Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2007, 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents

Future public transportation

The Category:Future public transportation was getting rather unwieldy as a huge list of projects form Beijing to Basingstoke. There now exists a UK-specific Category:Future public transportation in the United Kingdom to round up the British projects. Using the template template:future UK public transportation will automatically put an article into that category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnbrb (talk • contribs) 01:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Template:Future London Transport Infrastructure will also now direct articles into this category. Cnbrb 01:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I also saw {{future usa public transportation}} applied to an article today, but it looks like there's a little twiddling that still needs to be done on that template. Slambo (Speak) 14:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Another editor did the twiddling so it now looks correct. Slambo (Speak) 11:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Templates now available are:

They may need some twiddling as above, but bring make the category a bit more friendly, with projects by the most active countries in this area grouped together.Cnbrb 16:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Naming of articles about railway stocks in China

I suggest all railway vehicles operated by China MOR should be named as "China Railways Class XX". --Wrightbus 20:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this discussion before I started a new one at Category talk:Chinese rolling stock. I propose "China Railways XX", which addresses User:Poeloq's objection that the Chinese don't say "Class XX", while still complying with style guidelines, and in line with previous usage in e.g. Category:EMD locomotives.--QuantumEngineer 19:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Another editor has proposed that the Trains WikiProject Manual of Style be merged with another page within the greater Wikipedia notability hierarchy. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Notability (Railway lines and stations)#Merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains.2FManual of style. Slambo (Speak) 13:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"members" and/or "participants"

There's an interesting discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#"Membership" that editors here may be interested in as well. The main point of the discussion is whether or not we should be using "members" or "participants" on the list of editors who are involved in a WikiProject. So far, it appears that a consensus may be forming to phase-out "members" in favor of "participants" with some additional explanatory text. On our own participant list page, we use the term "participants" throughout the text and in the project navigation box, but the page name is under "members" still. If you have an opinion in this matter, please join the discussion. Slambo (Speak) 11:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Railway owner article up for deletion

The article of Searles Valley Minerals Inc., which is the owner of the Trona Railway, is up for deletion. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Searles Valley Minerals Inc.. I created the article because of its rich history and the railway. NOTE: I did not create the AfD for this article. This is for information purposes only. --Oakshade 16:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about the AfD (while I think the company's history means it deserves to have an article, I'm not sure there are enough in-depth sources for an adequate article), so I'm not going to comment there, but I have a suggestion: Save the material, and if the article fails AfD, merge it into Trona Railway; then, after a decent interval, recreate Searles Valley Minerals Inc. as a redirect. --Tkynerd 16:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
If it goes that way, that's probably a good idea. It's strange how a railway would be considered "notable", but its corporate owner in which said railway is only a small component of, isn't. Yes, it deserves an article. Another source has been added since this AfD began [1] which is primarily about this company. --Oakshade 19:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't really think notability is the issue; I think it's more a lack of sources (which I realize is often closely related to notability). I think that article strengthens the case for keeping the article, so I'm glad you found it and I may comment now. In any case, good luck. --Tkynerd 21:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Consolidating gauge templates

Here's something I've been thinking about lately... There are a large number of templates in Category:Rail transport gauge templates and they're not all completely standardized. Some are named with "mm" or "in", some have wikilinks, and each measurement is segregated into its own template. It seems to me that the optimal solution would be to have one template (perhaps at {{Gauge}}) that accepts a single, unnamed parameter to specify which measurement should be displayed (and it would also specify which units should be listed first) and an optional parameter to specify if the unit labels should be links or not.

I have assembled a quick prototype template at User:Slambo/Gauge. There's more that could be done to this prototype, but it gives you an idea of where I'd like to take this idea. Thoughts? Slambo (Speak) 15:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that since nobody's said anything about this that there are no objections to continuing with this idea? Part of the idea here is that once the consolidated template is built, we phase out the specific templates and replace them with calls to the new template. Slambo (Speak) 19:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Rail crossing articles up for deletion

9 railway crossing articles of the Isle Of Man Railway are up for deletion. The batch AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballahick. My guess is it would be best to merge these into one article. NOTE: I did not initiate this AfD; It's listed here for information purposes since it falls into the scope of this project. --Oakshade 18:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sugestion for teamwork

I see an awful lot of these floating around,

Collaboration icon Hello! The Trains Collaboration of the Week for (Date not set) is WP:TWP. Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia trains related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on (Date not set).
Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! | Nominate an article that could be greatly improved!

You are receiving this notification because you are as a member of the Trains WikiProject. If you no longer wish to receive this notice, then please add your name to this list.

How would something like this go over for the trains project? I've noticed an awful lot of 'naked' articles around but I don't have the writing skills myself to bring them up to speed. But I think that if we all ganged up on an article and added bits and pieces we could have some pretty snazzy stuff.Just making a suggestion, if it's not feasible I'm OK with that too.

--DP67 talk/contribs 18:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'd be for it, especially since I asked about it a while ago (probably close to 18 months since I asked; it's in the archives somewhere). I could easily add a bit onto the Portal about it too. Slambo (Speak) 19:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

OK Cool, I did a little tweaking of the example above to give it a little relevance to the project. I'm not sure how they are sending this out if it's manual or by a bot. I'll check into it and see what the inner workings of it are hopefully I'll have all the details if it is decided to be a part of the project.

