Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains
| Discussion archives |
| 2004 · 2005 |
Template and portal colors
The suggestion has been made on Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Trains that we select a different color than is currently used on Portal:Trains and navigation templates (such as {{EMD GPs}}). For consistency, the portal and the templates (as listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article templates) should all be changed at the same time; not a tremendous deal, but it would be seen on a wide array of articles. I am not a graphic artist, and I don't play one on TV, so my own color selection might be less than ideal. Are there any suggestions for suitable colors that we can switch to? Slambo (Speak) 16:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- I like the current color selection. It's not too ostentatious, and different enough from other schemes to clearly identify the subject matter as rail-related (I've reformatted a few article-specific tables to match). The text is easily readable against the background as well.--Lordkinbote 17:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Let's do a little experiment here to try other backgrounds with black text...
| Current background color: c0c090 | See {{EMD GPs}} |
|---|---|
| Standard talk page notice color: f8eaba | See {{User Trains WikiProject}} |
| Todolist items block color: ffefdf | See {{Todo, trains}} |
| color: cc9933 | |
| color: ffcc66 | |
| color: ffff99 | |
| Alternate existing background color: ccccff | See {{NERR}} |
| color: 99ccff | |
| color: 99ffcc | |
| color: 9999ff | |
| color: ccff99 | |
| color: cccccc |
Perhaps part of the problem may be that the current color, c0c090, is not one of those known to be HTML safe according to [1]? I would tend to doubt that as the problem since the standard talk page notices also use colors that are not known to be browser safe. So, the question is: Is any of these colors better than the current color or do we pick a completely different color? Since the talk page notices are already coded to use the second and third of these, the current color seems the best choice of those that have been presented here. I'm not too keen on ccccff as it looks a little too far toward purple for me. Slambo (Speak) 20:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- I can't believe that color is even an issue when Portal:Cricket just got promoted to FP status with what has to be one of the most unattractive color schemes going...I still like the current choice.--Lordkinbote 10:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- The Cricket Portal may have been promoted a little early. I thought of a few more criticisms the day after. It's still quite clearly one of the best portals, however. I'll create a review process further down the track. As for colours for the Trains Portal, FWIW, the following look pretty decent to me: ffcc66, ffff99, 99ccff, ccff99.--cj | talk 07:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think at this point, if I were to pick a different color from what's displayed here, I'd use ffcc66. But, these are by no means the only color options available to us. None of these colors really excites me, but I know I want to avoid colors that make the pages hard to read, that cause a strain on the eyes, or that give a "toylike" appearance (remember Lionel's pink train, anyone?). I think a more subtle color is better than a brighter one. I took a look around at the other portals, but none of their colors really seemed right here either. Incidentally, c0c090 is the border color in standard talk page templates such as {{fac}}; looking at other shemes that were proposed as part of the Wikipedia:Template standardisation process, nothing there really jumps out and says "use me" either. Slambo (Speak) 20:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- So, if we use ffcc66 for the box title color, what would it look like? It would be something like the box shown below:
Trains Portal
In rail transport, a train is a vehicle or (more frequently) a string of vehicles capable of being moved along a continuous line of rails or other guideway for the purpose of conveying freight or passengers between points on a predetermined route. The train may be hauled or propelled by one or more vehicles designed exclusively for that purpose (locomotives) or may be driven by a number of motors incorporated in all or several of the vehicles (multiple units). As of 2018[update], there are approximately 1,052,000 kilometres (654,000 mi) of railway track in use worldwide. (World Bank (via Archive.org)) |
||
- That seems a little bright for my tastes. Slambo (Speak) 20:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
A date question?
Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2005_in_rail_transport for December 14.
- Jordanian Transport Minister Saoud Nseirat responds to comments made on Monday by Israeli Transport Minister Maer Shitrit.
Which Monday would that be? Should "on Monday" be removed? Thanks!
- That would have been Monday, December 12. I've updated the text to reflect this. Slambo (Speak) 20:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
{{todo, trains}} on TFD
The trains project todolist template, {{todo, trains}}, has been nominated for deletion. An eager editor has gone through the articles that use it and already substituted it with a different template that does not use Category:To do, trains and does not link to this project. Please voice your opinions on WP:TFD. Slambo (Speak) 11:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- The template came through the TFD as "no consensus" which means that it was kept without changes. Now it's time to do the cleanup. I've reverted several of the affected articles back to use {{todo, trains}}, but there are many more. If you've got a moment to help out, hop over to Category:To do, trains and select any of the links that goes to a "/to do" page. On the to do page, remove the category and then on the associated article's talk page, change {{todo priority}} back to {{todo, trains}}. As an example, check the history for Talk:Broadway Limited and Talk:Broadway Limited/to do. Thanks! Slambo (Speak) 21:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Oscillating signal lights
Has anyone written an article on oscillating signal lights, as used by many US railroads between approx 1940s and 1960s? I linked to Mars light on Milwaukee Road class A and it goes nowhere, but there are so many names for these things I wonder if I just didn't find it. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 18:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't seen such an article yet, but when one gets written, I could add a couple photos easily. I purchased a set of surplus Mars lights from Southern Pacific (through the hobby shop where I used to work) in the late 1980s. Slambo (Speak) 19:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Proposed locomotive article infobox
I had some extra time today so I started experimenting with an infobox template for locomotive articles. What I've come up with is something that can be used for any type of locomotive and for both a class of many locomotives and a single locomotive. My experimental template is at User:Slambo/Infobox Locomotive, and I just added it to Wikipedia:Infobox in the proposals section there. Out of all the parameters that are available in the template (which I will list on the template talk page shortly), only the name (the text above the top border) and powertype (the text to the right of the "Power type" heading cell) parameters are required. Any parameter that is not specified will not appear in the output. Thoughts? Slambo (Speak) 02:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- In addition to the two examples shown on Wikipedia:Infobox, I've got an example of its usage on an article about an electric locomotive at my test page. Slambo (Speak) 15:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- I've added a few more optional parameters that seemed relevant after looking at many more locomotive articles. Anyone object to moving this infobox live and start using it? Slambo (Speak) 21:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hearing no objections, I'm moving it to {{Infobox Locomotive}} and using it. Slambo (Speak) 01:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- I like it, and have used it in a few articles. I've added a few more parameters: valvegear, frontcylindersize, rearcylindersize, hpcylindersize, lpcylindersize (the latter two pairs for articulated locomotives with unequal size cylinders, and for compounds). There are a few more steam-locomotive parameters I think could be added: firebox heating surface, flues and tubes heating surface, total heating surface (at least the latter), superheater type, superheater area. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 06:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I noticed the additions and used a few of them in the series I started this week about {{SP cab forward locomotives}}. Slambo (Speak) 16:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- I like it, and have used it in a few articles. I've added a few more parameters: valvegear, frontcylindersize, rearcylindersize, hpcylindersize, lpcylindersize (the latter two pairs for articulated locomotives with unequal size cylinders, and for compounds). There are a few more steam-locomotive parameters I think could be added: firebox heating surface, flues and tubes heating surface, total heating surface (at least the latter), superheater type, superheater area. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 06:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hearing no objections, I'm moving it to {{Infobox Locomotive}} and using it. Slambo (Speak) 01:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Being fairly new to Wiki, I'm not going to try changing the template(!) but is it possible to allow control of the image width from the default 300? I have used it at (for example) Lyn locomotive, but the images I have available are smaller than displayed, and look too pixelated. regards, Lynbarn 17:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Done. Use the new imagesize parameter to specify the size in pixels, the default value is 300. To show the image without resizing it, set imagesize to a blank value as in imagesize=|. Now to add it to the template talk page... Slambo (Speak) 18:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Being fairly new to Wiki, I'm not going to try changing the template(!) but is it possible to allow control of the image width from the default 300? I have used it at (for example) Lyn locomotive, but the images I have available are smaller than displayed, and look too pixelated. regards, Lynbarn 17:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Trains article creation criteria and style guide
I've been making a few notes on User:Slambo/Trains MOS on article creation criteria and style guidelines based on existing articles that I've been looking at and updating in the last month or so. I'd appreciate if other project members would take a look and edit/comment as appropriate. AdThanksVance. Slambo (Speak) 16:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project
Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? I noticed the list on the main page, are there any others? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Categorisation scheme for train articles
It seems to me that the wheel numbered articles are overall descriptions which should cover in a general way all the articles in the corresponding category (much work neded to achieve that, but leaving that problem aside for now). So it seems to me also that each wheel numbered article must be included within the appropriate category (e.g. 4-4-0 should be a member of category 4-4-0 locomotives), and it should be listed as the main article for that category.
