Talk:Glossary of UK railway terminology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways. Low Importance: low within UK Railways WikiProject.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2008 April 21. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 February 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on December 29, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

— JIP | Talk 05:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 'Cross-linking' railfan terms within article 2 Keep this article 3 Made-up Terms? 4 References 5 APT 6 verifiability 7 This page is a joke 8 Heads-up: sources needed very soon 8.1 Suggestion 8.2 Time Up? 9 Article title 10 Removed terms 11 Article fully tagged 12 Citations and others 13 Class 37/4 = 'Syphon'? 14 The big move 15 Scrollable Reference List 16 Warning 17 Coverage/Scope of the article 18 Classification

[edit] 'Cross-linking' railfan terms within article

Many of the definitions in this article inevitably use terms defined elsewhere in the article, for example rancid is used several times. Would it be helpful if these terms were all indicated in some way, for example, by showing them in italics, to highlight that they were being used in their railfan context? Is there a WP:MOS view on this?

EdJogg 10:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it looks better, so I'm doing it whenever I get side-tracked here!

EdJogg 02:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep this article

Or offer it elsewhere. I can't see that it can go in Wiktionary since the job of researching etymologies would be excessive. Since usage is mostly verbal it would be difficult to offer supporting quotations from the literature. Has anyone realised that it offers an important insight into an area of late twentieth century cultural history?

Incidentally, for 1960's Derby railway people, a "Spamcan" was a DMU (first generation) Chevin 13:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Made-up Terms?

Dangerous title since, by definition, ALL of these terms will have been 'made up'. However, while there are a majority of terms that have been in regular use for many years, or they 'just make sense' (leap, move, etc), there are quite a few that I have not seen before reading this page. Are the following genuine tems, and are they reasonably widely used?

• Bendy bus
• Bomb
• Brick
• Bucket
• Daddy Yings
• Father Shed
• Fred
• Goyle
• Insect (and associated terms)
• Log
• Ped
• Screamer
• Slapper
• Snail
• Spoon/Spoon Goon
• Shop/Supermarket
• Washing machine
• Ying Ying
• Zing

Now I will admit while I am a railway enthusiast, I am not a fan of the current UK scene, and do not generally partake of the sorts of activities where 'new' terms might be used. Some of the above seem just silly (like the HST names and 'ying ying'), while others seem to be no more than new names for loco classes that already have widely-used names. For example, why use Goyle, Ped or Snail, when you could use skinhead or toffee apple to describe a Class 31?

It is bad enough that we cannot produce citations for all these definitions, without allowing vandals (?) to muddy the water with random terms such as these.

Thoughts? -- EdJogg 02:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I can definitely confirm that all of the following were in very common use (in fact they were the main ones, I've probably forgotten some of the others you listed) in the late 1980's when I was at Manchester University and spent more time bashing than studying:

Bendy-bus (two-car pacer), Goyle (class 31), Insect (young basher), Ped (class 31), Spoon (class 47)

Many of the other slang words you mention relate to locomotives and units which are more recent than when I was last an active railway enthusiast so I would not be familiar with them anyway. I imagine most of the others you (and I) have not heard of were used only be bashers in certain areas of the country. You might have used skinhead or toffee-apple for some class 31's, but to us they were Peds and Goyles, and Class 31's were used on many passenger-services from Manchester Victoria in the late 1980's.

PrinceGaz 23:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Apart from, perhaps, Hoover, I tend not to use such slang at all. Some of the names are widely used in Model Rail (such as the Class 31 names mentioned), and hence have some degree of 'official recognition', but I haven't attempted to reference them here (mainly because it means finding class-specific articles, and I haven't had time to do this). If there are significant regional variations to these names, it will become a complete nightmare trying to reference them all!

EdJogg 10:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

These need to be found and added to give some level of credibility to the terms included on the page. I've included one for the Cromptons. More will follow as they can be found. Surely one of the railway magazines must have published a list at some time??

(And does anyone else read this talk page, as I seem to be on my own at the moment!!)