--DP67 talk/contribs 21:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Apparently Miszabot is capable of newsletter mailings so if there is any interest in adding this or something like it as a promotion to the project it is available.
--DP67 talk/contribs 01:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Chemult (Amtrak station)

There is a merge proposal that this station be merged into the town it serves. My intuition tells me this is a bad idea, despite the unimpressiveness of the station and the stubbiness of the town article. If any train people could better explain why this isn't a good idea, (or heck, maybe it is) please join the discussion. Thanks. Katr67 05:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding a link here. I was just about to. Overall, I feel that this is a special case of Amtrak serving a place thats not important otherwise. (Please have further discussion at Talk:Chemult, Oregon) Jason McHuff 08:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

SEPTA logo

Who deleted the logo for the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority routeboxes? ----DanTD 13:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I opened a discussion at commons:Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Image:SEPTA.svg. --NE2 18:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Union Station - disambig or redirect

On Wednesday, another editor changed Union Station from a disambig to a redirect leading readers to LoDo (which itself is now a redirect to LoDo, Denver). The original disambiguation is now at Union Station (disambiguation). I don't think this is entirely appropriate because my first thought on the meaning of the phrase "Union Station" is certainly not the Denver neighborhood. I'm curious what other editors think. Slambo (Speak) 15:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

One editor has redirected all of the Union-genre to LoDo I think it should be moved back to the way it should be. Being as there are Union Stations around the world one station should not be given all the focus. Besides the redirects over redirects redirected to a redirect only makes things a mess.
--DP67 talk/contribs 16:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed the others. Looks like a lot of double redirects are there now. Slambo (Speak) 17:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
He/she has got Union Station and Union Depot as redirects all to Lodo. I posted a note with my objection on his/her talk page with a link to here for discussion. The page talk is here
--DP67 talk/contribs 17:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Being bold, I restored the redirect to Union Station (disambiguation). Will also leave comments on the user's page explaining so. --Oakshade 17:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Being doubly bold I changed both Union Terminal and Union Depot to redirect to Union Station (disambiguation) both were also redirected to LoDo if necessary both could be changed to point at Union station directly. For now at least they are not giving one of many "Union Stations" all the credit.
--DP67 talk/contribs 18:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Strongly agree with DP67. With the multitude of "union stations" around, anything other than a dabpage link is just plain wrong. JGHowes talk - 23:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Registering another strongly agree with Dp67. There are tons of Union Stations around, and absolutely no reason why Union Station should specifically be a redirect to the one in Denver -- which, quite frankly, I doubt is the best-known one (and even if it were, the others are sufficiently well known that the redirect should go to the dab). My only suggestion would be that it might be best to reverse this, per the practice with other dab pages, and have Union Station (disambiguation) redirect to Union Station instead (compare English (disambiguation). --Tkynerd 02:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've put the original disambig back at Union Station and took care of the double redirects. Slambo (Speak) 23:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Two more deletion discussions

Both BNSF 7687 and BNSF 7695 are now nominated for deletion. Please make your comments on the combined discussion. Slambo (Speak) 23:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Branch bars for Metra

On the article about Metro-North's New Haven Line, there are separate routeboxes and color bars for the New Canaan Branch, Danbury Branch and Waterbury Branch. Shouldn't there be the same provisions for various branches of Metra, such as the Blue Island, South Chicago, & McHenry Branches be added? --DanTD 14:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Probably, depending on how distinct the branches are. Technically it poses no great challenge. Mackensen (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I've done the McHenry and Harvard branches for the Union Pacific/Northwest. For the main line (Ogilvy to Pingree Road), no branch information is shown. Mackensen (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

List class now appears in the assessment statistics

The person maintaining the bot that gathers all of the assessment statistics has updated the bot to count list-class articles now (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Rail transport articles by quality statistics for our current statistics). The discussion that led to this mentions adding FL-Class for Featured lists and developing a similar grading scale for lists that aren't quite at FL level yet. I'm working on testing some updates to the {{TrainsWikiProject}} banner to properly handle FL class and to update the List class wording. Slambo (Speak) 17:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

My test template is now updated to properly handle the List- and FL-Class articles for all projects. I plan to slide it in place later tonight. Slambo (Speak) 19:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
That works for me. Thanks for keeping things up-to-date! --DP67 (talk/contribs) 00:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The update is in place now. Slambo (Speak) 12:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Another afd

Corning (Amtrak station) has been nominated for deletion, primarily on the basis of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please leave your comments on the deletion discussion. Slambo (Speak) 12:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that this isn't exactly a train station since no scheduled passenger trains stop there. It's a stop for Amtrak's thruway coaches. Greyhound also uses it and it's a hub for local transit. --Oakshade 16:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, has it ever been a train station before? ----DanTD 18:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone mentioned in the AFD page that the station was built recently (late 1990s, I think) as an Amtrak motorcoach station next to tracks such that it could become a station to serve trains directly if Amtrak California's Capitol service is extended there. Many of the resources in my personal reference library don't cover structures this new. Slambo (Speak) 18:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Rail article suggested for Featured Article Review

Another editor has suggested that the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) article might not be featured article quality and stated his objections in the review proposal. It was removed from the main review page because the nominator put up three other articles at the same time for review. However, this gives us a chance to be a little proactive with this nom so we can clear up some of the problems before the review request is added again. If you have time, please view the objection list and work on the items that you can to help keep this article at FA status. Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 15:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ref desk question

Someone has asked on the Reference desk here what you call the platform on the back of a caboose where politicians would stand on a whistle-stop tour. I Googled and came up with "platform", but I can't believe there isn't a more colorful railroad jargon word for it. If anybody here knows, please answer at the link above or on my talk page. --Milkbreath 00:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

B&O passenger trains

I've just created a new article Royal Blue (B&O train) and also did a major edit on Capitol Limited (B&O). JGHowes talk - 17:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

250 Korean subway station articles up for deletion

This might be every Korean subway station article up for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taepyeong Station. My commentary here is that 250 is a farcical amount of articles on any topic to put up for deletion at once. I think even 20 is too much. 250 might be a record. --Oakshade (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

NJT Routebox Malfunction

Okay, I think I should warn some of the expert editors here that there's a serious malfunction with the routeboxes for the New Jersey Transit stations along the North Jersey Coast Line. ----DanTD (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

New s-rail feature

Hello all. I've modified the s-rail set of templates (specifically, Template:S-line/side cell) to populate Category:S-line templates with missing parameters if a problem is detected. At the moment, this is just for templates with a broken termini. Best, Mackensen (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

American transportation naming conventions

I'd like to raise the matter of current naming practices for articles on American railway stations. At present we use parenthetical disambiguation by company: [[NAME (SYSTEM station)]] gives Battle Creek (Amtrak station). I find this approach problematic, especially when two or more systems run to the same station, as at La Grange (Amtrak station). La Grange is served by two heavy rail operators, Amtrak and Metra. La Grange (Metra) redirects there. I don't know who owns the station; I doubt it's either of the operators. In addition, we have numerous "Union Station" articles, disambiguated by location: Union Station (Chicago). Finally, we have station articles at their nondeterminate formal names: Kalamazoo Transportation Center and Rome Railroad Station are two examples of this.