That begs the question of whether the numbered articles should also appear separately in category, 'locomotives by wheel arrangement', where they are now. My instinctive reaction is that it is not doing any harm, and has the benefit of providing a category link at the bottom of the number article page which enables people to navigate to this main category. However, some people are very adverse to articles appearing in both category and sub-category entries, and might wish to not permit this. If I had to choose, I would say it was more important that the numbered articles be listed in the sub-category entry, because they provide an important overview, but I think it is beneficial that they appear in both. Suggestions? Sandpiper 13:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- In general, I take the view that articles should be listed in the most precise categories applicable. Putting an article in one category as well as that category's immediate parent category seems redundant to me. Slambo (Speak) 14:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Purpose of class articles and wheel numbered articles
I think it is a general principle of organisation that information should not be included twice over. I am quite happy that an article about a particular train class should contain whatever is known. But if the wheel numbered articles are intended as a summary of that configuration, what information belongs in that summary article?
I am also worried that, say, the 4-4-0 article might end up saying many similar general sorts of things to the 4-6-0 article. It might be that it would be more useful to compare a 4-4-0 to a 4-6-0 by the same designer or company, than to be comparing a US 4-4-0 to a UK 4-4-0 when the designs had absolutely nothing to do with each other. Should 4-4-0, etc. articles be written more from the POV of identifying and distinguishing different types, rather than discussing design?
If somoeone goes into category locomtives, then chooses steam, how do they find articles about actual classes? I think they might get lost at that point. It looks as though there should also be many more articles about different manufacturers, designers, etc. so that people could get into the trains that way. Sandpiper 13:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've started on a few manufacturers articles, and even gone so far as to get Rogers Locomotive and Machine Works up to featured level. I haven't seen good references describing locomotive classes by manufacturer yet, but I do have a couple on classes by railroad (such as those listed on {{SP cab forward locomotives}}). Slambo (Speak) 14:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Transclusion note
I changed the transclusion for Wikipedia:Good articles, so that it is possible for a bot to generate a list of tagged good articles not included on the main list there. Hopefully this won't have changed anything else. TheGrappler 04:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't forsee any problems here. Thanks for the heads up. Slambo (Speak) 14:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
German Rail
I've been thinking about proposing a WikiProject of its own, but then found out this project covers pretty much of the subject matter already, so I thought it'd be best to ask here:
- There is a number of German Rail-related articles (locomotive stubs, technology articles and the like) here, most of them are quick and dirty translations from de:, and they're in no way sorted other than the rail-stub tag (if tagged), and stacked away in the general categories.
- There is a number of Wikipedia editors (including me, maybe five or six) who regularly contribute to articles on that subject matter.
Whilst it probably does not justify a WikiProject of it's own, I think the amount of articles (especially considering stuff that is mediocre at best in en, (like LZB versus its German counterpart, de:Linienförmige Zugbeeinflussung) and the sheer amount of German rail material (being the largest operator in continental Europe) justifies some categorising effort of its own. How can this be integrated into the Trains wikiproject? Thoughts, comments anyone? --Doco 18:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Upcoming Franchise changes (UK)
We are approching the 1st of April and will have to switch a lot of infoboxes over to the New Franchisee (First) so ideas for colours to use for First Great Western and First Capital Connect.
Secondly, with First Great Western, should Express (HST), Link and Local (ex-Wessex) be listed as such?
| Preceding station |  National Rail
|
Following station | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tiverton Parkway | First Great Western (Express) (Great Western Main Line) |
Newton Abbot | ||
| Exeter Central | First Great Western (Local) (Exeter-Exmouth) |
Terminus | ||
| Terminus | First Great Western (Link)* (Exeter-Paignton) |
Exeter St Thomas | ||
(*)I know this service isn't link but the station were all three meet doesn't have an article yet
Enotayokel 01:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- In the short term, I think we should keep them seperate for simplicity, in the longer term we'll have to see how FGW style them. If they make the distinction (e.g. Express, Local and Link) then we can do it easily and objectively. If they all run under one brand then I suggest we do as well - perhaps creating "Express services" and "Stopping services" sections on the line pages and linking to those sections. Thryduulf 14:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Rapid transit system article bounty
In a little browsing around today, I noticed that there's an open bounty for featured articles about rapid transit systems. For every rapid transit system article that reaches featured status before June 1 2006, User:OpenToppedBus is offering a £5 donation to the Wikimedia Foundation.
So, what topics are near that level already? A few editors tried to get Bay Area Rapid Transit through FAC a few months ago but it failed on a few objections. There are quite a few other worthy candidates listed in Category:Rapid transit as well. Slambo (Speak) 20:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Japanese railways
Hi. There are a remarkable number of articles on Japanese railways (see Category:Rail transport in Japan) on Wikipedia, and I've been adding some of my own. I know it's sort of a niche market (although Railway culture is big in Japan), but I'm thinking of creating a WikiProject to standardize the articles somewhat. Should they simply be incorporated into WP Trains, or do they merit the creation of a descendant project, something like WikiProject Trains in Japan? - Tangotango 05:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've boldly proposed the creation of the WikiProject [2]. Please see User:Tangotango/WikiProject Trains in Japan for the proposal. Thank you. - Tangotango 06:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Gauge Templates?
What are your thoughts about standardizing articles to use gauge templates? We've had {{Standard gauge}} in our template collection for a while, and I've recently added several templates for the commoner narrow gauges. I've been replacing non-templated gauge references with templates in articles as I come across them. I think this gives us a standardized look to railway articles, but I'd like to hear what others think about this.
In particular this brings up the issue of imperial vs. metric units. The gauge templates have both, usually in the order: imperial then metric. Some articles list gauges the other way around, or just have one or the other. I know that people have strong opinions about this, and I don't want to make changes that others object to. My personal feeling is that if the gauge was originally imperial - for example, standard gauge - then quote it as imperial then metric (1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in)), for metric gauges like metre gauge, do it the other way around (1000 mm (3 ft 3.3 in)) Thanks, Gwernol 16:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Generally, when I see standard gauge listed like the template output, I will substitute the template usage in its place for consistency. Please add the other gauge templates to Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article templates and add <noinclude>[[Category:Rail transport templates]]</noinclude> (like on {{Infobox Locomotive}}) to the templates themselves. Your note about which measurement units come first presents an interesting question. It seems that we should also have {{standard gauge metric}} to show the output as 1435 mm (4 ft 8½ in). Slambo (Speak) 17:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've added the Rail Transport templates category to my narrow gauge templates - they are already listed in the article templates. Gwernol 17:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
in general i would like to go for metric units, as it is standard now, and hence i think we do not need metric templates. you do not have to be a prophet to know that imperial units will die out and just "hard wired" things keep it from doing this now. 1.3 billion people have English language as their first or second language, and minimum of 1 billion of them do not even know what imperial units are. canadians, irish, british people changed a long time ago, even english and american experts have difficulties with this topic and sometimes crash space ships because of this ;) but i think it is to early to remove imperial units completely. but an article like rail gauges which is imperial(metric) and metric(imperial) all the time is just poor quality. it is not a question what it was stated in originally. you do not use mid age english either. english is a or the global language and should not use mid age measurement units known only in some parts of the united states as default. --ThurnerRupert 20:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Slow down here and let's reach a consensus first. Making unilateral changes like this has proven detrimental to the project and to individual editors in the past (take a look at the history of changing between BC/AD and BCE/CE units for years; see 1, 2, 3 and many others). I think the guiding document here is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). The source documents that we're dealing with for American railroads are written almost exclusively (at least those in my own reference library) in Imperial and not metric units, therefore, we should list Imperial units first when we're writing about American railroad subjects. Slambo (Speak) 20:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Unit conversion often leads to loss in accuracy and certainly a loss of some original information - e.g. designs done by someone using customary US measurements will often use 'round numbers' in that system, which become arbitary and meaningless amounts after conversion. The present status quo is perfectly fine and should be retained, and any numbers that do not have conversions should have them added. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- The present status is: state one time "metric (imperial)" and the other time "imperial (metric)". IMO this is poor quality. This leads to Exploration of Mars#Spate of failures. Slambo, it is just a measurement, you have to calculate with it, and it is not a religious thing like "BC". And therefor a worldwide standard exists. But Morven, i think you are right, rounding wrong would also be poor quality, but i would consider this a different topic. --FlyIn 13:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- morven, you end up with things like 3ft 3 3/8in (1000 mm) (example take from rail gauge), and with setting standard gauge to something us specific (the us are just a small part of america) you make articles like the london underground, DBAG_Class_425 inconsistent. here we always joke about rail gauge (the article itself) beeing an example of imperialism ;) --ThurnerRupert 04:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I change it back to the standard way, and if we reach a conclusion here, we make it non-standard again, ok? Maybe you would like to read "Speak in English, and Measure in Metric" in the meantime to make up your mind if you should create http://us.wikipedia.com solve the problem :) --FlyIn 13:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Even though I like the idea of http://us.wikipedia.org, most english articles have imperial measurements as source because metric measurement is so little used in the UK. Because there are articles on rialways/railroads from all around the world which at some point another use metric or imperial, I've created a 4ft8in template so that editors of articles on subjects which have sources that use imperial measurement can quote imperial first whilst the standard gauge template can be used for articles which have sources that use metric (say German or French railways). This is probably the best way to have both kind of sources quoted accuratly and removes the possibility of disputes. Enjoy, Captain scarlet 08:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think the best solution would be for the primary measurement to be in the system in which it was measured. Therefore standard gauge would be noted in feet/inches because that is how it is specified. Mangoe 20:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- This issue has already been solved as there is Template:Standard gauge and Template:4ft8in available for whichever measurement system you use: imperial, or metric. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 23:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
UK Railways Wikiproject
Hi all, since we now have probably more than a thousand articles relating to the railways of the UK alone I've decided to start a seperate Wikiproject to try and co-ordinate them a bit better. It's located at Wikiproject UK Railways t'is very basic at the moment and has only one member! But hopefully with people's help it'll be able to organise and make the articles on British railways both clearer and better structured and ultimately the most informative of any country in the world. If you know anything about railways in the UK or would just like to help out please head over and join and we'll be able to get a decent community going. ta-ta, --Achmelvic 10:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as the UK railway network.
