Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport in Scotland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So... let's talk about this WikiProject! Canæn 02:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, this is new, should this be part of WikiProject Scotland? Simply south 10:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

1 Wikipedia Day Awards
2 Pre-grouping company colours
3 Scope of Historical railways
4 Separate articles for each Operator
5 Just a mention
6 User:Ohconfucius deletion proposals
7 Use of infoboxes
8 Assessment
9 Project banners
10 Project userbox

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 23:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-grouping company colours

Talking about the Historical railway boxes on Pyrotec's and my own talk page has made me think that perhaps for distinctiveness each Historical company should have its own colour (right now all Historical lines are generally yellow). This would allow for better standing out of different eras with different companies. I'd suggest different colours for each of the following.

Glasgow and South Western Railway (and all owned/leased/managed lines)
Caledonian Railway (and all related lines)
Joint lines of the above two companies
London, Midland and Scottish Railway (which I don't think has appeared anywhere... yet)
British Rail
Anything else anyone feels should be added
any other misc line not under the above

I realise this is an extremely minor thing in the grand scales of things, but I think it would make things clearer. Any suggestions for colours? Did any of the companies have any brand colours that could be used? --Dreamer84 17:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Caledonian Railway was famous for its use of Caledonian Blue (which apparently changed slightly over the years) for painting locos, etc. L.M.S., I think, had scarlet or crimson carriages. (G.W.R., OK not in Scotland: Chocolate and cream carriages). B.R. had black locos.

We also need North British Railway; joint Caledonian & N.B.R.: Dumbarton and Balloch joint line & Kilsyth and Bonnybridge Joint Line; presumably L.N.E.R. and Highland Railway. Pyrotec 20:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

G&SWR Locos had unpainted boilers and light olive green tanks, cabs and bunkers. Also: Great North of Scotland Railway.Pyrotec 21:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There is also the Highland Railway and GNSR - where I have been putting together some pages of late. Stewart 21:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses guys. So taking all that into account, how about...

Preceding station		Following station
Station	Glasgow and South Western Railway Line Name	Station
Station	Caledonian Railway Line Name	Station
Station	Caledonian and Glasgow & South Western Railways Line Name	Station
Station	British Rail Line Name	Station
Station	London, Midland and Scottish Railway Line Name	Station
Station	London and North Eastern Railway Line Name	Station
Station	North British Railway Line Name	Station
Station	Caledonian and North British Railways Line Name	Station

G&SWR: A light olive green (colour code #66ba5a)
Caledonian: 'Caledonian Blue' (colour code #496799 is a very close match)
Joint Caley and G&SWR: an aqua colour as a result of mixing the two above colours together (colour code #517a6a)
British Rail: Black (#000000)
LMS: Crimson (#DC143C)
LNER: It's article says apple green on passenger locos (colour code #99cc67)
North British: 'French mustard' locos (colour code #8f691e)
NBR and Caley: Mixture (colour code #556920)

That's all I can dig out for now, will have a look for more colours soon.

Also, regarding the 'Line open; station closed' etc under station names, should they be italic or normal text? Should there be a 'Line and station open' or just a blank if its open? Again a minor thing, but just so we are all writing from the same page. That way maybe an example could go on the main page to show anyone else who wants to join in. :) --Dreamer84 23:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful - I will put a colour column onto my listing page - User:Pencefn/Historical Scottish Railways. The other place to put the colours is the banner in the station listing box for each railway. Stewart 06:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy to accept it, but John Thomas, Regional History, Vol 6, successfully ignores the big 4 and BR for the lowlands & Borders (which ignores the Highland Railway and GNSR). He uses red for G&SWR, blue for Caledonian, Green for North British, thick solid black for Cal/GWR Joint, two thin black lines for Cal/NBR joint and thin black for Others. The main point being do we need the LMS, LNER and BR colours?Pyrotec 09:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Re station boxes, see scope of Historical railways, below.Pyrotec 14:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of Historical railways

In respect of what goes in station boxes (see Pre-grouping company colours, above), for Stations I'm more concerned to show, that for example, Glasgow to Gourock & Glasgow to Wemyss Bay and Glasgow to Greenock Princes Pier (or Glasgow to Ardrossan: both G&SWR and Cal) were effectively two pairs of (deadly) rival routes with express trains and local services; and goods services. In my view its unhelpful to have Gilmour Street, Bridge of Weir, etc, as terminal stations in G&SWR and Caledonian days through to almost the modern post privatisation names of Inverclyde Line and AyrLine. Glasgow Central, Wemyss Bay, Gourock, for example, are terminal stations, i.e. they have buffers at the end of the platforms.