I propose that we simplify the naming conventions for all stations served by heavy rail in the United States. Off the top of my head, these would include the following:

I would suggest the following conventions: all stations are identified by their most common name, followed by either "railway station" or "railroad station." In cities or towns with only one station, this would take the form of "Kalamazoo rail(road|way) station." In places with multiple stations, it would take the form "Chicago Union rail(road|way) station" or "Chicago LaSalle Street rail(road|way) station." Formal names for a station would be indicated in the text, but not the article title. Articles which deal with mixed-mode stations (heavy rail & metro), could perhaps drop the road/way part and simply be "X station." Thoughts? Mackensen (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In the case of La Grange (Amtrak station), this one is actually one of two Metra Stations in La Grange, Illinois. The one shared between Amtrak & Metra is actually called La Grange Road (Amtrak station), while the other one is called La Grange-Stone Avenue (Metra). This is part of the reason I wrote articles on stations like Route 59 (Metra) in Naperville, Illinois, which doesn't serve Amtrak, unlike Naperville (Amtrak station) which serves both Amtrak & Metra. Also, conisdiering the fact that NICTD's South Shore Line shares some stations with Metra, I'm not so sure how something like this would be handled. In Connecticut, you have stations shared by Amtrak, Metro-North and Shore Line East. Plus, you've also got historic and abandoned stations throughout the country to contend with. ----DanTD (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Simple: you'd have articles like Naperville railway station, Route 59 railway station, La Grange Stone Avenue railway station (or just Stone Avenue railway station). Ditto for the Connecticut stations; the goal is to take the operator out of the equation. Mackensen (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Using the "Foo railway station" naming style would bring articles about American stations in line with established conventions for British station article names. The best reason that I can see for sticking with the current "Foo (System station)" style is for the pipe trick where we can type [[Foo (System station)|]] and have it autoexpand the link text and display as "Foo". But, this is not a showstopper reason for me to keep this style, and I'm more inclined lately to switch to the British style, except that this could cause issues of ambiguity for a few stations (such as at Aberdeen (Amtrak station) and Aberdeen railway station or Albion (Amtrak station) and Albion railway station). We might want to get the folks at the UK Railways project involved here. Slambo (Speak) 16:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I did have the British conventions in mind, yes. There are ways to deal with exceptions: Albion railway station, Michigan, perhaps. Mackensen (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to say something else; Long ago, I called for the merger of Seaboard Coastline Railroad Passenger Station in West Palm Beach, Florida into West Palm Beach (Tri-Rail station)(which is also served by Amtrak) simply because they're the same place, and the only thing keeping me from merging the articles myself, is that the name "Seaboard Coastline Railroad Passenger Station" is way too generic. When I saw a similar problem with the station in Deerfield Beach, Florida, I got so frustrated that I created a whole new Deerfield Beach Seaboard Air Line Railway Station article for that one, and redirected three previous versions(Old Seaboard Air Line Railway Station, Deerfield Beach (Tri-Rail station), and Deerfield Beach (Amtrak station)) into it. ----DanTD (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Under this system the outcomes would be West Palm Beach railway station and Deerfield Beach railway station. The article would then, in the lead, discuss the historical names and varied roles the station has played. Mackensen (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

So are there any objections to switching to the "Foo railway station, region" format (where the region part is included as needed for disambiguation) as discussed above? It appears that articles about stations in Australia already follow this format too. I can easily move articles that I run across in Category:Unassessed rail transport articles. I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations for further input. If there aren't any objections in the next few days, I'd think we could start moving them. Slambo (Speak) 16:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I might prefer Foo railroad station instead; that's the more common American usage and that preemptively avoids the British dab problems. Mackensen (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I have little personal preference between railway and railroad, but I can see where it could bypass some ambiguosity (is that a word or is it ambiguousness?); I guess I've just gotten more used to seeing railway as I work through the unassessed category with all of the British station articles there. Slambo (Speak) 16:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Either or, I guess. So long as we abandon parenthetical dab by system--it breaks in any network of complexity. Mackensen (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
My only issue with it is if its proper name includes 'Railroad Station' leave it, or if its proper name includes 'Railway Station', leave it. Otherwise interchanging the two, or using the two together for simple categorization will only confuse matters even more and accomplish nothing. My 2¢ worth.
--DP67 (talk/contribs) 20:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you misapprehend the underlying principle. The goal is to standardize naming, and bring the scattered American stations in line with the rest of the encyclopedia. The "formal name" would not be used as the standard for the article title, unless it fit the naming scheme; so Chicago Union railroad station, but not Kalamazoo Transportation Center. Mackensen (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Clinic for 2008 NMRA convention

I've been confirmed as a clinician for the National Model Railroad Association's 2008 national convention, to be held next July in Anaheim, California. One of the clinics that I will present is titled "What's new with WikiProject Trains?" where I will discuss what has occurred in this project since the 2007 convention in Detroit. When I presented the clinic in Detroit, about half of the clinic time was discussing how to do research and write about rail transport topics and half was about what we are currently doing here at TWP. I was a last minute late night add-on to the Detroit clinic schedule due to a mix up in paperwork outside of my control, but there were attendees at both sessions (this has not happened to me at previous conventions, so I see it as an isolated incident).

