Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Trains (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
 
TWP discussion archives
20042005January–June 2006March–September 2006June–December 2006December 2006–March 2007March–August 2007August–October 2007October 2007–January 2008January–May 2008May–September 2008September–December 2008January–July 2009August–December 2009January–August 2010August–November 2010December 2010–March 2011April–May 2011June–December 2011January–August 2012September–December 2012January–December 2013January 2014–
Three rail tracks 350.jpg The Trains WikiProject
General information
Main project page (WP:TWP)  talk
Portal (P:Trains) talk
Project navigation bar talk
Freenode IRC: #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
Rail transport in Germany talk
Monorails talk
Operations talk
Passenger trains talk
Portal talk
Rail transport modelling talk
Timelines talk
Shortcut:

List of EuroCity services[edit]

I've created this article, based on the list that was on the EuroCity pages, to try and make it more informative and current. It's a work in progress, so it's still incomplete and a bit messy - any contributions to completing the page would be welcome. I noticed that a number of people are creating new articles for specific TEE/EC services, so this ties neatly into that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtVandelay13 (talkcontribs) 16:58, 6 March 2013

S-Line template missing[edit]

Can anybody tell me where to find the S-Line templates for the Detroit People Mover? I'm trying to move all-related templates and stuff to a new DPM category. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The four main ones are Template:DTC stations, Template:DTC color, Template:DTC style, Template:DTC lines. There might be others. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

train gauge categories[edit]

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_20#Category:4ft 8⅜in gauge railways, Category:4ft 8⅜in gauge railways in Germany, Category:4ft 8⅜in gauge railways in Hong Kong. A question - how do we decide where to place a train gauge? Do we place it in metric and imperial? One? Both? Is it based on whether the country in question uses the metric system? Sorry don't know much about train gauges. Comments welcome at the CFD.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Commented there. I think we should put both imperial and metric same gauges in the same category, "by size". Those cultural differences, splitting category in two for their unit, do not help anyone. They will sort a bit strange, mm's and ft,in's mixed. That's all. -DePiep (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
That seems like a proposal to upmerge Category:Track_gauges_by_imperial_unit up; however these are already mixed in for example Category:Narrow_gauge_railways_by_track_gauge, so not sure if removing the metric/imperial split is useful. But, if you think it will get consensus feel free to nominate it for upmerge at CFD.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes a difficult and slowly moving issue. I envision Category:Narrow_gauge_railways_by_track_gauge being by size, listing both imperial and metric named pages & subcategories. (They must be sorted to absolute size, say in 0000mm). This is wehat I mean by "no cultural issues in a gauge size". The categories "... in imperial units" and "... in metric units" should go, disappear, and never be mentioned again. Because: if one searches a gauge size, one may not know whether to look in imperial or metric size category - so they must be together. This for all gauge sizes. -DePiep (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
the Narrow category does mix imperial and metric. If you want to sort by absolute size, be my guest, you can just use the category sorting to sort by metric size. Should there remain a category with ALL the gauges? If so, you should propose to upmerge imperial + metric categories to the parent. Not sure what the value is though, I could see it as useful to see which gauges are defined metrically and which are defined with imperial.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Cat name better be Category:Narrow gauge railways by size (there will also be a "... by country"). The parent category Category:Rail gauges by size contains the subcategories (narrow, standard, ...) and no almost no individual pages (just rail gauge). That covers exactly all, and only once. -DePiep (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. I have renamed into Category:Narrow gauge railways by size, and mm-sorted all subcategory entries (4 digits, so 0600 mm sorts under 0). Also sorted this way: Category: Minimum gauge railways, Category:Broad gauge railways. At the moment these two do not have the "... by size" extra cat level. -DePiep (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I support the upmerge of imperial + metric categories to the parent category, sorted in mm.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I Oppose the conversion of imperial measurements to metric for categorisation purposes. It is not necessary and illogical. Most of the world's railways were built in imperial gauges. For those that were built in metric gauges (60cm, 750, 760 and 900mm, metre gauge etc), we cater for with metric categories. Mjroots (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree in opposing an upmerge or for that matter a segregation of metric and imperial gauges. The categories should be by the gauge as specified, not as converted to the other system of units. Mangoe (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
@Aaron-Tripel, Mjroots, Mangoe: Please support/oppose (as the case may be) on the CfD discussion, since the closing admin will not take this thread into account. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Misunderstanding? The CfD is a proposal to change a single category name. That can be dealt with separately (for arguments go there). The "upmerging" discussion opened here is about keeping the categories Category:Track gauges by imperial unit and Category:Track gauges by metric unit or not. The upmerge would create one category with all gauge sizes, ft/in and mm titles together. (they could be sorted by size not alphanumerical). -DePiep (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Mangoe - Category names will not change. They stay as defined (in imperial or metric unit). It's just that these categories would be listed in one category, preferably sorted by size. It looks like Category:Narrow gauge railways by size.
That said, I find it useless or even misleading to keep imperial and metric units in separated categories. When one searches a size, one should not be required to know the unit beforehand. -DePiep (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Mangoe. All track gauges by size should be listed in the same category by size and not be segregated by imperial and metric. Also, only the track gauges that were first designed to be metric-based (1,000 mm (3 ft 3 38 in), 750 mm (2 ft 5 12 in), 500 mm (19 34 in), etc.) should be listed with the metric figure first followed by the imperial conversion in parantheses. Likewise, those track gauges that were first designed to be imperial-based (4 ft 8 12 in (1,435 mm), 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm), 15 in (381 mm), etc.) should have the imperial figure first followed by the metric figure in parentheses. If there is ever any confusion about whether to have imperial or metric first, I suppose a good rule to follow would be to ask yourself, "Was the track gauge first invented in the United Kingdom or one of its territories prior to 1900 A.D.?" If the answer is "yes," then list the imperial measurement first; and if the answer is "no," list the metric unit first. Weird ones like Bosnian gauge that are not based on imperial units or metric units could have metric listed first by default. Jackdude101 (Talk) 2:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I need clarification :-). We have Category:Narrow gauge railways by size with both units in the listed subcategory titles. All fine. In a more separate category tree, we have siblings Category:Track gauges by metric unit and Category:Track gauges by imperial unit (distictively, mm only or ft,in only in the subcategory titles listed). As it is. Right?
If I understand it well, the upmerge suggestion by Aaron-Tripel is to put all gauges from these two (imperial, metric) into the single parent (Category:Track gauge by size). It will look like the Category:Narrow gauge railways, but with more entries (no Narrow limit). No subcategory name will change for this. -DePiep (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC) minor -DePiep (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