- There are two major systems in Great Britain (including IOW) and Northern Ireland. The systems are different; they is regulated differently, operated differently, run on different gauge track, and so have different rolling stock, and are not connected (trains can't swim). In short, specifying "UK" rail network is rather naive. Have one for GB and one for Ireland. — Dunc|☺ 10:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- This wikiproject is not about a single system at all, it is to try and allow a single place for these kind of topics to be discussed, just because it is a project on the whole of the UK doesn't mean that the articles will be structed that way. I'm hoping that it will produce a better forum for us all to discuss such issues and not have the current unhelpful situation of this same issue being talked about on the talk pages of different articles with no real connection or consistancy. Whilst i agree that there are two systems or networks the wikiproject is not trying to claim that there is only one at all, it's to co-ordinate articles better for the whole of the United Kingdom. Plus all other Wikiproject are the UK as a whole, not simply part of it --Achmelvic 10:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
You've even got a third system coming along with the connected Welsh Highland and Ffestiniog Railways.--7severn7 18:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
AfD for California-Nevada Interstate Maglev
There is an AfD proposed for the California-Nevada Interstate Maglev. If anyone is interested, they can review the article and AfD and vote on the proposal. Yes the article needs work. Vegaswikian 19:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
KCR is the current Hong Kong COTW
The current Hong Kong Collaboration of the Week is KCR (Kowloon-Canton Railway). If you've got any additional information (and references), now's the time to head over there and add them. Slambo (Speak) 15:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Help needed for an ailing featured article: Wigwag
This article has been listed twice at WP:FARC, but no one bothered to detail what the problems were until now. Please go to Talk:Wigwag and see if you can't help address any of the listed concerns to save this old FA. This really needs some people familiar with the subject. Thank you. - Taxman Talk 14:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
A Trains portal template on TFD today
Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Trains portal/DYK date and leave your comments. Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 10:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
IT trains
I am working on italian rolling stocks on it.wiki. Check out the complete list of done and to-do at http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Jollyroger/Lista_dei_rotabili_italiani.
Annotations and details
I have come across a lot of articles on particular railroads where the introduction doesn't specify whether the railroad carries freight, passengers, or both. (It looks like there are many freight-only.) This would be very informative in establishing context, and reduce some amount of confusion.
There are also many lists of railroads in the United States, where the name of the railroad doesn't clearly indicate what part of the country the company operates in. It would be exceedingly useful if these lists were annotated with the states of operation where needed. Otherwise, the sheer number of listings just gets overwhelming, and if you are looking for information with a view to a particular region or area, it can be hard to sort through everything. Something similar may be necessary for other countries. -- Beland 01:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
{{Train topics}}
The template {{Train topics}} is a bit overpopulated now and, I think, should be reduced to the core topics that were originally listed on the project page. I've started discussion on the template talk page. Slambo (Speak) 19:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Tagging and categorization
I've been going through all of the railroad articles I come across and tagging their discussion pages with the TrainsWikiProject template. I've seen some other projects (I can't remember which one, offhand--perhaps I'm dreaming this up) that have a deal in their templates that automatically adds that article into the related category. Presumably this is so it's easier to track those articles for future reference (and hopefully improvement) from within the WikiProject. Can we make the Trains template do the same thing? A lot of these articles I'm finding are rather obscure, and I may never stumble across them again. If they were automatically categorized in a Trains category (or a Trains Unsorted or similar) one, it would make going back to inspect them a far easier chore. Something we can do? Is there an easy way to keep track of all WP:Trains articles so we can go through and work on them? cluth 21:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Grade crossings in Ireland
The Level crossing article has considerable info on Crossings around the world -- nothing on level crossings in Ireland, which is not a particular problem for me. But I have a very complete set of detailed photographs of an Irish grade crossing, including the resident 'flagman' and flagman's booth (exterior and interior), taken in 2003. If anyone is interested in having such pics for your WikiProject Trains work, let me know on my talk page. I'll be glad to share them with anyone who wants them for a Wiki project. N2e 00:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Bordering on original research...
In looking through Category:Rail stubs today, I came across Skybus Metro. The system sounds like any of a number of suspended railways such as Schwebebahn Wuppertal or H-Bahn.
The whole thing reads like advertising copy, but Googling for key phrases didn't come up with anything similar to delete it as a copy of someone else's work. I was tempted to nominate it on WP:AFD as original research because the name in the attached link is suspiciously close to the article author's name. Thoughts? Slambo (Speak) 18:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- The article really looks like advertisement text copied into Wikipedia. I am not shure if the whole article should be deleted. I think better solution would be to gain some knowledge about Skybus metro and re-write the article in proper style. CCMichalZ 18:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I just found Image:Skybus Metro.pdf which has complete technical detail and artist conception diagrams of the service. I also found a couple articles in the news media about it: [3], [4], [5], and there's a description at the Indian Railways Fan Club site (although the photos page currently returns an error). According to the news, Konkan Railway has begun construction on a test section of such a system in Bangalore, so even though we've got what looks like advertising and original research now, it looks like something that we should keep; let's get it cleaned up and referenced and up to snuff. I'm copying this discussion to the article talk page. Further comments should be left there. Slambo (Speak) 14:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Translation
Hi guys. I translated an article I wrote for it.wiki. Can you check it and give it a fix? I am not an english native speaker, sorry. A polish friend is going to complete the voice with infos on the use of these loco in Poland, then the article could be moved to principal namespace. User:Jollyroger/FS_Locomotive_E412 thanks and C ya --Jollyroger 17:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Cool, I'll take a look... Slambo (Speak) 17:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Nice work. There's a copyedit over the text and an infobox and some categories. When you're ready to move this live, I would suggest FS class E412 for the article name. One other question, do you have references to cite for the article? Slambo (Speak) 18:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've done some further copy-editing, hopefully improving the readability without disrupting the meaning. There's a little more polish required, but I have to say the article is looking very good. All down to Jollyroger's work, not mine. I agree with Slambo: move the article to FS class E412. The remaining copy-editing work can be done there. Very nice work, Jollyroger. Best, Gwernol 19:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- What kind of references do you need? It is all based on the paper manual of these locos, on the links given and on what I know... sorry, I am not used to en.wiki templates and standards--Jollyroger 12:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- My own rule of thumb is to list every document I used as research material in the references section. A scan through the articles listed on Wikipedia:Good articles/Trains will give you an idea on formatting them. Slambo (Speak) 14:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- What kind of references do you need? It is all based on the paper manual of these locos, on the links given and on what I know... sorry, I am not used to en.wiki templates and standards--Jollyroger 12:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Articles to be demoted from FA status soon
There's some discussion on the Featured article review project talk page about defeaturing current featured articles for a lack of inline citations. Several of the articles that deal with railroad subjects fall into this category and will likely be defeatured. I'm taking another look through the four articles that I've taken through the FA process to get them up to current standards. Anyone else care to review/update others? Slambo (Speak) 16:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Images of railroad tie replacement equipment
At my user page there are some low-quality images of railroad tie replacement equipment that I took within the last few months. The ___location is Rosemont, Pennsylvania, part of the Pennsylvania Main Line (the replacement of ties along the old Pennsylvania Railroad route between Philly and Harrisburg used by Amtrak.Spikebrennan 17:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like the lighting was a bit troublesome. Backlit objects are notoriously difficult to shoot well. There's video of a tie replacement train like this one in action in the video "Workin' On The Railroad" from (I think) Pentrex. Slambo (Speak) 10:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I was using a cell phone camera and didn't know how well (or how poorly) they would turn out. I figured that there might be some small chance, though, that one of them might be illustrative.Spikebrennan 10:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, and I've added one to Maintenance of way, as we didn't have an image of such equipment yet. Slambo (Speak) 11:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I was using a cell phone camera and didn't know how well (or how poorly) they would turn out. I figured that there might be some small chance, though, that one of them might be illustrative.Spikebrennan 10:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Recent changes list
Following the lead of a few other WikiProjects, I've started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Recent changes page so we can click on a link to see all the changes to rail transport related articles via the related changes functionality. The list is most assuredly not complete, so please take a look at the list and add articles, templates, images, categories, etc., as you work on them. Thanks! Slambo (Speak) 14:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Heritage railway stations
See Talk:UK railway stations - S
Also, does anyone have a small steam train symbol? Simply south 14:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Making unit formats consistent
I am interested in making units consistent and have previously edited train articles with this in mind. I have created a simple tool that makes the task quicker. If you want to use it, feel free. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. This will give you a 'units' tab to press in edit mode. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
snopes
Snopes talked about a 1938 incident supposedly in san antonio. They said it was in salt lake. Any authentic record of a train hitting a bus then in salt lake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southidaho (talk • contribs)
Locomotive/Railroad Class
I haven't found articles specifically for class (ICC/STB) or locomotive class (e.g. "big boy", FEF-3, J, etc.). The class disambiguation page says nothing about either.