I've started a page at User:Slambo/NMRA where I will collect information that should be presented at the clinic next summer, and I invite all participants here to edit and point out what should be included. Any other TWP participants in the area next summer are also invited to register for the convention to tag along and heckle help at the clinic presentation too. Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 15:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Improving intermodal info

I just added the Double-stack car page, and made some small edits to related pages that now link to it. How do I make this page part of this project? I'm interested in seeing improvement all-around on intermodal rail transport. Ideas include: -A page for spine cars. -The rail tranport section of Intermodal freight transport should, IMO, describe operations and things like related economics, and leave detailed description of rail equipment to dedicated pages (once they exist). -The freight equipment template could get a new intermodal category when there are enough pages for it. Jaggedben (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the page; you probably saw my reply on Trainboard earlier today too. There is quite a bit that could be written on this type of car, especially when you look at the number of articles in the railroad press about its development (excellent job in lining up so many references already!). Since the article is about a type of rail freight car, it is automatically within this project's scope. I added the project banner to the article's discussion page so it will be included in the assessment statistics and worklist the next time the assessment bot runs (which is about a three day interval now). I've got one of those interbox connectors in my personal railroadiana collection, so I can easily make a photograph of one (I forget who gave it to me, but I got it when I was still living in California so I've had it for a little over 15 years now).
When we add an article for spine cars, we'll need to include a bit of their development history as well, such as their use by Milwaukee Road in some passenger trains in the 1960s. Agreed on the navbox updates; I almost removed the MOW link, but then thought that they are used in maintaining the lines over which freight is carried too, and thought that even though they aren't normally carried in freight trains (scale test cars aside), the link is therefore appropriate. Slambo (Speak) 21:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

History of rail transport in Ireland

An editor tagged several section of History of rail transport in Ireland as POV and a few days ago deleted them all citing lack of sources, not POV. Unfortunately I don't have any of my Irish railway books assessable, so cannot help, but maybe someone where can have a look and assist. Most of what was deleted is factual, perhaps not that well written and possibly with a POV slant but not total POV and certainly salvageable and, I am sure, can be sourced. If this project has a better place to post this please move it there. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 04:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've made a pass over it to remove the most glaring POV problems. As I know nothing at all about Irish rails the resulting version needs serious scrutiny to make sure I haven't made a mess of things. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Herald deletions

I've discovered that one of the bots has gone over a number of the articles on railroads and deleted the herald image for lacking fair-use rationales. I found this on Consolidated Rail Corporation but it's not the only example. Mangoe 18:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

When I've seen a problem with a logo, I've gone ahead and added the appropriate rationales to the image pages. I haven't been watching betacommandbot's contribs because there are so many images it goes through that don't relate to rail transport. The rationale on Image:Canadian Pacific Logo 1996.png is an example of what the image page should look like for the logo to stay; at a minimum, it should look like the rationale on Image:NMRA logo.gif. The fair use enforcement has become rather strict and while most of the rail logo uses that I see qualify, we need to make sure to have all our ducks in a row to keep them. Slambo (Speak) 18:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately the damage is done. I don't know how many herald images have been deleted because of this, and frankly I'm rather pissed that we have a bot that is going around doing destructive things rather than add the FUR that, in context, is rather obvious. By myself I simply don't have time to check all the appropriate articles and I'm not all that keen on dealing with the seemingly ever-changing fair-use rules. Mangoe 21:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I did upload a new Conrail logo. That should do until some paranoid android or some other paranoid humanoid decides to delete it
--DP67 (talk/contribs) 21:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm tempted to track down new versions of SEPTA & MBTA logos, and even some of then logos SPUI used to have, and put them back in the previous red links. ----DanTD 17:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The logo on Norfolk and Western Railway appears to have fallen victim to this too. I could add something to {{TrainsWikiProject}} to indicate that updates need to be made to the infobox, but that seems like overkill right now. Slambo (Speak) 21:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
For the interest of the Wiki-Trains community, I found http://ribbonrail.com/art/index.html most of the images on this site are free to use with proper attribs. Granted, some of them are not as pretty as the official logo may be but they are close enough to express the likeness of the logo for the purpose of the article. I also uploaded another N&W Rwy logo using this source and replaced the logo on the article.
--DP67 (talk/contribs) 22:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
On the topic of the infobox, is there a generic picture that could be added as a default if no image is provided, could such a thing be done with the template? Something like as an example, but one more tailored to the project. If not maybe I could make one. That is if such a thing can be done with the infobox template. Not sure if this sort of thing would be obnoxious or not, but it may promote people to contribute images to the project even if they are just a passer by.
--DP67 (talk/contribs) 00:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Trans-Siberian Railway article is beyond the technical limits for Wikipedia

The article Trans-Siberian Railway hasn't been rendering properly for a while with many templates displayed as a link to the template rather than displayed inline. The problem is that the large number of templates (most likely through the three transcluded route diagrams in {{Trans-Siberian Railway}}, {{Trans-Mongolian Railway}} and {{Trans-Manchurian Railway}}) are pushing the article beyond the pre-expand include size. I remember seeing a more detailed description of why this error state occurs, but I can't find the link to the page.

The article needs to be refactored to reduce the number of templates; I would suggest that this be done by splitting the three routes into their own articles and further dividing the article as needed in summary style. Anyone up for it (and continue discussion there)? Slambo (Speak) 21:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

To 'Direct' or 'Redirect'.. That is my question..

Lately I have been trying to avoid using redirects and changing redirected links to direct links if at all possible while still providing period correct information by using [[Electro-Motive Diesel|Electro-Motive Division]] type links. What I am wondering is if all the GM-EMD links should be changed to the new EMD article and bypass the old EMD altogether. On the new article it clearly explains that GM has sold Electro-Motive Division and it has now become Electro-Motive Diesel Inc., so that ground is covered. Just my thoughts on streamlining things a little rather than having allot of bouncing around going on and it seems that allot of articles have the old GM-EMD link.. So that's an awful lot of bouncing.