The question of italics, is in some respect a problem of changes in time. The two Hillingdon (East & West) railway stations, for example, having opened in BR days are intermediate stations so I made use of them in the G&P Joint Line article and I talk about electrification as well. So I'm treating a historical line from pre-grouping into Big 4 and BR days. Drearmer84 does not want them in. So what is the solution? Inverclyde and Ayrline articles for post-privatisation services, G&P Joint, G,P,G&A (G&SWR) and G,P&G (Cal) articles for pre-grouping, and Gourock and Wemyss Bay Services and Ayrshire Coast services articles for BR days. Rather pointless to have three sets of articles for the same lines.Pyrotec 09:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Same problems with Paisley Canal Line, Bridge of Weir Railway and Greenock and Ayrshire Railway. Originally Paisley Canal line had a north western terminus, at the old North Johnstone station, as did did the Bridge of Weir Railway at Bridge of Weir. However very soon these termini disappeared. Paisley canal line became a through route to supplement the capacity of the quadruple-track Glasgow & Paisley Joint line. The Bridge of Weir railway and the Greenock & Ayrshire railway together enabled the G&SWR to challenge the Cal. with Glasgow-Greenock integrated rail & steamer services. In BR days the Paisley Canal line passenger services were Glasgow to Kilmacolm (and, it has been stated Johnstone), later Glasgow to Paisley canal station; and now, due to SPTE efforts, Glasgow to a new Paisley Canal station.

One view point appears to indicate that these articles should stop at possibly the 1921 grouping. Do we need to produce yet another set of articles for LMS days and BR Scottish region; as well as the present day Paisley Canal route as run by FirstScotRail(?), do we need yet another article for the lot who ran it before First? Pyrotec 14:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No hijacking intended. I was exploring the possibility of extending your idea into other areas. Stewart 17:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A lot to think about here. Originally, pages like the Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway were created (or expanded from stubs) because the Ayrshire Coast Line and its station diagram had become too bloated featuring every station ever to exist on the line. So the GPK&AR page was expanded to feature a station list that shows the stations that were open before the GPKAR was merged into the Glasgow and South Western Railway. Its just luck really that all the stations on the line were opened before the merger with the G&SWR. Though actually even this isn't true since Gailes railway station was opened by the GSWR and so technically shouldn't be on the page. This problem is more apparent on the Glasgow and Paisley Joint Railway so obviously a rethink is needed since I wasn't thinking outside the box enough at the time to consider other lines. The GPKAR page is however missing Prestwick Int. Airport station, which I don't think would be appropriate at all to feature. Likewise Ardrossan Railway is missing Ardrossan South Beach railway station, which was opened by the GSWR around 50 years after the original stations.

How about instead of a whole separate article, an additional section is added to each historical railway article, documenting any changes under British Rail or whoever? A second station sidebar could also be present to show the reflected changes (if any). This however might need drastic restructuring of most articles and could take some time.

My question is, do we really need every single configuration of lines highlighted in the "Historical Rail" box at the bottom of each article? Right now most stations have just the original configuration and the present configuration, is so much additional detail really needed when its already mentioned in the main body of the article? The current box on Paisley Canal railway station literally has me scratching my head trying to figure out what it all means!