New: Rail gauge categories (navbox)[edit]

I have created and added {{Navbox rail gauge categories}}, a navbox. E.g., Category:Broad gauge railways. At least it can give a more structured overview. I have added the scaled gauges to this mold, that was a bit an isolated category tree (with an other naming convention, visible). Improvements are welcome, but we better be very aware of definition creep for the categories. -DePiep (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:RailGauge update[edit]

I plan to update {{RailGauge}} in a few days. Some questions:

  1. Formatting: all imperial sized above 2ft we format as "2 ft 6 in", not "30 in". Any suggestion for the 1ft – 2ft sizes (see these)? I guess "15 in" is iconic, but how about a "12 14 in" ?
  2. Any article links to add? Currently we can have linkes like "750 mm (2 ft 5 12 in)". I will add those for inputs: Iberian, Russian, Bosnian, Brunel, Breitspurbahn, Toronto, Indian, Italian 3x, Swedish 3ft. The next are unclear, and could be not general (like, only used in a country or culture): Victorian, Irish, Pennsylvanian, Ohio, Scotch. If someone can show one to be stable & unconfusing, I can add that one. Sizes can be linked too, like 3 ft (914 mm) to three foot railways.
  3. At the moment, articles are categorized for a certain set of gauges (for a cleanup action, ~2500 pages to check). That's all pages with these few gauges. See Category:Articles with template RailGauge that may need attention. Any other set of gauges you want to research this way?

Other planned changes are listed in Template_talk:RailGauge#Gauge proposals, March 2014. -DePiep (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Railway bridges[edit]

I've been on a bit of a rail bridge kick lately, writing/translating articles on various rail bridges around the world. I've been using Google Scholar to pull up peer-reviewed journals that describe bridges. I've also gone to Flickr and found old pictures of rail bridges and added them here and created articles. I was looking back at some of the Partnership pages here, and the Tropenmuseum has nice pictures of railway bridges built by the Dutch, that are now in Indonesia. Ask for details and I can show you examples. Anyone want to start coordinating this? Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