--DP67 (talk/contribs) 21:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
When writing new text, it's always best to avoid redirects by piping links straight to the appropriate articles. For existing text, my own rule of thumb has been to bypass redirects only on Portal:Trains subpages or when I'm already editing something else in the text. Some editors believe that editing simply to bypass a redirect is not helpful and I've had a couple of my edits bypassing redirects in article space reverted; I see no harm in bypassing longstanding (more than a month old) redirects, especially when the original link text is maintained via pipes. Slambo (Speak) 16:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've changed all the 'Electro-Motive Division' redirects to direct 'Electro-Motive Diesel' using piping, now to begin to tackle some of the 'General Motors Electro-Motive Division', links to direct links in the same fashion. There are a few hundred of them so it may take me a while.

--DP67 (talk/contribs) 21:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for being late to this discussion. I think if you look at the help pages concerning redirects it is recommended that redirects are generally NOT replaced with piped direct links, for a number of reasons: the server load required to implement an edit is far higher than that required to follow a redirect; the pop-up text under the link may be less appropriate; the redirect may allow for future expansion of a topic, and replacing with a direct link disconnects the two articles if such an expansion takes place. (That's all from memory!)
In this case (EMD) there may be no special problem, however in many cases the historical name of the company would be the appropriate link, since there may be scope for future expansion of the article coverage to handle that part of the company's history in isolation. As the links are now (I presume) such a split for EMD would be difficult. I have found this to be a bit of an issue with some UK steam loco builders, where the multiple name changes through change of ownership and the lack of specific articles (should) result in multiple redirects to the current company, whose name may be unrelated to the original (but of course, these are always bot-reverted!)
Hope this helps. EdJogg (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Train project article up for deletion

The Cardiff Central to Nottingham Line article is up for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardiff Central to Nottingham Line. (note:I did not initiate this AfD. It's listed here for informational purposes.) --Oakshade (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Montreal commuter rail

Category:Montreal commuter rail has been nominated for deletion. 132.205.99.122 22:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Did it have any articles in it? The category appears empty with no rail transport parent categories right now. Slambo (Speak) 21:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
At one time it did have articles in it. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
At the very least, this should be there. I'm going to add the category to the page now. --Tkynerd (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Changing my mind -- Category:Agence métropolitaine de transport should be under Category:Montreal commuter rail. I'll reverse what I did above and make that new change. --Tkynerd (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Default infobox image, or generic image needed.

On the topic of articles missing images or perhaps a default image on the Infobox locomotive template when no image is provided. I threw together this image to perhaps promote participation in adding pictures to the trains related articles that are currently missing visual enhancements.

Please feel free to use it if you like. I'm not sure if something like this could be part of the default image on the template if no image is provided or not. I'm not that good with making templates and don't dare attempt it and risk screwing something up. Like the one for bios on people this image can probably be redirected to an upload page to allow someone to add an image if they have one. Just an idea, if you think it's a good one, use it. If not, you're not obligated to do so.

--DP67 (talk/contribs) 04:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Other than the text getting squished when the image is displayed at smaller resolutions (like the 100px example here), and click here syndrome, I like this. I think a square or horizontal format would work better with the text rendering and wouldn't take up as much space when the image is displayed in the default infobox size of 300px. Slambo (Speak) 12:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Good points.. I'll keep working on it to solve the squishy text problem and the click here. I'll check with various sizes and fonts to see what I can do. Wider than it is taller would also help ( I guess that's called landscape, I'm not a photo-buff so I don't know.) A png file would also probably render better than gif when shrunk or expanded. Unfortunately I don't have anything to make vector graphics such as svg which would be even better in various sizes. My version of Fireworks can read svg files but I can't save in that format. GImp will do it, but unfortunately my Fedora box is a bit under the weather right now. I'll keep messing around and see what I can come up with.
--DP67 (talk/contribs) 18:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's a crazy thought... Should we update appropriate infoboxes ({{Infobox Locomotive}} comes to mind fairly quickly) to display such a default image if the user doesn't enter anything for the image parameter? I would think that if the user puts "image=" and doesn't add a filename, the template should then suppress the image, but if there is no image parameter in the template call at all, then display a default image. Hmm.... time to look around at other infoboxes again... Slambo (Speak) 19:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Whether a user specifies the image param or not, if there's no value you can trigger the display of a default image. Mackensen (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Another example. This one seems to be a bit sharper under various resolutions I also removed the 'click here'.. The fullsize of the image is 300 x 300 px, seen here at 50%, it's also a PNG instead of GIF. Suggestions are welcome. or feel free to make some edits yourself to clean it up.(I'm no image pro so help is always welcome.)
--DP67 (talk/contribs) 00:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The 1:1 ratio is definitely more appropriate. Mackensen (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that looks better. I couldn't help noticing the roof on the cab and how it looks like the roof on El Gobernador; but as this image appears to be a 4-8-0, could this be Mastodon, and if it is, assuming that that image is in the public domain or available under a free license too, could we get that uploaded to add to the Mastodon article? Slambo (Speak) 16:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The actual locomotive is on one of those '300,000 clip art images' CD sets I purchased some time ago. The end user license says that the images can be used for any purpose, as is or modified. I also noticed the same image is also here. So I don't see any reason why it cannot be used for the article. I can upload the loco by itself if you like.
--DP67 (talk/contribs) 22:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm.... I'll have to look into that avenue, we bought one for my wife's office a couple years ago. This reminds me of the story I saw on one of the tech sites a few months ago about the blogger who tried to find the location and photographer for a photo that is included in Windows Vista as one of the standard desktop backgrounds. I wonder if there's something at the UP museum in Iowa about the image... If the original is a large enough resolution, it would be better than the modified image that we're using now on that article. Slambo (Speak) 22:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I had the purple cartoon-ish image deleted to prevent any confusion between versions. The newer image in PiNG format seems to render better on a wider range pixel sizes whereas the GIF format blurs and bleeds too easily. Hope this helps promote editors to contribute some visual enhancements to some of the many articles lacking pictures.
--DP67 (talk/contribs) 23:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Another broken routebox