EdJogg 12:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] APT

do the terms APT, APT-P and APT-E really come under UK railfan jargon? these were names used on literature printed by BR among others Oxyman42 02:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
also Deltic Oxyman42 02:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

How strictly do we have to apply the term 'jargon'? These terms should be the easiest to find references for, and without references the page is rather more 'prone'. Is there a problem with including such 'terminology'? It may not be jargon to railfans, but might appear so to an outsider. For completeness I would say leave them in, since they're likely to be re-added regardless!

EdJogg 20:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Shurely Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia it is important that what goes in the article is relevant to the title of it. it is that sort of anything goes attitude that does more harm to Wikipedia, then say obvious vandalism. Dictionary.com defines Jargon as :"the language, esp. the vocabulary, peculiar to a particular trade, profession, or group" Now you can't tell me that this somehow applies to APT and Deltic. These terms were painted in large letters down the side of the traction in question. If these terms are allowed then you might as well change the name of this article to "list of UK railway terms" and include every UK railway term. Your argument defies logic: people may mistakenly add them but mistakes should be corrected as would usually happen in wikipedia. I will start to remove non relevant terms from this list. I often get the feeling that when I raise a valid point in these talk pages that you get the person who wrote it effectively wanting to empire build and can't admit they made a mistake.Oxyman42 17:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You must have had a very bad day to get so worked-up about this. I might have been prepared to concede that you have a valid point, having since checked that APT-P, APT-E, APT, DMU, and Deltic are all present in WP as either redirects or DAB pages (and hence need not reside here). However, your final sentence discourages me from doing so as this would imply that I am an 'empire builder', whatever that means here, and had somehow 'made a mistake'. I thought I was opening up the discussion you started, so I don't see how a 'mistake' could have been made...

EdJogg 01:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

OK I admit my I do have a fiery temper sometimes, It's something I should learn to control. I take your point and apologies, Oxyman42 19:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Any terms in this list which are not actually slang terms such as those listed above should be removed Deckchair (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] verifiability

Can this list be verified? Simply south 22:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This page is a joke

This wiki page is awful! Nothing cited, or referenced... I'm betting that the majority of "jargon" on this page is simply something a bunch of 14-year-olds have made up! "Vermin" does not refer to Virgin Voyagers, but simply is a play on the name "Virgin" as a company. "Supermarkets" is a name for the fleet of Pendolinos?! Please...!

This article has no ounce of credibility and simply serves as a bit of "fun" for the 'spotters of this world, without referencing or citations. An article for deletion if you ask me... 62.6.149.17 10:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A lack of citations is not a valid reason to delete an article. The two previous deletion discussions on this article both resulted in it being kept. Slambo (Speak) 10:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must agree with 62.6.149.17. Slambo, I'm afraid that you are wrong in this instance. verifiability from reliable published sources is one of the non-negotiable pillars of Wikipedia. A complete lack of sources really is grounds for deletion. This article was lucky to survive previous deletion debates and there is every chance that three years after the last one it would be deleted if nominated again. This article really is in bad shape and needs to be sourced and quickly. There are plenty of valid, reliable railway magazine in the UK that have articles that discuss these terms. The items that can be sourced should be, the rest should be removed.

The lack of sources in this article not only puts it at risk of deletion, it also could bring closer scrutiny of other railway-related articles, some of which suffer from similar problems. We (the railway enthusiasts on Wikipedia) should strive to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Gwernol 21:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have two things to add to this debate. The first is that I was under the impression (rightly or wrongly) that lists were not subject to the same level of scrutiny and verifiability as main articles. Secondly, is "Jargon" encyclopedic?