My most interesting find was the Dömitz Railway Bridge. Bombed during WW2, then each end of the bridge was in East and West Germany, so part was torn down, and it's now a bridge to nowhere. Oaktree b (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Naming rail gauge articles[edit]

About names for rail gauge articles (Category:Track gauge by size). Some strange names exist:

Fifteen-inch gauge railway
Two foot and 600 mm gauge railways
Two foot six inch gauge railways

Dos and don'ts: MOS:HYPHEN

  1. 3 inch gauge 3-inch gauge -- is the unit written in whole word, then use hyphen
  2. three inch gauge three-inch in gauge
  3. 3 in gauge -- otherwise no hyphen.
  4. 3ft gauge 3 ft gauge -- MOS:NUMBER use space
  5. 2ft 6in gauge 2 ft 6 in gauge
WP:TITLE: no plurals when not absolutely needed
  1. Two foot six inch gauge railways Two foot six inch gauge railway --singular

We do have freedoms: write "two" or "2" but do not mix as in Two foot and 600 mm gauge railways

What is good
Most mm-sized gauges are written correct (but have a plural):
750 mm gauge railways (but not plural)
Categories
  1. Category names use the plural.
Category:Track gauge Category:Track gauges
  1. In general, the category name shold follow that eponymous article name (into plural).

I think we should rethink the naming, and in the long run comply with MOS, and find a consistent naming where we can choose (e.g. spell out numbers?). -DePiep (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Not a very clear explanation this was.
Categories now are renamed following MOS. Pattern examples
Category:Track gauges -- plural (12 categories)
Category:2 ft 4 in gauge railways‎ -- units adjective spelling, MOS:UNIT (~200 categories)
Category:12 in gauge railways‎ -- unit adjective spelling, MOS:UNIT (~27 categories).
Article titles were not touched from here. -DePiep (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Stocklist templates[edit]

Hiya, there an a huge number of stock lists within scope of this project, and there seems to be no standard format for presenting them. I suggest we create a couple of templates which we can use to standardise the stock list presentation. Here are some typical columns

  • Current Identity
  • Previous Identities
  • Year Built
  • Builder
  • Works Number
  • Wheel Arrangement
  • Gauge
  • Original Owner
  • Name
  • Current Location
  • Notes
  • Image

what more need adding? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

By "stock lists", do you mean a list of individual locomotives owned or operated by a railway company? To me, these are often overcluttered with unnecessary detail which is very much the realm of a trainspotter's logbook, see Class 86 for example. We might even ask if such lists are necessary at all. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I would agree with Redrose64 that such lists are in violation of WP:NOTDIR (Wikipedia cannot and should not list everything that has ever existed). Mentioning individual locomotives is fine as long as each unit is supported by WP:RS. AadaamS (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I think stocklists are appropriate, as long as they are not too complex and are supported by (a) reliable source(s). An example of the sort of stocklist I have in mind is the one in WAGR S class, which is sourced to the leading reliable source on WAGR steam locomotives. Stocklists like that are useful, eg. to railway modellers. I also agree that it would be helpful to have a standard format for stocklists. However, I think Railwayfan2005's suggestion above is a bit too detailed. Some of Raliwayfan2005's suggested parameters (eg wheel arrangement, gauge) are better suited to an infobox, not a stocklist. A better example might be the format of the various stocklists in articles about WAGR locomotives (see Template:WAGR Locomotives for links to them). Bahnfrend (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Mere usefulness is not enough to include each and every unit of a locomotive series. That having a complete list of every model built might be useful for Toyota Corolla mechanic but not a reason to include it in this 'pedia. Also I think the article you mentioned places too much emphasis on nearly identical units, the list of individual units add no more information than is in the infobox, save for units having different names. It could have been summarised as "Two units are preserved, three units received extra large tenders" which would have been enough to give extra information beyond the infobox. AadaamS (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with stocklists for heritage railway articles. A standard format for such lists would be beneficial as it would allow easy transfer between articles. See Rolling stock of the Bluebell Railway and Rolling stock of the Kent & East Sussex Railway (heritage). Mjroots (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
We do get a lot of trainspotting anons who make edits like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted website[edit]