This time, it's Union Station (Tampa) ----DanTD (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • That's utterly bizarre. I've fixed it, but I'm still not sure what the issue was. Mackensen (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Strike that, I know why, and I've addressed the issue. Mackensen (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't know where you addressed it, but thanks. Now there's the problem with the one for the MARC Brunswick Line. Martinsburg (MARC station) and Frederick (MARC station) should not be blended as one. ----DanTD (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Fixed that one as well. Someone had removed the termini from the stations template (probably an accident) [2]. Mackensen (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Working on new Locomotive Infobox....

I've been working on a new locomotive infobox. My goal for this idea is to automatically provide as much information possible about a locomotive to the reader, without extra work for the editor. Several fields are self filling. Mackensen fixed it so that a default image (the example above) promoting editors to upload a related image is shown if no image value is given. Other modifications that have been made are as follows:

Editor is prompted to enter locomotive name, Power-type and image caption if none is given.


!Updated! !Updated! !Updated!
Builders name and link
use on of the following options to automatically place a link to the appropriate builders article.

Others will be added.. Remind me if I'm missing any of the most common. Field remains blank if none is given.

Guage
  • Standard gauge (4 ft 8½ in (1,435 mm)) is assumed and automatically entered if no value is given.
AAR Wheel Arrangement

When completed the editor will be able to enter an example value of aarwheels = B-B or something simular and a link will appear directly to the article section B-B, Etc.. The same can also be done for the UIC classification (European wheel arrangement).

There are a few other changes that may have slipped my mind at this late hour, so please check out the work in progress and let me know what you think. Other suggestions and ideas are always welcome, please use the talk page on the template to discuss any ideas or suggestions and I'll see what can be done. The goal here is to make things as easy as possible on the editor, and most beneficial to the reader by automatically providing as many facts as possible without extra work. I'm not that good of a writer when it comes to adding content, but I don't mind tinkering with code to make things easier for those of you that are. So this is my effort to help out..

--DP67 (talk/contribs) 08:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Funny you should bring this up since I recently saw the deletion discussion for {{Infobox Ship}}; that infobox, which was the basis for the original {{Infobox Locomotive}} design, was superceded by {{Infobox Ship Example}}. I thought the new approach used there could also be used here to simplify parameter specification too. I've just had too much snow to shovel this week to put an example together. Slambo (Speak) 12:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Something like the new ships template may be doable with a little help. I'm still learning the template deal so we'll see. I would like the infoboxes to have a hide by choice feature, an option change sides of article, and basic format options available to the the editor though. I also like how they've got the menus showing common parameters for various types of vessels. I'd like to do something like that for the different type loco's as well.. As for the progress so far, I've got the AAR wheel arr. list working, so one value auto-links to the appropriate section of the AAR arr. article. (e.g. arrwheelsB-B = yes links to B-B) I've added a service option for type of service description, switcher/shunter, road switcher, passenger, etc. Still trying to think of ideas that would make things easier. --DP67 (talk/contribs) 14:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


I made a few more tweaks.. I added a option for a second image in the infobox. IF no second image is provided, no default is selected so nothing is displayed without the editors choice of using it.

!Updated! !Updated! !Updated!
Added Auto-linking for AAR wheel arrangement, enter one of the following if this field is not provided a default will not be displayed. (U.S. diesel, diesel-electric or electric) (U.S.)  !Updated!
  • aarwheels = A1A-2 A1A-2 is displayed
  • aarwheels = A1A-3 A1A-3 is displayed
  • aarwheels = A1A-A1A A1A-A1A is displayed (UIR Class (A1A)(A1A) is automatically entered)
  • aarwheels = A1A-B+B A1A-B+B is displayed
  • aarwheels = B = yes B is displayed
  • aarwheels = B-1 = yes B-1 is displayed
  • aarwheels = B-2 = yes B-2 is displayed
  • aarwheels = B-A1A = yes B-A1A is displayed (UIR Class Bo' is automatically entered)
  • aarwheels = B-B = yes B-B is displayed (UIR Class Bo'Bo' is automatically entered)
  • aarwheels = B-B-B = yes B-B-B is displayed (UIR Class Bo'Bo'Bo' is automatically entered)
  • aarwheels = 2-B+B-2 = yes 2-B+B-2
  • aarwheels = B+B-B+B = yes B+B-B+B is displayed
  • aarwheels = B-B+B-B = yes B-B+B-B is displayed
  • aarwheels = B-B+B-B+B-B = yes B-B+B-B+B-B is displayed
  • aarwheels = C = yes C is displayed
  • aarwheels = C-C = yes C-C is displayed (UIR Class Co'Co' is automatically entered)
  • aarwheels = 1-C+C-1 = yes 1-C+C-1 is displayed
  • aarwheels = 2-C+C-2 = yes 2-C+C-2 is displayedis displayed
  • aarwheels = 2-C1+2-C1-B = yes 2-C1+2-C1-B is displayed
  • aarwheels = C-C+C-C = yes C-C+C-C is displayed
  • aarwheels = C+C-C+C = yes C+C-C+C is displayed
  • aarwheels = 2-D-2 = yes 2-D-2 is displayed
  • aarwheels = D-D = yes D-D is displayed
  • aarwheels = 2-D+D-2 = yes 2-D+D-2 is displayed
  • aarwheels = B-D+D-B = yes B-D+D-B is displayed
  • aarwheels = 1B-D+D-B1 = yes 1B-D+D-B1 is displayed
  • aarother = <custom value> is displayed

I have not yet finished the UIR to AAR conversion but most common AAR arrangements have conversions to common UIR classes.