In general, I think that this page does have some worthy item on it, but I do think that some are little extreme and are probably very local terms that do not have wide use, and which can be deleted. Using your examples, I have never seen the term "supermerkets" used to describe the Pendolino Fleet, which make me think that some people are adding "hoax" items to the list, which undermines its credibility. North Olana (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heads-up: sources needed very soon

Folks, this list remains almost completely unsourced. I will remove all entries that lack proper reliable sources at the beginning of February. In its current state almost everything in the article will be deleted as a result. I'm sorry to have to threaten this, but it seems that repeated requests for sources on this talk page are ignored. Please, if you are interested in retaining this article in anything like its current form, help by finding and adding proper sources. Thanks, Gwernol 20:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I know much less about British railway practice than I do about US practice, but I do have some resources at my disposal. I'm planning to go through what I can find over the weekend to see if I can add citations like I did with the US list this week. Slambo (Speak) 19:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Gwernol - I suspect that a lot of terms may be made up by a small group of people, and this list needs to be drastically reduced. Tivedshambo (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

1. Gwernol says he will remove all entries lacking reliable sources at the beginning of February. Could a bit more time be allowed for references to be found (end Feb)?
2. Rather than lose any unreferenced entries, move them to this talk page, allowing time for references to be found. Once a reference is found, it can be moved back to the article.
3. Everybody dig out your old railway magazines, books etc and get referencing. A wikilink to a relevant article should count as a reference.
4. If an entry is challenged, it should be notified on this talk page, rather than being arbitrarily removed.

PS - anyone got a reference for Half Moon (Class 71 & 74) or Spark Box (Class 73)? Mjroots (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If it looks like we're going to get some sources, I'm more than happy to wait a little longer. I'd much prefer a well-sourced article than a stub. On the other hand if the choice is no sources or a stub, Wikipedia's rules require us to accept a stub. End of February seems like a reasonable solution: and I'm happy to wait until then. Similarly, its perfectly acceptable to move unreferenced material to this talk page until sources can be found. Of course, even removed material can always be recovered through the history tab, but I agree that moving to the talk page will make it easier for interested editors to work on finding sources. Gwernol 16:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot could be achieved by splitting off a separate article on the practice of trainspotting/bashing/etc itself, including its terminology (leap, move, bowled, etc). That'd leave mostly nicknames for things here (kettle, dogbox, gripper, etc), which are in wider use in the industry and far more citable. This article might then need a slight rename. --Mr Thant (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time Up?

Is it worth extending the deadline by another week? Most of this article is still unsourced but I feel there are still a few nuggets of gold amongst the majority of spoils here Deckchair (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

As this is an article about a UK subject (see WP:ENGVAR), is there any objection to renaming this to something less America-centric? Railfan is not the usual description of British enthusiasts - maybe List of UK rail enthusiast jargon would be better, though I don't think jargon is a particularly helpful word either. Any thoughts? Tivedshambo (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would consider myself an enthusiast rather than a fan, so I would support a rename. However, it does form part of a set at present with the US/NZ equivalents.

As for 'jargon', I'm not sure. A contributor in a previous section has suggested that the article should be split in two, with railfan-speak separated from motive power nicknames. I think this has some mileage, especially since a 'nickname' article will be relatively easy to reference (look at the existing references in this article!)

EdJogg (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed terms

The following terms have been removed from the article. Please do not reinsert without verifiable references:-

* My Lords: Term started by an Exeter based thousand basher (name not supplied to protect the guilty) which is said in exclamation when a locomotive produces excessive thrash or clag especially if this performance is untypical. Is also often spelt My Lordz, but this is not the original spelling of the phrase.