I'm going to update class specifically to mention class of railroads (w/ links to the four articles). I'm not sure exactly what to do about locomotive classes. If nothing else it would be nice to have something for "Class" in the locomotive template to link to; I also think some sort of categorization would be good, but I'm not sure how to proceed. For instance, there is a page for Locomotives of New Zealand which lists all the classes, and also a "Category:New Zealand railway locomotives". I think this degree of exhaustiveness is impractical for North American railroads/locomotives, but I think something like "Category:Famous locomotive classes" would be good.
Suggestions? Help? Mangoe 12:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- I was planning to build a page for SP steam locomotive classes, just haven't had a chance to get started on it yet. In the US for diesel and electric locomotives, the information is more logically split out by manufacturer/model names, which is how we've got a lot of them already. Slambo (Speak) 17:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree about diesels and more modern electrics (e.g. AEM7), but IIRC older electrics tend to be identified by class (e.g. GG1, which is a class and not a model number). However, the electric bridge can be crossed when we come to it.
- How about this scheme:
- an overall "Class (locomotive)" page, with links to existing "list of classes" pages. The "Class" label in the locomotive template would point to this page.
- Class list pages for individual railroads/systems should describe the overall system (e.g. the PRR list page would explain that "G" means "ten wheeler") and might or might not link to pages on individual classes (or example, a UP page would surely link to "Big Boy" but might not have pages for every other UP class). The link might be to a famous example rather than a separate page for the whole class (e.g. I wouldn't have both a N&W class J and a N&W 611 page; the latter should suffice).
- Pages for individual pages would use the locomotive template.
- The category "Category:Famous locomotive classes" would be implemented, but not a category page for each system/railroad. Do we need an overall "Category:Locomotive classes"?
- How about this scheme:
- I'm going to go ahead and create the overall page and a B&O classes page, and we can see how it progresses from there. Mangoe 01:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Next issue in this: two railroads had "Little Joe" classes (Milwaukee and B&O). I've put up a RfM Little Joe (locomotive) to disambiguate by railroad. (Do we want to spell the RR name out? Please visit talk on above.) We can disambiguate between the two classes on the "Little Joe" disambig class. Mangoe 05:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Commented there, both MILW and CSSSB used the electric locos. BTW, nice start on the class (locomotive) article. Slambo (Speak) 10:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! I've done Baltimore and Ohio Railroad locomotives, if you want to look at my approach. I think the approach taken under PRR locomotive classification is probably overkill for most railroads; certainly for the B&O most classes could never get an article more than a couple of lines long (typical length of entry in Sagle's book, the only available source for most). To my mind it makes more sense to talk about the scheme in overall terms and then break out articles for particularly notable classes only. I've also kept the article in "category:X Railroad locomotives" and have assumed that articles on famous classes would go in the same category. The overall Famous locomotives category would continue however to list only specific examples, and not classes. Got all that?
- I'm going to do Norfolk and Western Railway locomotives next. Mangoe 11:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Did you see the current issue of Classic Trains? It's got a cover story on the B&O's "Big Sixes" this month. I picked up a copy over the weekend but haven't had a chance to read it yet. Slambo (Speak) 14:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. I'm contemplating a "Big Six" article. I also picked up Harwood's "Royal Blue" book and will work on related articles. Mangoe 18:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Proposal for {{TrainsWikiProject}} template
I've posted a proposal to shorten the {{TrainsWikiProject}} template to make it a little less obtrusive on the various talk pages where it's used. Comments are welcome on the template talk page. Slambo (Speak) 14:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Update: After looking at a couple other similar project banners, discussion has moved a little to include the possibility of showing an article's rating on a standardized scale, much like is done with the {{Chemistry}} or {{WPMILHIST}} templates. Since there has been (brief) talk here some time ago about integrating article assessments for the WP:1.0 efforts, this seems worthwhile to add. Please hop over to Template talk:TrainsWikiProject for further discussion. Slambo (Speak) 15:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The Regional Terminology Problem
I've started on a campaign to improve the Category:Railway signalling articles, and the terminology difference is starting to become a problem. My current strategy is this:
- Give each major type of working (e.g. Centralized traffic control) its own article.
- Keep railway signal as a separate article and have it deal solely with the different singal technologies, not with the ways the signals are used. (I've already made this change.)
- Leave the various national articles alone, for the most part.
- Try to eliminate some of the smaller articles which are essentially definitions with parts of other articles attached. See home signal and distant signal for examples.
- Turn the railway signalling article into a discussion of the most general principles, with links off to the other articles.
Right now, the problem is, on the most immediate level, that the central articles are centered on British practice. I suppose I can get past this except that the terminology conflict has reared its head again. For example, in Centralized traffic control it says that "The term CTC generally applies to a single track railway with crossing loops." In the usual perverse fashion, "crossing" and "loop" have almost opposite meanings in the USA, where we would refer to "passing sidings". It's particularly questionable in this article since CTC is (as far as I know) of American origin. In another instance we have interlocking tower and signal box, which appear on inspection to be, respectively, the USA and UK names for the same thing.
As it seems I will be end up creating articles in the course of this I would like some sort of organizing principle for the naming. I'm likely to us US names for things, and we are liekly to end up with even more of a hodge-podge of names than we have already. Mangoe 01:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
In other articles where there are regional variations this is mentioned in the text. If the variations are major then an entire section could be devoted to the description of the variations. SilkTork 20:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how a section of an article is going to fix some of these issues. When it's just one item and there's a simple substitution of names (e.g. the (train/railway station debate) I don't see much problem. (In that case I don't see much of an issue because "railway station" is perfectly uderstandable to Americans without explanation.) Even in the "truck/bogie" case it's possible to live with being stuck with "bogie" all the time.
- The problem comes when the meanings only partially intersect. "Siding" and "loop" don't cover the same range of meanings, as far as I can tell. It's going to be really difficult to fix the Centralized traffic control article (and it needs a lot of help) with the mix of American and British terminology and the fact that crossing loop redirects to passing loop, the latter of which really seems to be about station layout in spite of the attempt to re-Americanize it with a not utterly pointful reference to Casey Jones. It's getting to the point where we'll need a separate article for each separate phrase, and the articles are going to be nothing but definitions.
- While I'm at it, the nomenclature articles are a mess. At the very least they need to have entries for both British and American practice, whereas at the moment the American entries are almost entirely lacking. (I also think the lists are getting too long, but that's another issue.) Mangoe 22:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm glad some folks have already started discussing this. I posted the following on the Talk:Railroad switch page (that page is a good example of regional usage intermixing). Any further suggestions?
I understand that Wikipedia is a multinational project, and I've always tried to be sensitive to how countries outside of the U.S. use the English language (which, admittedly, we did not invent). I definitely don't go around editing articles to conform all to American usage. However, the radical difference in terminology between North American railroads and railways in the rest of the English-speaking world can lead to some very choppy and inconsistently-written Wikipedia articles. In most rail-related articles, it's very obvious that the articles were written by many different people, as terms, usage, and style vary wildly between paragraphs and even sentences in the same paragraph. Non-cohesive writing is, I believe, somewhat destructive to the sense of flow and order that should be in every Wikipedia article.
I'm not sure what the solution is--I hesitate to call for standardizing terminology to one standard or the other, and it's very cumbersome to put "U.S.: xxx, U.K.: yyy" (or the longer but more inclusive and accurate "North America: xxx; Commonwealth: yyy") at every point (no pun intended) in the article . Any suggestions? Or do you all vote that it's OK as is?