The mostly complete documentation is available on the template page I'm trying to get it to allow a simpler aarwheels = B-B to provide an auto AAR link but haven't figured out how to do that yet. If anyone knows how, it would be a big help! The same can be done with the builder link, builder = alco to provide an auto link to the builder would be much easier.. :) For an example of this template in action, look here. The version I'm working on now is mostly tailored to Diesel-electrics, but I am planning on making one for steam and one for electrics.

--DP67 (talk/contribs) 10:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


Yippie! With a little help from another editor on wikimedia, I fixed the builder and aarwheels so that they are now easier and very much the same as they were. (e.g. aarwheels = B-B auto-wikifies to B-B, etc and "builder = EMD" auto-wikifies to EMD, etc.) I also added a Builder logo to those that were available, an optional window for the railroads logo, for those models that spent their entire career on one railroad. I guess Whyte's and UIC wheel arrangments are next on the list to auto-wikify now that I know how to do it. Adding other builders to the list is also a high priority. If there is any more features that might be useful let me know, I will try to add it. I'm having a blast with this thing.. Hopefully it proves useful.
--DP67 (talk/contribs) 08:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I was about to write to suggest that these two params be handled via a switch rather than a long list of param=yes options. On the Whyte type, you can probably do the same type of thing for specs that don't have letters at the end (as in "0-4-0" vs. "0-4-0T"). My first thought was to use a substring function to compare the first several characters up to the first letter character, but thinking it through a bit more, that seems too complex for now (and even more so since I don't see a substr function listed on m:Help:ParserFunctions). Slambo (Speak) 11:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and taking a quick look at the code, we can't use the builder logos in this way because it would violate the fair use criteria. Fair use images cannot be used in templates. Slambo (Speak) 11:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh bummer.. :( I thought they could be used in infoboxes for that sort of identification purpose, but anyway, I'll take them off.. Thanks! --DP67 (talk/contribs) 12:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Updated the feature lists above. ; Full documentation is here {{Infobox Locomotive Auto}} --DP67 (talk/contribs) 15:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Parallel project Rolling Stock Infobox

OK, forgive me for having a scatter brain, but I've started yet another infobox project using many of the same features I've implemented in the new loco infobox. For a preliminary peek look here. I use as many of the interchangeable options I could. But have not yet had the chance to change the builders or anything yet. But its a sneak peek..

--DP67 (talk/contribs) 07:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Frequently used web reference is now on the spam blacklist

Just a heads-up more than anything on this issue... Per a discussion on WP:AN citing irregular domain registration and linking, all links to the famousamericans domain are in the process of being removed. Several pages on my watchlist were affected by this removal, but looking at the data that was referenced, it's mostly birth/death dates and places that we should be able to reference out to more reliable sources without too much trouble. Slambo (Speak) 19:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Like with the image deletions and fair use criteria enforcement, this issue has also raised the hackles of more than one editor. For the curious, here is the list of pages that used to link to the domain in question. The individual article histories will show exactly where the links were removed so we know what information that needs referencing via other means. Slambo (Speak) 18:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Greenspun illustration project: requests now open

Dear Wikimedians,

This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).

The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests

If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.

The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.

thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Project coordinator)

Metra-CTA Combination Stations

I don't know if this has ever been considered before, but I'd like to know how the rest of you feel about combining articles on Jefferson Park (CTA) with Jefferson Park (Metra), and possibly Irving Park (CTA Blue Line) with Irving Park (Metra). Considering what I've read about Jefferson Park, I think the best thing for those two would be to redirect and combine them into a single article called Jefferson Park Trasit Center or Jefferson Park (CTA-Metra), or even a combination of the two. ----DanTD (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: As some of you probably know, I'm already working on a combination page for Jefferson Park, although I'm not sure I should do one for Irving Park. and I definitley don't want to do one for Montrose (CTA Blue Line) and Mayfair (Metra). ----DanTD (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

BNSF Map glitch

I've mentioned this before on the BNSF Railway Line page, and nobody responded here, so now I'm bringing it here; There's a problem with the map in this article. It connects to the wrong Western Avenue Station. Instead of going to the Western Avenue (Metra BNSF Railway Line), it goes to the Western Avenue (Metra Milwaukee District/North Line). And I can't find a way to fix the thing. --DanTD (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

References re Great Western Railway

On the article about Somerset the Great Western Railway is mentioned & referenced with [Clark, G. T.] (1839) Guidebook to the Great Western Railway & [Clark, G. T.] (1846) The History and Description of the Great Western Railway. Its currently on FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset & a reviewer has asked for "publisher and (if available) ISBN" - has anyone got any further info (before ISBNs) or could provide alternative references to support the statements about the GWR??— Rod talk 17:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Since they were published in the mid-19th century, it's pretty unlikely that there'll be any ISBNs for either unless they've been reprinted. A quick look on Amazon shows the second was reprinted by John C. Bourne with ASIN B00088SMEK. Slambo (Speak) 18:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A new wiki specially for Trains...

Hello readers of WikiProject Trains!

I just wondered if any of you would be interested in joining up to Train Spotting World, a wiki just for railways and similar things! We are also in the process of setting up several "Workforces", similar to WikiProjects, and were wondering if anyone wnated to help!

Various wikipedians have goine over there, including myself, User:Tbo 157, User:Slambo, User:EdJogg, User:Timtrent and User:S.C.Ruffeyfan.

If you want more info, or have joined up and want some guidance, let me know here or there on my talk page!