Gah, feel like I'm rambling. I'm going to implement a few Caley colours here and there while I think about this some more. :) --Dreamer84 21:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Stepping back a bit. We have articles for each of the modern marketing names of lines: e.g. Inverclyde Line, etc. We have umbrella articles on the pre-grouping parents: Caley., G&SWR, etc, and we have articles on the original companies, e.g. Bridge of Weir railway, with start dates, and for each of these we have individual station articles with a link to prior and next stations. Many of these are nuts and bolts, or should that be bricks and morter, articles on passenger train services.

None of them total answer why, say, between Glasgow and Paisley we have the 4-track joint line, the 2-track G&SWR Canal line and the 2-track Glasgow & Renfrew Joint line linked to the Paisley and Renfrew G&SWR line; and we have almost the same number of tracks between Paisley and Kilwinning. And that only takes us to to 1921. Its then down hill away the way until electrification and SPTE start reopening stations.

I would like to add more pre-grouping social history for example direct London to Stranraer boat trains and Glasgow - Stranraer boat trains. Glasgow - Ardrossan (G&SWR & Caley.) boat trains and Anglo-Scottish: Glasgow - Greenock/Gourock/Wemyss (G&SWR & Caley.) boat trains. Why Glasgow supported (and financed) the lines to Ardrossan and why Greenock supported the Greenock-Glasgow lines? But at the moment the last 85 years (1921 - 2006) get in the way; and it could be getting near an edit-war (but not yet). P.S. I have a 2,000 word Masters article on Crisis and Disaster to do instead of this tonight. P.S.S. Don't worry about Paisley Canal Railway station, it is a rather sly edit-war on where Paisley Canal line ends over the last 100 years (old North Johnstone, Elderslie junction, Kilmacolm, new Paisley canal station).Pyrotec 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't say I particularly disagree with anything you've said there: I'm all for information than answers 'why?' as well as 'what?'. As you say, the majority of the framework is in place for a lot of lines. Its now a matter of it needing to make sense, be historically accurate, but be easy to understand. I'm still no further forward with a solution, think I'll scurry back to Ayrshire for a while and fill in some of the gaps I've been meaning to do there for a while. Think I'll have to brush up on my research for the Paisley area, since as you may have noticed I've reverted a few of my edits over the last couple of days when I've realised that I've been wrong! If anyone wants to implement any ideas I'll just be watching for now and I'll post any comments here. Good luck with the Master article. :) --Dreamer84 23:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separate articles for each Operator

I am not convinced that separate articles are needed for each operators.

What I have difficulty with at present is for some stations details of the current train service are provided, which are updated every time the timetable is changed. I do not think this is very encyclopedic.

On the other hand an outline of service patterns through the ages is probably pertinent (and probably a mini-project of its own). In the first instance I would put this against the current lines, etc. not individual stations.

Stewart 17:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a mention

Although nowhere near complete as i have only just started, i have decided to create an infobox on SPT stations. This is to include the Glasgow Subway. Any tips? Simply south 22:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Simply South,

I'm not sure what you intended to do with, or put in, a SPT station info box, so my immediate question is what is its purpose? Taking, for example, some of the SPT railway stations I know well, Bishopton, Paisley St James, Paisley Gilmour Street, Glasgow Central, they have a UK stations info box, which I presume could equally be applied to the subway stations. Am I missing something? Pyrotec 23:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I just thought i would create an infobox, maybe similar to the London one showing the SPT area. Are there any zones in Glasgow? A user, Ashtastic, has found some figures for the Glasgow Subway and they are from the SPT, not the Rail Regulator. I thought that if there was an infobox for one area, there could be one for another. If you think this is a bad idea, i will cease. Simply south 00:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an SPT Zone Card. When buying one you select the zones that you travel through for your journey. The areas are NOT concentric like London, but small geographic areas. The SPT website may give the info. Stewart 06:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I was obviously thinking along different lines to you (sorry about the pun). I had a look at wikipeida's Portal: London Transport, if that is the type of info that you are thinking about, that it could be useful. As long ago as 1979, in the days of Trans-Clyde, there was a London Underground style rail route map for what was to become the SPTE area. Here is the link to the latest version [1]. Pyrotec 21:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an article about the SPT ZoneCard. It provides a link to the map. Stewart 21:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I've started work on it today and it is nearly complete. Simply south 16:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Make that, i have VERY nearly finished. It is just missing cats which i will momentarily add, a couple of links and i have not started on the syntax. If you notice any similarities with another one, it is a heavily modified version of the London one. To see the template, go to Template:Infobox SPT stations.