A number of railway-related articles have recently been marked after this fashion by Cyberbot II (talk · contribs); similarly their talk pages. Alternative sources will need to be obtained. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with that website tbh, it looks like a perfectly legitimate magazine from what I've read. I find this all a bit suspect tbh. And rather annoying! G-13114 (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
@G-13114: I see that you have reverted some of the bot edits. Have you made your concerns known (not to the bot operator, but to whoever blacklisted it in the first place)? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
No I haven't had time yet I'll look into it later. G-13114 (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I've found discussion of the blacklisting at [1]. Some of the discussion looks a bit techy and some a bit tetchy. NebY (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I asked for three urls to be whitelisted at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#www.railway-technology.com. Edgepedia (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@G-13114: It seems that unless we get this site whitelisted (or de-blacklisted), reverting the bot is futile, since it'll only do it again. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
If you revert the bot often enough, it might realise that it's futile, like the computer in WarGames. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Is there a simple way to list affected articles in this project? Then together we could check each one and get the links whitelisted. Edgepedia (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with User:G-13114. As far as I can see, railway-technology.com is a website that provides a reliable source of data that is often difficult to find elsewhere. Currently about 400 railway-related articles have been flagged by this bot, as shown here: [2]. Notifications include banner tags at the top of the article and not just on the talk page. This level of flagging seems to me to be unwarranted, and does not appear to have been properly debated before being imposed. If you wish to join the (limited) discussion there has been, it seems to be here: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Going_on_-_cbronline.com. Regards, Hallucegenia (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I have struggled with repeated links to airforce-technology.com which is among the External Links to many aircraft articles. I do not agree that airforce-technology.com is a WP:RS, it contains a lot of unreferenced information and sometimes wild speculation. Further adding such links also violates the WP:EL guidline which say that we can only add links to such sites if they provide information beyond what is required for an article to get FA status. Articles in airforce-technology.com seldom have a name of the author of the article. That hardly lives up to WP:RS standards. Another example: www.railway-technology.com/news/newsgermanys-vms-contracts-alstom-for-29-coradia-continental-regional-trains-4208585 here also lacks a name for the article's author. We cannot say that a source is RS from a respected authority in the field if we don't even have the author's name to go by. AadaamS (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
But we're not talking about External Links here. Most of the flagged articles, like Docklands Light Railway used as an example by RedRose64 above use railway-technology.com only as a source for inline citations. If you want to go through all 400 railway articles to find better sources for inline citations that have not been challenged for years then please do. Regards Hallucegenia (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC).
@AadaamS: Not citing the author does not make the source WP:QUESTIONABLE. The majority of the articles on BBC News Online don't have the authors cited. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know where I can apply for them to be taken off the list? I added a lot of those railway-technology links myself because they contained useful information, they look like an industry magazine to me. I'm certainly not a spammer. I think this bot causing more havoc to wikipedia than any spammer could quite frankly! I'm quite busy with other stuff at the moment, so don't have much time. So any help would be appreciated. G-13114 (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
As noted above, MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#cbronline.com. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok I've raised it there. BTW I've found the relevant whitelisting page here MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#www.railway-technology.com. If anyone wants to chip in please do so. G-13114 (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, the decision by some admin users to just sledgehammer the spammers by affecting tons of existing articles is just beyond me. If they want to ban a website, there should be a discussion to weight pros and cons to ban a specific website. If we have a discussion specifically about railway-technology.com and we confirm that the site is questionable, then fine. Don't just rolling everything up under some problems with cbronline.com. I have strongly raised the objection on those discussions already. Maybe more people should voice the concerns there too. I think this action to put on the blacklist was just being counter productive here. Z22 (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Location quest, again[edit]

Once again, I'm trying to identify some railroad-related locations, and I need some help;


So, who has some tips? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The left picture appears to be just south of Munroe Falls, Ohio on Ohio State Route 91. See Google Maps here: [3]. The Street View images show similar characteristics: two tracks, gated crossing, similar power lines, and Ohio 91 sign. There appears to be a newly constructed building to the right leading to some differences from the picture (such as an expanded driveway and the removal of the "Do not block drive" sign). Hope this helps. MountainRail (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The Ohio one is definitely Munroe Falls - it's the only matching crossing on 91. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The New York picture is of Wantagh (LIRR station). See Google Maps here: [4]. The photo was taken on the north side of the tracks next to the western overpass looking east. MountainRail (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, you beat me to it by ten minutes! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, that worked. I saw something with a mock tudor exterior across from underneath the tracks and it turns out to be the Wantagh Inn. If nobody moved it yet, I'll start. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

AfD[edit]