Honestly I think we can safely delete this one. First, its clear from the description that this is something that one person has made up, and is therefore extremely unlikely to be referenceable. Second, "My Lords" is a common phrase and not at all railfan-specific. This shouldn't be a list of everything railfans say, it only makes sense if it is limited to railfan-specific terms: hence "jargon". Gwernol 13:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this item today under 2 counts. the last revision stated doing a google search will show that various forums and photopic gave references to this term, this is indeed the case. Unfortunately neither of these can be taken as reliable sources. Also the the last revision stated that this was an exclamation that would be made by an enthusiast. As an exclamation of joy (or otherwise) it is not actually jargon and therefore cannot be included in this article. Deckchair (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, point taken, agree with comments made. Maybe this is the way to go with all contested entries. Get them on here, and debate them. Mjroots (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Deckchair (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I am Removing "Chippy Move: the name given to a move to get some chips after a good bit of bashing, usually what most bashers lived on!" The act of getting a portion of chips (why no mention of curry move or pizza move?), whether by train, car or on foot is not Railfan jargon Deckchair (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair. If it were me I'd be making an "offy move" (heading for the nearest off-licence)! Mjroots (talk) 10:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I will be removing the reference to Cop as this is not as railfan specific term as per this link [1] Cheers. Deckchair (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Cop is a valid term, the problem is Wiktionary needs to be edited to include it. The Wiktionary definition of (colloquial) To capture, get hold of, take is roughly the meaning of the word in the context used with reference to trainspotting. To mark off a loco number in ones ABC on seeing it for the first time is to "cop" that loco. It is a "good cop" if the loco is rare - from another region for example. What is needed is a reference that is reliable, then Wiktionary can be edited too. Mjroots (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The term cop may be valid, but it is not railfan specific and is used in every day conversation so therefore does not belong in this article. Railfans may have taken this term and used it for their own purposes but that is does not make it specific to the hobby. Secondly an offy move sounds good to me. Deckchair (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Whilst the term cop may not be railfan specific, it is used by them. I'm not sure how far back it dats, but at least the 60s to my personal knowledge, and may go back as far as the 20s or 30s. Mjroots (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This issue of railfan-specific is important. The article is about railfan jargon and "jargon" means "a characteristic language of a particular group". Jargon terms are unique to a group or have a specific meaning that is unique to that group. This means we should not include common terms that don't have a railfan-specific meaning. I'm afraid I agree with Deckchair here, "cop" is a common enough British slang term and not one that originated with or is specific to railfans (unless someone has a reliable source that says otherwise). It shouldn't be on the list. Gwernol 12:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Other terms that may fail this test: "Burton", "Bunking", "Bowled", "Coast", "Monster", "phot", "Score/Scored", "" Gwernol 12:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've taken out: "Vic Berry's Scrapyard: A scrapyard in Leicestershire, many locos met their fate here. Made famous for the fact that it stacked the bogie-less shells of the locos awaitng disposal." since that's simply the name of the scrapyard and doesn't count as jargon. Gwernol 12:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Also "C F Booth: A scrapyard in Rotherham where many locomotives/ stock met their death, usually referred to as 'Booth's" on the same grounds. Gwernol 12:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article fully tagged

I've gone through the article, checking every entry and tagging those that are unreferenced. Notes have been left where appropriate for editors to see why the tag has been applied.

Before anyone gets upset, just because an entry is tagged with {{fact}} does not necessarily mean that it is not a valid entry. It means that a verifiable reference needs to be found for it. There are entries that I know to be valid, but are currently unreferenced. Similarly, there are entries that are IMHO complete tosh. All have been tagged without fear or favour whether I consider them valid or not. I have endeavoured to maintain a NPOV whilst tagging. If I found a reference that related to an unreferenced entry, I added it in. Mjroots (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations and others

How can Citations be provided for some of them, when as the title suggests, is just jargon that British Railfans use, you can't quote every one of them!

As most of my contributions have been removed, I can't really comment but some of them many railfans use, My Lordz being an example.

Many bashers do use the term chippy move, as they (in the day of the 70s and 80s) did not go to curry places or pizza places, they just went to the nearest chippy and purchased a bag or box of chips, nothing else.

please reply to me on my talk page Llamafish (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm replying here since this is a discussion for all editors interested in this page. Whether we like it or not, Wikipedia requires that all information here is verifiable by readers. This means the source of the information must be cited and it should be reliable and accessible, at least to some degree. Verifiability is one of the things that makes Wikipedia an encyclopedia and not just a collection of random information and mis-information. There are plenty of places to list personal recollections of rail enthusiasts. There are hundreds of free blogging and web hosting services where you are very welcome to write down your experiences as an enthusiast. Wikipedia is not one of those places.