I am now wondering if, from looking at the map, the zones were such a good idea. Simply south 17:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ohconfucius deletion proposals

User:Ohconfucius has nominated a large number of Scottish Railway stations for deletion. Many of these are being developed as part of WP:TIS. I have removed the {{prod}}. However reading the user page he may contest this. Any Thoughts? We need a plan to ensure that the railway station articles that link into the lines we are working on are improved. Stewart 19:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Affluence (KCR) to see what's behind this. As far as I'm concerned, all those {{prod}}s will have to go, and it does say "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." Signalhead 20:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It mat also be linked to User talk:Mangoe/Railroad line and station articles and User talk:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable. Simply south 20:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who is annoyed at the deletionists, it seems these people exist only to take out stuff they find of no interest. Douglasnicol 20:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

We have a lot of work to do, and setting the framework (including these articles) helps us move forward. Batch deletions do nothing to help us developing the history, adding pictures (old and new), and link to other relvant information. If this had gone forward, we would ended up with a large number of red links which would have attracted attention in their own right. As it is there is quite a bit of work to do to fill the gaps we have at present. I am steadily working through removing the {{prod}} using Onconfucius User contributions as my guide. Assistance greatfully received. Stewart 20:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message with the user concerned to see if he would be amenable to letting us improve the articles rather than deleting them. I did say though that I can see his point; is it really necessary to have an article on every station of a suburban train network? Let's see what we think; it may be possible to merge the information elsewhere, or you may feel that the articles can be improved (in a reasonable timescale). I think these are the only two possibilities as the articles as they stand (the ones I looked at anyway) really aren't worth keeping, in my opinion. --Guinnog 20:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that we should allow the project time to improve the articles. If in due course they are not worthy of keeping then the project should develop a strategy to ensure that relevant encyclopedic information is not lost. There is a lot of work to be done out there. Stewart 20:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the content may at present be a bit thin but the work currently being done on the railway lines should naturally lead on to the improvement of the station articles themselves. I am certainly against wholesale deletion just for the sake of deletion, the big picture has to be taken into account. Fraslet 20:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A big benefit of having an article for every station is the ability to link to those of the adjacent stations. We'd lose that if the less notable station articles were deleted. Given the time and effort, I'm sure that something meaningful could be written about every station. Signalhead 20:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of infoboxes

There are three infoboxes that are being used for the railway stations in Scotland at present:-

Following my conversion of the the infobox for Rutherglen railway station to the SPT version this evening, another user (not previously seen on railway station articles) has decided to delete the infobox.

Not all stations have infoboxes.

Please consider if we are going the right way on this topic and the infobox should be reinstated, or the way proposed by the other editor is more appropriate. ==Stewart 21:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Simply south