The Barendrecht train accident article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be merged intoList of rail accidents (2000–present) and the page should become a redirect there. Although I can see that the consensus is that the article will be kept. AadaamS (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

user 134.3.252.209 edits to Transrapid and Maglev[edit]

Hi, user 134.3.252.209 keeps adding the Kayrapid text over and over again to the Transrapid and Maglev articles. Is this something that should be escalated? This user has reveted 3 times on the Transrapid article, does this not violate the WP:3RR rule? Thankful for any input. AadaamS (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Three reverts is not "more than three reverts", which is what 3RR states. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the correction. This IP user has reverted the Transrapid article a fourth time now but more than 24 hours have passed. AadaamS (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Have you served a {{subst:uw-3rr}}? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Redrose64 no I haven't yet. I was looking for a bit of guidance as this is the first time I have encountered an editor constantly reverting like this. Having read the documentation for that template it looks like the correct thing to post to that user's talk page so that's what I've done now. AadaamS (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
That user seems to be using IP 91.10.95.248 as that user also reverts on Maglev and Transrapid articles. AadaamS (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
This user is now back as User talk:217.229.21.14, can we protect the Transrapid and Maglev page to only be edited by autoconfirmed users? AadaamS (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I semi'd both 1 week but didn't alter any content. I notice that the user has also made some very lengthy talk page posts. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I googled "Kay Uwe Böhm" because a lot of the text refers to blogs & articles individual, like email addresses he keeps reposting in commented wikicode. It happens there was a "Kay Uwe Böhm" user on de:Wikipedia: [5] and that user was blocked after 3 edits to German wikipedia. AadaamS (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I strongly suspect that 91.10.83.108 (talk); 217.230.52.219 (talk); 91.10.117.50 (talk); 91.10.74.105 (talk); 79.255.123.238 (talk); 134.3.252.209 (talk); 217.230.38.212 (talk); and 91.67.19.253 (talk) are the same person. There are probably others. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Redrose64, yes I suspect this too, he's being helpful with tagging all his edits with that email adress he keeps writing into his posts. It can be searched for like this, that makes it easier to see when he starts vandalising again. Thanks for the help with the blocking, much appreciated. AadaamS (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
91.10.95.66 (talk) was active almost 16 months ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Urgent: MTA (New York City) dead links[edit]

There are a lot of dead links on MTA (New York City)-related pages because MTA recently moved all its pages to new URLs.

For example, the URL http://www.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/ridership_sub_annual.htm was moved to http://web.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/ridership_sub_annual.htm.

The URLs all have to be changed from http://www.mta.info/... to http://web.mta.info/...

This is urgent, as 500+ pages make use of the old http://www.mta.info/... URLs. Can someone with AWB do this? Epicgenius (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the sort of job a bot can handle. WP:BOTREQ is the place to ask. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I've posted a request there. Thank you for pointing me to the right page, Mjroots. Epicgenius (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Help with editor determined to add his own photos to Japanese train articles[edit]

An editor has recently started replacing good-quality images in a number of Japanese train articles, with photos he himself uploaded, but which are unfortunately of poor to mediocre quality. I have reverted his changes on a number of occasions, as have other editors, but unfortunately he just reverts again without comment and appears unable or unwilling to communicate in any way, even after being asked him to comment, both on his Talk page and on the Talk pages of the relevant articles. I'm not happy with the choice of poor-quality images being added, but am unwilling to get dragged into an edit war, so maybe some of the editors from this project can have a look, and comment on the corresponding Talk pages or restore the better images where appropriate. The main pages concerned are:

As a bit of background, the editor involved here, 銚電神, appeared on English Wikipedia only recently after being blocked indefinitely on Japanese Wikipedia for edit warring and sock-puppetry. --DAJF (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I seem to remember that this issue of someone replacing quality images of Japanese trains with inferior alternatives came up last year. I found it here in the archives. Is it the same person? G-13114 (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
You're right, but I don't think they are the same person. This user is just determined to get all of his own photos all over Wikipedia articles regardless of the quality. --DAJF (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

railgauge template[edit]

Other opinions are welcome at Talk:Robert Stephenson#railgauge template about the use of the {{railgauge}} template. Edgepedia (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

And there always exists Template talk:RailGauge -DePiep (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Identification needed for earthmoving train[edit]

What is this?

Hi train Gurus! Do any of you know what this equipment might be? I saw it at Ostbahnhof in Munich, but I didn't have time to ask any of the personnel about it. --Slashme (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)