Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2006, 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

v • d • e
TWP discussion archives:
Archive
Archives
2004 • 2005 • January-June 2006 • March-September 2006 • June-December 2006 • December 2006-March 2007 • March 2007-August 2007 • August 2007-October 2007 • October 2007-January 2008 • January 2008-May 2008• May 2008-
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The Trains WikiProject
General information
Main project page (WP:TWP)  talk
Portal (P:Trains) talk
Project navigation bar talk
IRC (freenode.net) #Wikipedia-Trains-en
Project participants talk
Project banner (doc) {{TWP}} talk
Project category talk
Manual of style (WP:TWP/MOS) talk
Welcome message talk
Departments
Assessments (WP:TWP/A) talk
Peer review (WP:TWP/PR) talk
To do list talk
New article notes talk
Task forces
Article maintenance talk
Assessment backlog elim. drive talk
By country series talk
Categories talk
Images talk
Locomotives talk
Maps talk
Models talk
Monorails talk
Operations talk
Passenger trains talk
Portal talk
Rail transport modelling talk
Timelines talk
edit · changes

Contents

Gauge Templates?

What are your thoughts about standardizing articles to use gauge templates? We've had {{RailGauge|sg}} 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 8½ 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)

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)
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 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)

Ghost Station

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

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 14:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 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)

Since you asked me to reply directly on my talk page, I replied on your talk page. HTH. Slambo (Speak)

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)

I've got a work list going on this task at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article maintenance task force/GA updates. Please take a look at the list and help update articles to use inline citations. A few of the articles are also severely underreferenced and need other improvements (all as noted on the list from my quick scan this morning), so any help would be greatly appreciated. If the cutoff date was today, our Good article list would shrink from 85 to 11! Slambo (Speak) 14:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the correct protocol for correcting these articles with regard to inline references? Is the onus on the original writer (particularly those articles that have made heavy use of books or other non-online content in their references) to correct them? Or could someone else simply pick a topic, find a reputable source for each key point that needs referencing, and then update the article with inline references? Zzrbiker 02:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oregon Railway and Navigation Company

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)