I'm going to place a copy of this post in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#The Regional Terminology Problem--the discussion's kind of started there. cluth 02:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- It appears that in two sections below this one, User:JYolkowski said that Wikipedia:Manual of style#National varieties of English says that it's OK to be inconsistent across articles as long as you're consistent inside each article--and that it probably works best to defer to the style used first in each article. That makes sense, but it still presents problems in places like crossing loop that were mentioned by Mangoe above.
- I'm cross posting this part of my reply to the Talk:Railroad switch page along with a note to continue the discussion here. cluth 02:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Trains article assessments
As part of the update to the {{TrainsWikiProject}} template, I've setup the project's article assessment categories and intro page. This assessment system is basically a copy of the assessment systems already used by some other WikiProjects, and I've gone through several hundred articles where the template is included and sorted them into the appropriate assessment categories (and found a few to nominate for GA status in the process). If you've got some time, take a look at the list of articles in Category:Unassessed rail transport articles and add the appropriate class parameter to the project banner template, following the guidelines on the assessment intro page. The counts at the top of the intro page and the log at the bottom are both automatically updated once a day.
I will be monitoring this category as well and assessing more articles as I have time. I haven't added the importance scale to the template yet; that will be the next major task once the quality assessments are under control. Slambo (Speak) 11:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
There has been some debate recently about which term to use for the Train station article. The debate has largely centred on the British v American argument - yet it appears to me more one of simple common sense. The main and sub-categories are Railway station. In the article itself the term Railway station appears 3 times as frequently as Train station. Train station in this instance looks rather odd, lonely and somehow perverse. An argument that the use of Train station is older is possibly wrong because there is evidence that Railway station has been in use for longer than initially appears and might have been corrupted or deleted. Due to the awkward behaviour of RichardHarrold people may have got themselves into an entrenched situation which has blinded them to the simple common sense use of Railway station over train station. A glance at Category:Railway stations shows how at this stage changing all the cats into Train stations would be more difficult than simply changing the name of the main category article. Lets have some plain and simple consistency here. SilkTork 20:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I vote for a railway station. This is the most popular and in my opinion most correct one. I use it for all the articels on Railway stations in Poland. CCMichalZ 20:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Manual of style#National_varieties_of_English for how this should be handled. Since this article isn't particular to either American or British stations, and since the first author of the page used the term "train station", then the term "train station" should be used. It's okay to use the term "train station" in some articles/categories and "railway station" in other articles/categories. JYolkowski // talk 20:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- My point is that Wikipedia is overwhelmingly dominated by Railway station usage. The main and subcategories are all railway station. There are over 2,000 articles with the title Railway station, and something less than 20 with the title Train station. Take a look through the Category:Railway stations and have a count up yourself. After about 10 minutes you'll see my point! SilkTork 20:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- True, but my point is that it's perfectly okay to be inconsistent across articles. JYolkowski // talk 00:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- I take your point. But mine is not that we have sometimes Train station and sometimes Railway station, but that we have massive and almost consistent use of Railway station on Wiki apart from the main article on the subject, which perversely uses the title Train station. The situation seems a little odd. Other than an argument that it's OK for there to be inconsistency, there seems no genuine reason to keep this inconsistency. For the pleasure of saying that we accept inconsistency, and here's a good example of one, we deliberately keep this example? SilkTork 08:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- True, but my point is that it's perfectly okay to be inconsistent across articles. JYolkowski // talk 00:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Existing Railroads Not Defunct in List of New York railroads
This is in regards to the Wallkill Valley Railroad, a corporation formed and existing in the State of New York by Act of the State Legislature in 1866. WVRR's charter predates the formation of the ICC and it is perpetual in nature. However Wikipedia lists WVRR as "defunct" on the page titled List of New York railroads which is technically incorrect. There is a general misconception concerning the word "abandoned" in railroad parlance: it refers to the abandonment of service (to the customer), not the extinguishment of the charter. WVRR was quitclaimed by Conrail to John E. Rahl in 1986, many of the documents regarding its existence are on file with the NY Sec.of State, also reproduced at http://www.wvrr.biz .
The issue raised here is how WVRR should be re-categorized at List of New York railroads without causing a wiki war against the wikitocracy. I am the current corporate secretary for the Wallkill Valley Railroad Company. We will be creating an article in Wikipedia for the title "Wallkill Valley Railroad," but respectfully request advice on this discussion page for how to handle our improper "defunct" classification on the aforementioned List of New York railroads .
--Shakewell 17:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think it will depend of the current status of the WVRR. Is it intended to be a tourist railroad? If so, just move it up to that section of the page. If the company is simply a holding company, we may need to add another category to the list to hold the WVRR. Once you've written the proposed article it should be easy enough to figure out the correct course of action and implement it. Indeed you can be bold and make the change yourself.
- On a side note, your edit summary mentioned that the current page was a "slander". Its clearly a simple mistake and to accuse someone of slander is a serious charge. Please assume good faith on the part of other editors. I'd also like to warn you that a charge of slander sails close to Wikiepdia's policy of no legal threats which is taken very seriously around here. Thanks, Gwernol 17:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Gwernol appears correct in regards to the "slander of title" allegation since there does not seem to be any malice evident here on the Wikipedia. It looks like the edit summary has already been changed by someone else. Therefore we apologize for the mischaracterization.
- As for WVRR's future intentions, the story gets somewhat complicated. In a nutshell our railroad corporation claims the right to operate a high-speed train from NYC to Albany, passing thru Stewart Airport in Newburgh. Any competing plans for high speed rail, by New York State and/or public authorities like the NYS Thruway, constitute usurpation of franchise in our opinion. Numerous bureaucrats, including politicians and at least one judge, have issued spurious assertions that WVRR "is not a railroad." However the NY Railroad Law of 1872 is quite explicit as to how a railroad corporation's existence shall be challenged. Any changes to that rule, including abridgements within the Consolidated Laws of 1910, are ex post facto.
- There are also lucrative telecommunications rights tied in with this franchise. These rights differ from the similar cases involving AT&T in the midwest, because New York Railroads operate in fee simple. Today WVRR is a "rail trail" but still collects line crossing fees from utility companies. All these utility companies have signed contracts with WVRR, acknowledging corporate existence. Yet, curiously, several have since reneged on those contracts and now claim we're "not a railroad."
- During the nineteenth century, whenever the railroad law became more restrictive, franchises such as WVRR were classified as "Existing Railroads." Later in the twentieth century, the same franchises were classified as "Surviving Railroads." In summary, the proper classification of WVRR on the Wikipedia List of New York railroads may not be simple. Other railroads listed on the same page probably also enjoy perpetual charters and fall into the same situation. --Shakewell 16:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- These are all interesting points regarding the company. I look forward to reading a complete article on the subject. Shakewell, looking at your contribution history, it appears that you are still new to Wikipedia (unless you've been editing under a different username or under your IP address before now). If you haven't already, please take some time to familiarize yourself with the following policies: Neutral point of view, No original research and Citing sources. Be aware that any text that you submit for an article is released under GFDL and may be mercilessly edited by others. I've assembled a few guidelines (these are not yet policy or in any way official in this WikiProject, but the points here encompass some of the things that I try to do in my own writing) for railroad-related articles, and I encourage you to review some of the existing articles about other US railroads (for example, the Canadian Pacific Railway article has undergone an extensive peer review and is currently a Wikipedia Featured Article; the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad article has not achieved this status yet, but it has gone through the peer review process). Slambo (Speak) 17:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Slambo this has been some helpful feedback. My general impression is that many people, especially train buffs, equate the word "railroad" with having an operating choo-choo train. However the reality of a railroad's coprorate existence has more to do with laws and legal title. This weekend we uploaded a law reference book from 1882 regarding the subject matter raised in this discussion. It's short title is "Colby on the Law of Railroads," and can be downloaded (in PDF format) off the main page at http://www.wvrr.biz . We broke this 800 page book down into several parts to make it more manageable. People might find the work interesting for its own sake, but we use it to back up legal arguments. --Shakewell 21:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Can't we simply define an existing railroad as a presently operating railroad? --SPUI (T - C) 12:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Such a definition might be a matter of opinion, not a matter of factual definition. Citing Colby 1882, "Table of existing railroads," together with the material contained in Chapter 1 (Corporate Existence), I could make a good case that WVRR "exists." But we don't have a choo-choo train operating at this time. As far as the real property is concerned, both laying down track, and also tearing up the track, is "railroad use." Furthermore, allowing people to hike, bike, and horseback ride down the remaining rail trail, constitutes "transportation use," furthermore rail trail use serves to preserve the corridor for future railroad operation.