My general feeling on this is that mainline stations should use the UK station infobox. Only stations such as London Underground or Glasgow Subway should have specialised boxes. This allows for a common standard to be maintained across railway station articles which makes it easier for both the reader and the editor. I would suggest that including the 1997 and 2004 dates about the operators are perhaps not appropriate for an article about an individual station. Regarding the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport info which is the main difference between the SPT infobox and the standard UK station infobox, I think this would be better as a template at the bottom of the page like template, West Yorkshire railway stations. Whilst believing that User:Doc glasgow shouldn't have made such a drastic change; from an SPT infobox, to the UK station infobox, to no infobox. I do think that Stewart is wise to discuss this before reinstating anything. Maybe this discussion would be better continued out on the page, Template talk:Infobox SPT station Adambro 21:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm in complete favour of having infoboxes as they are a good way of presenting common data in a consistent and easy to find fashion. However, there may be a case for limiting the "History" entries to say three or four items. Signalhead 21:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm also in favour of the infoboxes, if the article is reverted again then we would need to argue the case for seeing things as part of a larger project.Fraslet 21:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Doc glasgow by Stewart 21:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Infoboxes do not normally replace the practice of putting information into articles - it seems a strange thing for people to do.--Doc^g 21:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have put a query on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport in Scotland#Use of infoboxes to determine a concencus on the way forward. I know some people prefer prose, and other prefer tabular details. I must admit I am a tabular person, however am not adverse to writing appropriate prose when circumstance dictate. ==Stewart 21:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox or not, if the info is relevant is must be in the article - not everyone reads silly boxes.--Doc^g 21:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree with Adambro's comments above, particularly about the 'History' section of the infobox. Especially in the case of Rutherglen, there is perhaps too much information in there, and almost none of it is featured in the main body of the article at the moment. Also agree the stuff about Scotrail etc isn't really appropriate for a station article. In my opinion, the History section of the infobox should be a brief summary of the history section of the main article (if there is one), available for anyone looking for a particular notable date at a glance. There shouldn't be any entries of any great length, and I think that if the <small> tag is having to be used then there is too much information in there. So for example, the information on the new 1974 island platform and its location would be moved to the main body of the article, and the History box could merely say "New island platform opened", assuming it needs to be in the box at all (I don't think its really necessary). I also think having information like the various alternate names of Scotrail within the History infobox however is unnecessary as well. --Dreamer84 23:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Following the previous comments I have put some section headings in Rutherglen railway station including a history section. I have also trimmed some of the detail from the infobox. Does this work? --Stewart 19:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There is still far too much information in the infobox, most of it pretty crufty. The history of the station, and pdf links certainly don't belong there. Nothing should be in a prominent infobox that isn't of interest to the general reader.--Doc^g 19:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

A bit more trimming to Rutherglen railway station and reverted it back to the UK stations template. All the information is still in the article. It should be note that there is not a picture in the infobox at present. For a comparison see Newton Abbot railway station with respect to pdf links and a typical bos with picture ==Stewart 20:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I prefer the original UK stations template over the SPT one. The SPT one seems to be too... congested with things. The one thing that confuses me is why every box has a link to a list of the Glasgow subway stations? And Doc glasgow, a large majority of UK railway station articles have the infobox complete with PDF links, history etc. Any disagreements with that is probably best brought up on a project with bigger scope than this one, perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways? --Dreamer84 11:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should try to maintain a consistent approach for all UK station articles. Having an SPT station infobox complicates things, makes it harder to maintain, and harder for readers to understand as info is presented in a different format. Ideally, I would like to see all UK stations using the UK station infobox. Infoboxes present useful information (some of which would be hard to intergrate into the text) and allow readers to get a quick idea of the importance or nature of a station. I think the history data should be limited to just dates of opening/reopening, with more detail in the article itself. The differences between the SPT station infobox and the UK one seem pretty limited. Most areas tend to use the standard UK infobox with a template in the page footer for specific info, see Huddersfield railway station as an example which uses the West Yorkshire railway stations. I think this is a better approach. I would suggest using something like an expanded version of Template:Glasgow stations for all SPT stations, and the standard UK infobox for railway stations. It might be appropriate to make an Glasgow Subway infobox to present the non-standard info such as the usage figures which need a different disclaimer. Adambro 23:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going back to say that it was based on the London station infobox. Many of the railway stations in London e.g. Brimsdown railway station, or an interchange Stratford station, use the London infobox. If the current infobox is too complicated, i may remove. Simply south 00:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Further to my earlier comments on this issue, I have drafted some new templates. As I proposed previously, Template:Infobox UK station should be used where possible to maintain consistency, rather than the Template:Infobox SPT station. The main difference between the two seems the inclusion of links to SPT info and some Glasgow Subway specific info which is only used on the few subway station articles.

I have drafted a template, User:Adambro/SPT stations, for use at the foot of every SPT station article (except SPT stations within Glasgow for which a more appropriate template exists) which includes the routes and links to the SPT article. I've also added all the SPT stations to the category Category:SPT railway stations which involved making about 160 edits. I was unsure about whether a few stations are SPT. I used the SPT network map, but a few stations appear slightly differently (e.g. Ardlui).