The "My Lordz" example is a good one. If it is a common phrase its very likely that one of the UK railway magazines has mentioned it. If its just something a few friends used to say, it won't be notable enough to have gained published usage, so we can't cover it here. Likewise, while I don't doubt that some people somewhere have gone to a chippy or two after a bit of trainspotting, that doesn't necessarily mean its worth covering in an encyclopedia. Again, if its common parlance amongst a large number of enthusiasts, it will be in an article somewhere. Gwernol 22:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, I just thoight they were common terms so might as well be added, although it is good to see that a few of mine still remain, like Blood and Custard for example

Are you aware of the jargon list on http://www.dreadful.org.uk/jargon.htm, might be worth a look if you don't know it! Llamafish (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, which User:Mjroots (I think) found a week or so ago. Unfortunately that jargon page is in fact a copy of an earlier version of this Wikipedia article. We can't use that as a source for this article or we'd end up like Dave Lister in an endless Ouroboros creating our own universe. While this may sound like a lot of fun, it doesn't make for a very good encyclopedia article :-) Gwernol 18:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do we really need a page on this anyway, 'normals' aren't going to read it, and most enthusiasts know what they mean anyway

Like having a whole page deicated to a particular loco, 37427 and D9555 spring to mind, yes they are good locos, but IMO it is not 'fair' to 37401 or something which is almost identical Llamafish (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

D9555 does not have its own page, nor does 37 401, which doesn't even merit a redirect! Mjroots (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that most of the "Basher" slang can be removed as it is not encyclopedic. I do not doubt that "bashers" have their own "language" and some of their words are listed here. However, we do not need to have everyone listed here, this is not an English:Basher Translation page. A similar situation exists with Rhyming slang which inlcudes the East London "Cockney". A few examples of the language are given to embelish the article, but not the whole dictionary, and external references are listed for any reader who wants to know more. I propose a similar stance be taken here. We remove most of the "basher" terms, and provide an external reference for anyone who wants a full list. Olana North (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! :-) Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

D9555 used to have its own article, I remember reading it!

Yes leave offical railway terms, like Blood and Custard, or some of the loco types, not nicknames as BR used these, but didn't often use the nicknames (usually only BR staff having conversations!)

Llamafish (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Class 37/4 = 'Syphon'?

While finding other references, a photo caption stated:

'Green "Syphon" No. 37411, outside Toton TMD...'

I haven't added it, as I hadn't heard the term before. However, if it is appropriate, the cite is as follows:

• "New liveries" (July 2005). The Railway Magazine 151 (1251): p79. 

EdJogg (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not just 37/4's that are referred to as Syphons, all of the 37's are and have been for a looooong time! I can't really cite it though Llamafish (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The big move

I've moved the remaining unreferenced terms to Talk:List of UK railfan jargon/removed. If anyone can find references for these, they are very welcome to move them back into the main article. Can I say a big thanks to all the editors who have helped source entries, particularly Mjroots, EdJogg, Geof Sheppard and Deckchair who have done a great job adding references the list. Its much better now. Best, Gwernol 12:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it is much better. Am surprised Yeoman has been culled. The nickname seems to follow on from earlier practice - Schools, Castles, Halls, Kings, Patriots, Footballers etc. Mjroots (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I found 14 I was surprised had moved, including Spamcan (SR WC/BB/MN), and Yeoman, as mentioned, plus headshunt and run-round, which I would have thought should reside under rail terminology? ...have now moved them! -- EdJogg (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, where's that Google button... EdJogg (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If we can find sources for any of the moved items, they should be moved back into the appropriate article, of course. Gwernol 14:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ed, headshunt was removed by another editor as unsourced just after you copied it there. Slambo (Speak) 16:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I had spotted that. Isn't a wikilink to an article sufficient reference? Agreed, headshunt itself is not referenced, but I suspect there are a few more terms in the same position. I was going to have a look at home, to see if I can find a definition in any of my books. ("headshunt" had nearly five thousand google hits, including this one from the HMRI!!) Sigh. EdJogg (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And still they come! I've just moved a recent unreferenced addition to the relevant list. Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I got curious and started looking around a little. I found pages that mention some of the terms listed there. The Basher Speak page is probably the most reliable resource, but I found it interesting that "Fag packet livery" was actually used in the product description for a model HST (and the ref is there, but there's no description or image on that page). Slambo (Speak) 19:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's already been agreed that Basher Speak isn't a reliable source. What we really need is references from magazines like Rail, Steam Railway, Heritage Railway, Traction etc. These shouldn't be hard to find, just a case of doing it. Mjroots (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks terrible now, to be quite blunt. ACBestDog and Bone ^{Have I reverted an edit} _{by you, and got it wrong? Tell me!} 21:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I found a reference for Yeoman, so I've added it back in. :-)) Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scrollable Reference List