- So there's some degree of dispute: the NYS Thruway Authority says that WVRR doesn't exist. Elements within the NY Attorney General's Real Property Division make the same claim. Then again, we have an Affidavit of Title signed and notorized by the Commissioner of the NYS DOT (which you can read at http://www.wvrr.biz ) showing a perfect chain of title. Dunn & Bradstreet says we exist, also the Internal Revenue Service. The 1899 Perpetual Lease is cited in the 1952 Merger Agreement, indicating a special freehold estate which cannot be "merged into oblivion." The NY Sec. of State still has our 1866 Charter and 1877 Reorganization Certificates on file; but they have removed the corresponding computer records, sua sponte, on their own without any judicial decree or legislative act. --Shakewell 21:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Every name on a timetable
In a side trip from the train station/railway station discussion, I've noticed the profusion of enumerative articles. I suppose there's very possibly some reason for this in the locomotives; but when every pair of platforms and every flag stop on every rail line has a page, things have gotten out of hand.
By my quick survey, almost none of these passes any kind of notability test. And I note that most of the MARC train stations in Maryland link to the placename, even though the station building at Point of Rocks, Maryland is certainly notable. This frankly seems to me to be more reasonable. Mangoe 12:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- I fully agree with Mangoe. There are so many stops on Wiki that it is difficult to know where to start in weeding out the non-notable ones, but Category:Amtrak stations is one suggestion. Tyrone (Amtrak station) is a typical example of the entries for a number of these stops. Note the similarity with Coatesville (Amtrak station) and Greensburg (Amtrak station). These were just random choices, I haven't been through the list. Following Mangoe's suggestion: the Amtrak stops listed on the Pennsylvanian (Amtrak) page should be changed to go to the towns - so clicking on Tyrone in that article would lead to Tyrone, Pennsylvania. An addition could be made in the Tyrone article mentioning the Amtrak station. A redirect could be put in place on Tyrone (Amtrak station) to lead people to the town article. If the principle is acceptable, then I suggest a list be drawn up of the stations in the Amtrak station cat that should be redirected. SilkTork 09:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- My voice would be, that even the less notable stations or stops should have their articles. I created myself over 200 articles on Railway stations in Pomeranian Voivodeship. Most of them are stubs, but after looking for sources to expand them I found a lot of info, historical facts etc. See Babi Dół (PKP station) as an examle. Many of those articles refer to the station placed in the town or a village ehich do not have it's own article on Wiki yet. CCMichalZ 10:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't mean to sound too critical of your sense of industry, but when I look at Gdynia Wielki Kack (PKP station) I see an article that boils down to a single sentence in the article on Gdynia-- which, as it happens, doesn't mention that there is a station.
- Don't be afraid to be bold and create the town article. For example, someone created St. Denis, Maryland even though about all that can be said about it is that it's on the B&O mainline, it has a MARC train stop, and it used to have a station building. Babi Dół appears to be a place that could be said to be notable for having some interesting railroad buildings. It could then be attached to a list of places in Poland of raillfanning interest. But I suspect that in many places all that could really be said is that it has a station building much like that in the next town-- or that there's nothing there but a platform or two.
- Mind you, I know next to nothing about trains in Poland. But for comparison, the station at Point of Rocks, Maryland is one of the most famous small town stations in the United States. Mangoe 11:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please consider, that I am willing to expand each station info into a normal article. Believe me - I am able to find enough information to build an article of lets say Gdańsk Główny (PKP station) size. There are about 15 railway stations in Gdańsk. If I wanted to include all the information about them into the city article, it would at least double it.
- One of things I do is linking in See also section: From station to town, and from town to station(s).CCMichalZ 11:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've just looked at Gdańsk Główny (PKP station). It's an attractive looking article with information in it saying there is another station in Gdańsk with platforms and shops. It is non-notable. You could equally have an article on every McDonalds in the world. Nice picture. Details of when it was built, what street it is on. Decoration inside. Number of seats and toilets. Etc. But those articles would be equally non-notable. As for the main Gdańsk article. Well, there is a section for transportation. I would suggest a few lines in that section saying there are 15 railway stations, and naming the most interesting and important ones. The most notable one (if it is notable enough) could be linked to. I doubt if Gdańsk Główny (PKP station) is the most notable. SilkTork 12:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- And I've just looked at Category:Railway stations in Pomeranian Voivodeship. Wow, yes. You have been busy - I can see why you object to Mangoe's proposal. But it is exactly to prevent such things happening that Mangoe made the proposal. When editors see examples of that they get encouraged to enter even more train stations. Wikipedia will end up listing every station on the planet. Then every bus stop, shop, toilet and person..... I'm sure that in your heart of hearts you know that's not what Wiki is about. This Category:Non operational railway stations in Pomeranian Voivodeship is clearly a work of love. I sympathise with your position. But that information doesn't belong here. I hope there is a way we can use the information you have in a meaningful and interesting manner. And I do hope you don't get too upset about this proposal. SilkTork 12:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am not getting upset as our debate is conducted in civilised manner. I (as a Railfan Wikipedian) would like to see an article on each railway station on the planet. I think it is just a matter of correct categorising if do not want to get confused in those tousands of articles. As a support to my voice I can give you an example of music records. We have few times more albums released in history than we have railway stations, yet each record deserves it's own article.
- I think it is rather a matter of common sense what to devote separate articles to. You see, a Mc Donald's restauration seldom is 100 years old, had three names in two different languages, was a place of WWII battle, and so on.CCMichalZ 12:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- There's a part of me that likes the idea of listing all the railway stations as well. I like it. I'm a collector and I like trains and stations. But I don't think a separate article on each is the way to go. The articles are trivial in the extreme. A well researched and well written article on the railway system in Pomeranian Voivodeship would be worth reading. But 364 different articles on the railway stations, non operational railway stations and Category:SKM stops is not the best way to go about it. This article: Szybka Kolej Miejska is great. Either a section of that article or a sub-article from that on the routes of the SKM which mentioned or listed the SKM stops might be the best approach. SilkTork 15:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've picked a few at random. See for example Kołczygłówki (PKP station), which again lacks a corresponding town name article. And I suspect that all anyone will ever be able to tell us about the facilities here is that there is a station building that is unused, and that it lies on such-and-such a line, and the date the station was opened/closed. It seems to me that all of this would be more useful as part of a table listing the stations on the line and giving a few essential data on each. Looking at how the articles are referenced, they appear to only reference each other, and through the category of course, except that there seems to be no external reference to the category. There seems to be no way to find these articles unless one already knows they are there.
- I think there's a way to prepare this information that is useful to a foreigner like myself who will probably never visit Poland (not that I have anything against it). But it seems to me that a larger context is needed-- say a list of towns with stations in them, discussion of the history of closed lines, etc.
- And lest I be accused of picking on these, the article on the Route 128 (MBTA station) tells me how much it costs to park there! Er, how much it cost two years ago. My feeling is, I'll trust the transit company's website for this kind of info, thank you. Mangoe 15:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Notability is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia, so verifiable information on any station can be included regardless of the "notability" of the station. Having said that, having dozens of tiny stubs for each station on a line is probably not the best way of organising things. If you have a lot of stubs for stations on the same line, for example, it might make sense to merge them into a Railway stations on x line or whatever article. If a station accumulates a few paragraphs of information, then spin it out into its own article. JYolkowski // talk 21:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- What seems to happen is that most "X Station" articles appear at first glance to have a lot of content, but almost none of it derives from the station itself. For example, on Gdynia Wielki Kack (PKP station) the only information that is about the station itself is the presence/absence of water tower/depot/building, the number of platforms, and the dates opened/closed. All the other information is derived either from the line it is on or the town it is in. Route 128 (MBTA station) consists almost entirely of timetable information as well.
- Notability is a guideline for exclusion of certain types of articles, and for me, very few station stops pass that test. The vast majority of all train stations are only meaningful within the context of the line that they are on or the town that they are in. A limited few are of particular historical or architectural interest.
- Also, I think there has to be some thought towards maintainability here. Lists of station stops are subject to change by railroads and commuter services, and it is perhaps not too much work to keep a list up-to-date. But when the list is a complex web of articles, the question of who is going to do the housekeeping has to be confronted. We are not, contrary to opinion, an infinite number of monkeys.
- Finally, look at it this way. Nobody had more interest in railroads than, well, railroads. And while railroads did keep track diagrams and the like, for most people their ready reference was a slim booklet folded up and shoved in a back pocket. Mangoe 22:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I think we've said everything that was to say (from our sides) on this toppic (it gre really large). My proposal is to wait for other Wikipedians voices on the issue.