My original intention was to include this list in the template but it would make it too big. I've changed it to only listing major stations but would like suggestions as to what other stations there are in SPT control that should be classed as major.

I've also created a draft Glasgow Subway infobox, User:Adambro/Infobox Glasgow Subway station, to be used in the subway station articles. I note Patrick station is both a NR station and a subway station, in this case it might be appropriate to include the UK station infobox at the top, and the Glasgow Subway infobox in that section of the article.

I look forward to hearing the opinions of other editors on my proposal. If anyone has any suggestions for changes to the draft templates, please let me know. Adambro 19:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the whole SPT infobox/UK infobox/Glasgow Subway infobox thing. I've had a change of thought on this and my proposal is as follows:

I think a better approach would be to have only one infobox used on all UK stations, this being the current Infobox UK station, or at least a slightly modified version of it. By adapting this template it could be used on UK subway stations, railway stations, and railway stations with subway stations. I'll copy it into my user space and make the modifications. I would eventually like to see London stations move over to the UK station template, and whilst understanding this would be quite a task, will be trying to allow for this future work in my mods to the template. This is all part of what seems to have become my personal project of trying to ensure consistent UK station articles. My thought that area specific info like links to SPT etc are better in a footer template (like the Adambro/SPT stations) stands. Adambro 18:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

I feel i should come out of this lul and improve the project more. In what ways could you suggest we could assess all related articles? What would be the best way to judge which articles are of top importance and which are the least? Simply south 13:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would necessarily agree that we are in a lull, but accepting for the moment your assertion that we are; do we need to assess the articles and put an assessment mark on them? Some articles are good and that is immediately obvious when you look at them. I'm happy for Start, B+ or other appropriate label to be put on them, as a Quality Mark.

Others are not so good, perhaps they are little more than stubs, perhaps they lack references or pictures, or info boxes, or maps, have typos or poor grammar, or all of these. Does it really help to put some kind of improve flag on them and move onto the next article? I would suggest it is more useful to spend the time improving these poor articles; or creating the ones that don't exist (red line articles).

Possibly I'm slightly worried that if we are in a lull, then putting assessment marks on everything will certainly create work, and things will be seen to be done; but it is only a substitute for improving the project.Pyrotec 19:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I was actually referring to me personally in that i feeel recently that me myself have not been contributing to the project. I would not say the project was in a lul as i can see numerous historical articls etc etc and would say this is quite an active project. Simply south 19:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. Well some of the things that need to be done, I mention in my second paragraph above. In addition, as this is transport project, so it covers canals, railways, roads, etc, and everything has a life. Many lines are thriving and are electrified and new stations are opening/have opened; others are dead or dying, and Beeching was only one reason for death. Perhaps, as we look at an article we should ask: why and how did it come into being, did it thrive and grow, did it shrink and die; the what, why, how, when? If the article does not answer all of these questions, it may be deficient. If these are missing they could be flagged up on the talk page; also some talk pages show existing articles as needed, so talk pages are not always up to date.Pyrotec 20:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I am just trying to construct assessment right now. Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport in Scotland/Assessment. Personal user sub-page for template. Simply south 19:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, assessment basics are up and running. Simply south 20:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project banners

I've added the parameter Scotland to {{TrainsWikiProject}} as an optional method of applying project banners to talk pages. For rail articles, this can reduce the number of banners on a page by one if you choose to use it. Typing {{TrainsWikiProject|Scotland=yes}} will display the TWP banner with a notice that the article is maintained by WPTIS. It will add articles to Category:WikiProject Transport in Scotland like {{WPTIS}} does. Slambo (Speak) 15:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project userbox

I have just joined this project and thought I might start off by proposing that the current project usebox needs a bit of sprucing up. Therefore I have taken it upon myself to knock something up, your thoughts would be appreciated. It is a vector image originally, so any changes are more than easy to apply. I even used the correct pantone for the saltire :)

Emoscopes ^Talk 16:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC) This would produce;