Thanks,

Bluegoblin7 18:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that the intention is NOT to 'poach' editors from WP -- you are needed here!
All the listed editors are still active at WP, but TSW allows a little more creative freedom...
Feel free to join us editing in both Wikis.
EdJogg (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationales again

In case you hadn't noticed, images uploaded with fair use licenses without fair use rationales are getting tagged as candidates for speedy deletion. There is, as usual, a discussion on WP:AN about this, but as the tagging is being done in accordance with the Foundation's fair use policy, it's unlikely to stop. I've gone through several today and added rationales as appropriate for logos that I've seen tagged. Please take some time to review the pages on your watchlists and other pages that you know of with fair use images and add rationales as needed to those images. Images that do not satisfy the fair use criteria after March 23 will be deleted without warning; we've got some time and we're seeing the warnings, so we need to heed them. Slambo (Speak) 19:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we going to have to organize a systematic scan of the railroad companies and their logos/heralds? I don't think we can assume that all such articles are being watched. Mangoe (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I fixed at least 30 images last night, many of which were not tagged but had very little rationale being tagged was only a matter of time. For those of you that are interested in going a on a scouting trip looking for railroad logos with questionable rationale please do.. I used List of United States railroads as a starting point and worked my way down the list. I stopped at Local railroads. If you do make sure they have the bare minimum to get by. Or better yet, to make it easy, copy paste and replace 'Railroad Article Name Here' with the appropriate info:
== MARC Camden Line issue ==

If you take a look at one of the articles for one of the stations on [[MARC Train#Camden|MARC's Camden Line]] aside from [[Camden Yards station]], you will notice that in the infobox where it says "following station", it will state the station as usual but then below that it will say "toward Baltimore" and the link takes you to the [[Pennsylvania Station (Baltimore)|Baltimore's Penn Station]] article rather than Camden. Where is the root of this problem and how do I fix it? [[User:Murjax|Murjax]] ([[User talk:Murjax|talk]]) 21:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
*Fixed. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 22:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
     
    Thanks a lot, but just one question. How did you do that? [[User:Murjax|Murjax]] ([[User talk:Murjax|talk]]) 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
== Fair use in [[Railroad Article Name Here]] ==

{{Non-free use rationale
| Description       = Railroad Name Here logo description if available
| Source            = Place railroad homepage here or other notable source
| Article           = Railroad Article Name Here
| Portion           = The entire logo is used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended
image.
| Low_resolution    = The logo is a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the company or organization,
without being unnecessarily high resolution.
| Purpose           = The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing [[Railroad Article Name Here]],
a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the reader
they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's
intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey.
| Replaceability    = Because it is a logo there is almost certainly no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative
work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of
identification or commentary.
| other_information = '''Heralds''' are "logos" or "slogans" used by railroad companies and displayed on their equipment.
Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as
trademarks.... However, copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship.
In some circumstances, an artistic logo may also be protected as a trademark."
''Excerpt from http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html'' Use of such images on Wikipedia arguably meets
'''[[Fair use|Fair Use]]''' requirements.
}}
{{Non-free logo}}
If that's not enough rationale it's hopeless..
--DP67 (talk/contribs) 06:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Also getting tagged for the same reasons are images of passenger train drumhead logos; I've updated several images with appropriate rationales (and a few more this morning). Two other lists to check through would be List of defunct United States railroads and List of named passenger trains. Slambo (Speak) 12:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Completion log

I have checked List of defunct United States railroads#Commuter railroads. Mangoe (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Europe topic and Rapid transit in Europe

I have just created a template Rapid transit in Europe and would welcome improvement. It is adapted from Template:Europe topic although currently there will be only one transclusion until other articles are created. Some places may also needed to be removed due to lack of in that area.

It currently looks like

v • d • e
Rapid transit in Europe
Sovereign
states

Albania · Andorra · Armenia1 · Austria · Azerbaijan2 · Belarus · Belgium · Bosnia and Herzegovina · Bulgaria · Croatia · Cyprus1 · Czech Republic · Denmark4 · Estonia · Finland · France4, 5, 6 · Georgia2 · Germany · Greece · Hungary · Iceland · Republic of Ireland · Italy · Kazakhstan3 · Latvia · Liechtenstein · Lithuania · Luxembourg · Republic of Macedonia · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Montenegro · Netherlands · Norway · Poland · Portugal · Romania · Russia3 · San Marino · Serbia · Slovakia · Slovenia · Spain6 · Sweden · Switzerland · Turkey3 · Ukraine · United Kingdom (England • Northern Ireland • Scotland • Wales)
Dependencies,
autonomies,
other territories

Abkhazia 2 · Adjara1 · Akrotiri and Dhekelia · Åland · Azores · Crimea · Faroe Islands · Gagauzia · Gibraltar · Greenland7 · Guernsey · Jan Mayen · Jersey · Kosovo · Isle of Man · Madeira8 · Nagorno-Karabakh1 · Nakhchivan1 · Northern Cyprus1 · South Ossetia 2 · Svalbard · Transnistria
Italics indicates an unrecognised or partially recognised country. 1 Entirely in Southwest Asia.  2 Partially or entirely in Asia, depending on the border definitions.  3 / 4 / 5 / 6 Has part of its territory in Asia / North America / South America / Africa.  7 / 8 Entirely on the North American Plate / African Plate.

Simply south (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No longer exists, userfied. Simply south (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Direct Waterloo - Bristol Service

An anonymous user is putting this service into route boxes in the West country, using the Wessex Main Line, which does not go to London, as a link. I would change the boxes but could someone confirm my check that this service does not exist? Stations I have found so far are Westbury railway station, Bath Spa railway station and Warminster railway station. Thanks. Britmax (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

ps the user is an IP address, 87.80.42.147 Britmax (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure about whether these services are on the Wessex Main Line but they do serve the stations shown therefore the service does indeed exist. By the looks of it, trains go once every three hours. Simply south (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes a little more searching by me confirms that, so it seems to be a good faith addition. Thanks for your help. The trains seem to use the Wessex Main Line to Salisbury then go to Waterloo via the Waterloo - Exeter (West of England Main Line)Line. This means the use of the Wessex Main Line in the boxes is to my mind understandable but inaccurate. This needs some thought as it's mired in the classic route/line debate. Hey Ho! Britmax (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)