- The misunderstanding is maybe caused by the fact, that in Poland there are many people who care about railways far more than Polish railway companies :-) CCMichalZ 09:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- We could take some of these cats to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion to invite wider discussion. SilkTork 17:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- For those that haven't already, I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts, especially User:Tony Sidaway's comments under the heading Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts#What.27s_the_point.3F. JYolkowski // talk 23:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think masts are quite the same sort of thing, and from what I can tell the writers of the station stop articles don't either. It's the proliferation of infoboxes on them that I find particularly striking; they're cluttery, and the analogy with "predecessor/successor" doesn't apply. I guess that my root feeling is that Wikipedia is not a timetable. Railroads and transit systems have websites, and the information about train service is best found in them, not here. Mangoe 23:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't like the infoboxes much either, so I wouldn't object if you or someone else removed them. I guess my point is this: At least where I live (maybe things are different elsewhere), even the most mundane stations are probably a lot more interesting than guyed masts (-: in that they have quite a lot that could be said about their history, architecture, etc. Sure, right now there are a lot of station articles that don't say anything really interesting, such as Amsterdam (Amtrak station), Highland (SEPTA station), and Lewistown (Amtrak station), but most of these articles have only been around for a few months or less. As the months pass, it becomes more and more likely that someone who is interested in these stations will write something interesting about them, if the articles already exist. JYolkowski // talk 00:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's not articles on station buildings that have got me going here; it's articles that are clearly about station stops. Articles on station buildings are great; but it seems that for very many of these articles the existence of a building at the stop is more or less unimportant. As far as American commuter rail is concerned, probably half the stations out there, if not more, have no significant building. And the other thing is that most of the information that can be written about them as station stops isn't really a good idea to have here, because at best it can only be as good as the timetable information people are using to write these articles. Mangoe 04:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't like the infoboxes much either, so I wouldn't object if you or someone else removed them. I guess my point is this: At least where I live (maybe things are different elsewhere), even the most mundane stations are probably a lot more interesting than guyed masts (-: in that they have quite a lot that could be said about their history, architecture, etc. Sure, right now there are a lot of station articles that don't say anything really interesting, such as Amsterdam (Amtrak station), Highland (SEPTA station), and Lewistown (Amtrak station), but most of these articles have only been around for a few months or less. As the months pass, it becomes more and more likely that someone who is interested in these stations will write something interesting about them, if the articles already exist. JYolkowski // talk 00:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think masts are quite the same sort of thing, and from what I can tell the writers of the station stop articles don't either. It's the proliferation of infoboxes on them that I find particularly striking; they're cluttery, and the analogy with "predecessor/successor" doesn't apply. I guess that my root feeling is that Wikipedia is not a timetable. Railroads and transit systems have websites, and the information about train service is best found in them, not here. Mangoe 23:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- For those that haven't already, I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts, especially User:Tony Sidaway's comments under the heading Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts#What.27s_the_point.3F. JYolkowski // talk 23:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks JYolkowski, I found Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts interesting and useful. User:Tony Sidaway makes some intelligent and persuasive comments. However, he seems to miss the points about: a) encouraging and leading by example. If we create serious and brilliant articles then more editors will be encouraged to create more and more such articles. If we create trivia then more and more editors will be encouraged to create more and more trivia. And b) the credibility of Wikipedia. Wiki occasionally comes under criticism from academics and the media for inaccurate articles, vandalism of the articles, and the trivial and poor quality of much of the content. Editors who argue that Wiki is capable of containing information on everything in the world, appear to mistake Wiki for the World Wide Web. Wiki is an encyclopedia, as such the articles are more aimed at helping people understand topics rather than merely listing them. Certain individual items on a list - like certain train stations - are worthy of an encyclopedia entry because the item is notable, and an article is needed to help people understand why that train station is notable. If a train station is not notable, it is simply an item on a list. It may be that the list of stations in itself is not even notable. But certainly, in this case, we are simply talking about individual non-notable train stops. That the train stops have some information about them is indisputable. But so have pubs, shops and people. That an item has individuality is not in dispute - it's the notability that is. SilkTork 21:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Please discuss: "Wikipedia is not a timetable"
SilkTork and I are working on a guideline proposal for station stops and buildings over at User:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable. Please join us there for further discussion. Mangoe 18:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Good work, I fully agree with this proposal after one addition that I left on the talk page there. Slambo (Speak) 18:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've moved on to a different version: Railroad line and station articles to present the issue from a different angle. Mangoe 21:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Looks quite good for the most part. The only suggestion I'd make is to remove the section on "notability". People's definitions of "notability" can vary quite a lot, and asking people to accept a certain definition of notability increases the chance that people will reject your idea. As well, once we start labelling things as "not notable" you have people nominating them for deletion, which I think is definitely not something we want to do here. JYolkowski // talk 15:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I think some of the articles ought to be deleted, not to remove information, but in the interest of better organization. And I think without some notability guide railfans are going to implement the "every name on a timetable needs an article" policy. While in the long run a lot of time and effort can be put into taking the information about a line and putting each place in its own article, there's also an encouragement to do it because in another sense it's easy: specifically, it requires no searching to get information. I say that because I see it in myself: works I wanted to use as sources aren't at hand at the moment, nor is the time needed to write a good article from scratch; therefore I'm largely devoting myself to housekeeping on existing articles, such as making sure that all the articles listed in the Class I box have an infobox. I like to think this is worthwhile. I've also added a "successor line" section to the infobox because I at least would like to be able to see at a glance what happened to a railroad. Nobody has objected or even commented, but if someone thought it should go away, I'd stop and consider.
- I don't think that the notability standards about stations as buildings/structures are especially high. I do think they should be high enough to discourage a separate article about a platform with a ticket booth. Mangoe 16:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- This discussion has moved to a new version at User:Mangoe/Railroad line and station articles. A consensus seems to be forming and I'd like people to consider moving this into formal guidelines for these types of articles. Note that notability and other deletion criteria have been specifically excluded. Mangoe 19:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good, good job. JYolkowski // talk 02:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I have created Wikipedia:Places of local interest to encompass these and other places of local interest. The previous discussion had some good ideas that I've borrowed for my proposal. I'd invite anyone to comment there. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 15:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Mumbai bombings
The 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings article has been listed as part of WikiProject Trains. However the, 7 July 2005 London bombings and the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings are not. I don't know much about Wikiproject trains so I'll let you all decide whether Mumbai should be removed or Madrid and maybe London should be added. Nil Einne 17:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- The latter is the case, and they are now. Thanks for the heads-up. Slambo (Speak) 17:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Are railroad bridges part of this project?
I've created and/or expanded several articles about railroad bridges, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges (and as part of an interest in the List of historic civil engineering landmarks). I noticed that Starrucca Viaduct was recently evaluated as part of WikiProject Trains. I don't mind or anything like that, but I was wondering if it's intentional to include railroad bridges in WikiProject Trains. If so, I have a number of bridges that could be added from List of crossings of the Upper Mississippi River, as well as one of my personal favorite bridge articles, Seventh Street Improvement Arches. Should these bridges be added and evaluated?
Also, does anyone have any suggestions for expanding the bridge articles past start-class? (Or, for that matter, Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern Railway, a local short line?) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, I think it makes sense to include railway bridges as part of the project. Of course, it probably makes sense to write separate articles only on bridges that have enough verifiable information on them to write about. As for suggestions, it probably depends based on the bridge, but old local newspapers might have lots of interesting tidbits. JYolkowski // talk 15:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- My own rule of thumb is that if the structure is or was used primarily for rail transport, then it should get the {{TrainsWikiProject}} banner. Railroad bridges are part of the railroad's infrastructure, therefore they are a part of the WikiProject. I'm still going through the various subcategories of Category:Rail transport to find articles that should have the project banner. I haven't yet significantly started into the station articles, but there are a few thousand more there that should still be tagged.