10/10 for effort and imagination, it works quite well on the screen. However, 2/10 for printability, all you get is the first dozen or so references. Needs refinement I feel so that the references can be printed properly. Olana North (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Found it on a totally unrelated page and thought I'd try it here, if only to make others realise it was possible! Your response is what I had anticipated. The question is, how important is it to be able to print WP pages? (Yes, I am aware of the potential for a paper version of 'the whole thing', but that may need some serious work to other articles too, I would guess.)

The answer might be something along the lines of the 'hide' facility for naviboxes. To print all naviboxes on a page you would need to un-hide them. The reflist could flick between 'full' and 'scrollable' in the same way. It's probably not too difficult to achieve as a template, but might be beyond my present skills.

Anyone else have any comments?

EdJogg (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it, and have borrowed ok, stolen it for a couple of articles too. Re the print problem, all you have to do is edit the section to put in the standard {{reflist}} template, print the article, then revert your edit, leaving an appropriate edit summary when changing away from the scrollable reflist. Mjroots (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's gotta go. See WP:CS for reason. Mjroots (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of UK railfan jargon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Bolly Nickers (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the prod template because the two previous AFD discussions resulted in this article being kept Slambo (Speak) 18:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree with that, Slambo. Two AFD's and lots of effort in providing verifiable references for the entries. It should stay. Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto but note that Bolly Knickers has restored the PROD template again, so it (and the US equivalent) are back at AfD AGAIN. This does, indeed, seem like a bad-faith edit. Mr Knickers has created a state-by-state series of articles describing US numberplates (car license plates)...(Pot, Kettle, Black?) -- EdJogg (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so how are we going to handle this? Just remove the PROD, or go for a third AfD? Mjroots (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So, it has been AfD'd again. I've added my support, also the US article has been AfD'd by the same nominator with the same reasons. Mjroots (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the member who has been accused of being Bolly's sock puppet has stormed off claiming bullying. This just seems to confirm that this was a malicious nomination for deletion. Well done all Deckchair (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coverage/Scope of the article

A comment has been made about this article at WT:RAIL. There's a difference between describing technical terms, which is what the mill machinery article is trying to do, and listing slang or nicknames, such as "Egg Timer", "Flying Banana", or "Wessie".

Would this article be better if it was to explain the technical terms used in connection with the operation of railways in the UK, both past and present (with references, naturally)? Mjroots (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Remark: that comment was made by me. --RFBailey (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wheres A? ACBestDog and Bone 15:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the edit history. Before we started the Reference Push one editor decided that APT/APT-P/APT-E (and HST?) were not 'jargon' and hence did not belong here. Any other 'A' refs were later removed as unref'd and have not so far been verified to come back! EdJogg (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Classification

This "article" was given a "Class=List" tage today, which was later revoked. Looking at the content, and even the introductory text, it seems quite clear that it has more in common with a list than a pure article. Can the user that revoked the earlier change please provide greater explanation of their reasoning. Olana North (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Guilty as charged! The New Zealand article has been reassessed from a List to a Start Class article. I "unlisted" this and the US article in order for them to be reassessed as articles, rather than lists, list articles generally identify themselves as lists in the title - "List of (whatever it is a list of)". Mjroots (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily e.g. UK railway stations - A. Simply south (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine, if consensus is that it is a list, I'll accept that. NZ article will need to be retagged for consistency. Mjroots (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)