion to this page so that a wider discussion about article DAB hatnotes can be had. Danners430 (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Note that I have started an RfC on TPE about the hatnotes issue over there. But since this discussion here is about hatnotes on UK railway pages in general, it comes to plan whether the hatnote at Great Western Railway and CrossCountry is too much. I am fine with keeping the hatnote on the old GWR as it is even though it may be too long and can be shortened. JuniperChill (talk) 10:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm unconvinced that we need a new article every time a TOC changes hands (especially if GBR becomes a thing). A "history" section would be good enough IMO. I can't think of another sector where this happens when the business remains functionally identical. Black Kite (talk)10:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
That's a different (but linked) discussion to the proposed change to TPE. However, you make a very good point that is worthy of separate discussion here in this project. Wanna start something? 10mmsocket (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I have decided to make this discussion its own section because its a completely different thing. It was part of the same section as the RfC. If you want a discussion to merge the former TOC articles (such as TPE, Southeastern and ScotRail) to the current one, then go ahead and start a merge discussion here as its controversial. JuniperChill (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I think there definitely examples of other railroads with similar names but different corporate histories that have separate articles. I would be wary of merging the two given that one was private, and one is government-owned (if I understand this correctly). Mackensen(talk)13:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Precedent has always been for a new article where the brand is retained but the operator changes. The Scotland service has operated under the ScotRail brand since 2008, during which time there have been three operators; First ScotRail, Abellio ScotRail and the incumbent ScotRail. At this stage we don't know if the existing brands will be retained when the existing operators transition from private to government ownership, or whether there will be one umbrella Great British Railways brand. It is a conversation worth having, but probably best to wait and see what happens rather than crystal balling on what might happen. Meinpein (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
The first ScotRail livery of the mid-1980s Since at least November 1984, see
Fox, Peter (1985). British Rail Pocket Book No. 3: Coaching Stock Pocket Book 1985 Edition (7th ed.). Sheffield: Platform 5 Publishing. pp. 23, 25, 28, 31, 36, 38, 39, . ISBN0-906579-44-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
The livery was rather like the InterCity livery introduced about the same time, but with a light blue stripe instead of red. IIRC they launched the branding on the Edinburgh-Glasgow (via Falkirk) push-pull service. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Consensus on passenger volume section?
I have recently had a couple edits adding a passenger volume section and table to station articles reverted due to the same data already being present in the infobox, I don't really understand this as numerous other articles contain both a dedicated passenger volume table and a section in the infobox (i.e. Falls of Cruachan railway station, Aberdeen railway station). Either this should not be permitted on any UK railway station articles or it should be permitted on all. It should not simply be a random policy on a given page. Lewisgill100 (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
No strong feeling t.b.h. However, what I will say is don't use a generic reference name like ":0", which is more commonly used by bots fixing an article. Why not use "orrstats" or something descriptive? In some cases, such as Adlington railway station (Lancashire), your choice of the generic name clashes with existing references on the page. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't see the point of duplicating it, personally. I get that a dedicated section can hold more than the infobox's usual five years' of data, but does the article need that much info? LicenceToCrenellate (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § 82.22.44.102. FozzieHey (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
— Voice of Clam (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Useddenim
Done, but as Sturton railway station. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