- The most common (but not the only) reason why I've been going with Start class versus B class for articles is a lack of references. Also, when I look at an article title, I make a quick mental list of the subtopics that should appear as section headers, and if some are missing, I'll often default to Start class. The full description of the differences between the classes was developed (I think) by Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. I am definitely not perfect in my assessments of articles, and if another editor believes that my assessment of a specific article missed the mark, then it should by all means be updated with the Grading scheme as the guiding principle. For specific articles that I've assessed, a quick comment on my talk page is usually enough to request a more thorough assessment with suggestions for improvement. Basically, look at the article and determine what it needs to get up to Good article quality, then add whatever's missing. After that, work on getting it up to Featured article quality. Slambo (Speak) 16:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Category:Locomotive engineers
Looking at Category:Locomotive engineers, I find that it actually lists locomotive designers. Could we consider renaming this to something internationally intelligible? "Locomotive engineer" has an extremely specific meaning in the USA and of course utterly in conflict with this (why isn't Casey Jones on the list?). Mangoe 20:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm changing this to Category:Locomotive designers starting tonight unless someone objects very soon. Mangoe 14:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- No you're not. — Dunc|☺ 21:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Off we go to a request for a category name change. Mangoe 22:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree Mangoe, it cannot stay as "locomotive engineer" as that's misleading in several countries. I like the "locomotive designer" alternative you proposed and have said so at the CfD. Gwernol 22:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Request mediators or anybody really on a VERY silly conflict
Talk:Moscow Metro it seems that Moscow Metro is (un)fortunate enought to have one line that is officially denoted not by number but by a symbol. One user managed to keep a conflict and an edit war going on that has resulted in being the order in which the column with numbers appear in. Also helpful is his exreame stubborn approach. Can I ask that some more people come and help put a 100% FA article article out of misery. --Kuban Cossack .svg){kind=small}
17:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Proposal: WP Trains task forces
There have been some comments about a task force structure for WikiProject Trains made in various talk pages. I've collected some of the ideas presented into a central ___location. Personally, I think it would be helpful for us to adopt a task force structure for further rail transport subtopic specialties. Please take a moment to review and discuss these thoughts. Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 22:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've added a suggested list of seven possible task forces to start with. If you haven't already, please take a moment to review the discussion and add your comments. So far, I haven't heard any objections, so I hope to start implementing these ideas this weekend. Slambo (Speak) 18:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hearing no objections, I've created two of the suggested task force pages. Now it's getting a little late around chez Slambo, so I'll come back to this in the morning to finish up where I left off. Slambo (Speak) 01:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's been two weeks since I started adding the task force tags into {{TrainsWikiProject}}, and I haven't seen anyone complaining, so I'm assuming a tacit acceptance of this proposal. I'll add in the other proposed task forces this week. Slambo (Speak) 17:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm a little late to the party here, but I just wanted to chime in that I think the task force structure is a great idea. --CComMack (t•c) 22:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Portal page for deletion
As part of an attempt to clean up links to impossible dates, I've nominated Portal:Trains/Anniversaries/February 30 for deletion, since it's unlikely ever to be used. — sjorford++ 09:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Result: the subpage was speedy deleted. Slambo (Speak) 15:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Chinese Passenger Rail Service
Anyone has interest in Chinese passenger rail service? It is now the largest passenger rail service in the world, and it is still quickly expanding. However, the articles about it in wikipedia now are nothing better than a doodle. I wish more people can share their information about it and help improve the quality and coverage of this topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Changeup (talk • contribs) . 07:56, August 3, 2006
- That's how much of the US coverage here was about two years ago when I joined in. I've noticed many more news items coming from that corner of the world, and I'd love to read more about it; I just don't have as many references for Chinese rail service as for other areas. Slambo (Speak) 14:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The article, Ghost Station has just been created. Can it be moved, deleted, redirecting so it may be Wikified an a bit more to the point. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{mergeto|Ghost station}}. Slambo (Speak) 15:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like another editor did the merge today. Slambo (Speak) 19:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nicely done. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
ghost bridge?
Nothing to do with railways, I'm afraid, but this item did remind me of a ghost motorway! As a youngster, I vaguely remember a photo of a partially-built autobahn flyover in West Berlin, that stopped in mid-air, as it approached the wall. Did this really exist? Where was it? Has it now been completed?
Some years later, in 1982, I did briefly visit West Berlin, but didn't see it then, and forgot to ask.
regards, Lynbarn 19:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Betacommandbot
Does this bot only cover "rapid transit" as well as "trains" WPs? Many of the metro articles around th UK are "UK rail" articles as well. On, for example the LU, the DLR and the Glasgow Subway (not sure what shorthand is for this) Simply south 10:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I just spotted it on my morning look through my watchlist. It's re-tagging a great many articles that are already tagged, so I've begun looking through the logs for those that are listed as moved from X to Unassessed. The template supports listing several projects in each instance, so for these I'm just combining them into the one that is already there with a rating. I won't have a lot of time today since I'll be riding the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad (photos will come later, maybe Monday). It looks like the bot is still running since the Unassessed category is only up to the Ds now. Slambo (Speak) 12:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Is it okay that i have been addung "UK rail" to some of the metro articles in the UK? Simply south 15:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I will almost always include UK=yes if the subject of the article is in the UK. For example, Talk:Paddington station shows both Stations=yes and UK=yes since it applies to both. Slambo (Speak) 13:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- The bot has now removed many of the tags, including the parent project's on many of the tube and DLR pages. Simply south 20:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Potential rename to Category:People in rail transport
 | The related Category:Important people in rail transport has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. |
This is just an FYI as I assume that members of the project may be interested in participating in the discussion. --After Midnight 0001 17:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
New project
Hi, I am starting a new project called Underground. It helps bring all London Underground related articles to its best. Trains, depots, people, stations and lines. Hope you find this an interesting break-of of your project. Lenny 14:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Whyte types - should we differentiate between tank & tender loco?
In reading some of the articles concerning locomotives types (eg 4-6-2, 2-8-2) I feel the combination of both tender and tank locomotive examples into the same article on wheel arrangement creates a degree of misinformation. For example, the articles on 4-6-2 and 2-8-2 discuss the purpose of the trailing axle to support a large firebox that is positioned behind the driving wheels. This is not true of a 4-6-2T or 2-8-2T tank locomotive, where the the firebox is either above the driving wheels or between the frames, and the trailing axle is there to support the weight of the coal bunker. If anything, a 4-6-2T has a more similar design to a 4-6-0 than a 4-6-2 (indeed, I can name locomotive classes where a 4-6-2T variant was directly derived from a 4-6-0 tender locomotive).
Could we consider revising the organisation of these topics such that we provide a separate page for any tank locomotive variants (eg the current 4-6-2 is split into 4-6-2 and 4-6-2T?) I appreciate this would probably represent quite a lot of work, both in restructuring existing articles, and also knowing all of the various tank engine types to add to the Whyte type category box.
- Hmm, an interesting thought, and one that I'll need to sleep on. My first thought is that it might not be such a bad idea as long as enough new information could be added to the tank locomotive articles that is different from the tender locomotive articles.
- On the {{Whyte types}} template itself, I'd been thinking about ways to reduce its overall size since it is already quite large. While it's easy to link to two different articles in one string (such as 0-4-0T), the resulting display on selected pages might not be optimal (to continue the example, it would display 0-4-0T on 0-4-0 and it would display 0-4-0T on 0-4-0T; that might prove confusing to new readers). If we're going to write separate articles for each tank locomotive type, it seems to make more sense to create a second, smaller navigation template for tank locomotives. Slambo (Speak) 02:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Subsidiaries, branches and paper railroads
I'd appreciate thoughts on a question of article organization and nomenclature in major railroad systems. Many parts of the Pennsylvania Railroad, for instance, were owned by separate corporations entirely controlled by the PRR: for instance, the Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington Railroad owned the PRR main line south of Philadelphia and remained a separate corporation, selling most of its properties to Conrail in 1976 and being dissolved some time later. However, the patterns of subsidiary ownership don't always correspond to the "patterns of operation"; that is, the portions of line designated as various branches by the operating corporation. For instance, the Trenton Cutoff of the PRR was built partly by the Trenton Cut-off Railroad and partly under the PRR charter as a branch in Chester County, but was always operated as a unit. I'd like to hear people's opinions on how to structure collections of articles on these large systems so as to address both corporate history and actual operating patterns as branches. Choess 06:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Main page anniversaries
John Bull (locomotive) is listed on the main page today in the selected anniversaries section, so it may see some increased activity, including vandalism, today. Taking a quick look through the rest of the September anniversaries, Stockton and Darlington Railway will appear on Sept 27. Slambo (Speak) 10:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Drums please
WikiProject Underground needs some more members to make the project usable. So I hope you dont mind me added a note next to the link to the project, after all we are still part of your project. Thanks Lenny 19:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Project Founder.
Good articles and GA requirements
It seems that a new consensus is being made on the Good article guidelines to bring it more in line with current Featured article guidelines. Specifically, inline citations may become a requirement very soon. That means that many of the articles that we currently have listed as Good trains articles will be delisted because their references are not inlined. While many of the current list use inline citations (such as on California Southern Railroad or Bay Area Rapid Transit) others list the references only at the end of the article (like CF7 or Grand Central Terminal).
What does this mean to us? It means we need to work through the GA list and get them up to snuff pretty quickly if we want to keep the majority of articles on the list. It also means that we need to get into the habit of using inline citations on future work to make the path to FA easier for those articles. Slambo (Speak) 20:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. I've been slowly converting some of the British narrow gauge articles to use inline citations, this will give me even more incentive to work on this. Gwernol 21:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a member of WikiProject Oregon and I keep running across references to the Oregon Railway and Navigation Company aka Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company, and I just wanted to see if any of you fine train people wanted to work up a short article on it. Thanks and happy editing! P.S. please move this request if there is a better place for it. Katr67 18:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
New project task: Peer review
I've just added the pages and template changes for Trains project-specific peer reviews. Follow the instructions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review to participate. These instructions are modeled after similar structures in other WikiProjects. Slambo (Speak) 12:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- And I've started it off with one as an example. Slambo (Speak) 12:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)