Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains

The Trains WikiProject
General information
Main project page	(WP:TWP)	talk
Portal	(P:Trains)	talk
Project navigation bar		talk
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
Daily new article search	search criteria	talk
Task forces
Article maintenance		talk
Assessment backlog elim. drive		talk
By country series		talk
Categories		talk
Images		talk
Locomotives		talk
Maps		talk
Rail transport in Germany		talk
Monorails		talk
Operations		talk
Passenger trains		talk
Portal		talk
Rail transport modelling		talk
Timelines		talk

New rail succession template

I'm announcing that I've just created the Category:Illinois and Indiana rail succession templates category. I'd like to be able to move the succession templates for Newark City Subway and Hudson-Bergen Light Rail as subcategories for the Category:New Jersey Transit succession templates, but the site isn't letting me do it. ----DanTD (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• UPDATE: I also made another for Florida, and Texas is next. I've even moved a few of them to appropriate state rail template categories. Just out of curiosity, why are there UK succession templates categorized as US succession templates? ----DanTD (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how did West Palm Beach (Tri-Rail station) get moved to this category, and why can't I find it there so I can remove it?

Now the South Shore Line and Buffalo Metro Rail stations are having this trouble too. Yet the ones I moved to California aren't, and neither are the Jacksonville Skyway ones. I'm putting off Texas until I know it won't screw things up. ----DanTD (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't want to be "moving" the category, you want to recategorize it. I think I've done what you want. Choess (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

AAARGHHHH!!!

How the hell are all these stations getting succession template categories that I can't find when I try to remove them?!?! ----DanTD (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidently you need to use "s-rail-next" instead of "s-rail" for the second line, or such was my inference based on Sacramento Valley Rail Station. This is probably documented in a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign reading "Beware of the Leopard". Choess (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That didn't work on any of the Buffalo Metro Rail stations. I haven't even tried to use your solution for the South Shore Line stations. ----DanTD (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have fixed those by fixing the "...left" and "...right" templates for the line: the category wasn't wrapped in a noinclude element. I'll take a look at South Shore. Choess (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

South Shore looks fine to me. You may have to clear cache to get the template changes to take, though. Choess (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I had them both with and withouth the "noinclude" elements and there was no difference. And it's still broken. ----DanTD (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Noinclude worked for the Buffalo line for me. I think you may have the old versions cached in your browser. Close down your browser, open a fresh window, go to Tools:Clear Private Data and check "Cache" only (Firefox), and try opening the pages again. Choess (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, so far it seems to be working. I used Wikipedia's standard purge technique(?action=purge). ----DanTD (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Something else I noticed

I see you must've also got rid of the British rail succession templates, but I noticed before that there were 21 subcategories, and now there are only 19. What happened to the other two? ----DanTD (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I found the answers. ----DanTD (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Texas Template is here

I finally added the one for Category:Texas rail succession templates. Can I be assured this won't screw anything up? ----DanTD (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, can somebody take this category away from Houston Intermodal Transit Center? ----DanTD (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Shazam. When you're adding template-specific categories to templates, make sure they're inside the noinclude element. Choess (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The category is gone, but the station is still showing up there... and yes I did purge it. I'm not sure I want to make new templates again. ----DanTD (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

According to this, sometimes you have to make an edit to get the category page to update. I did that and it works fine now. Choess (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

RailDriver contested prod

Another editor left a note on my talk page recently about the RailDriver article's potential speedy deletion. There has been some improvement and removal of the prod notice, but this article is still considered a candidate for AFD. The main contention is that of verifiability and making it seem less like advertising. I located a few other independent sites that discuss the product and listed them on the talk page, but there is a note there that if the article isn't further improved soon, it will be sent through AFD. Slambo (Speak) 11:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem looks like one of notability - I think you should list third party references to this product on the main page eg http://www.uktrainsim.com/index2.php?form_reader=raildriverreview

http://jmri.sourceforge.net/help/en/html/hardware/raildriver/index.shtml or even http://www.virginmedia.com/games/inpictures/gaming-controllers.php?ssid=4 (maybe not that one)

I'd also suggest adding it to the category Category:Train simulation video games even though it's really an add-on - so that poeple can find it..

The article may be a bit over detailed to be honest.

Bits like "It is light enough to move around but heavy enough to stay in place while in operation." make it sound like an advert - I'd cut that if I were you.

If you want someone else to try to rewrite it I'll have a go - but to be honest if the 'wiki-lords' are feeling uncharitable I doubt it would pass an AFD - even if rewritten - why not check to see if the person who has suggested it for deletion feels it is notable enough to be worth working on, or do they intend to propose it for deletion anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrolljon (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I did note the sources posted on the talk page, but as I have no particular interest in the product and cannot understand why it has a page and why it was ever assessed as B class, I am not interested in rewriting it. Perhaps it could be merged into another page with game controllers. Currently it is too much like an advert. Also the pivture is unlicensed and should be deleted, unless someone proves the correct licensing. See Wikipedia:Image use policy.

Jezhotwells (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest a merge to Train simulator (see other talk page), I too have little interest in this and don't really know enough about the topic to say whether or not it's worth keeping. I would guess that the article is too long and detailed as is. Still I would suggest holding off an AFD until someone turns up who actually knows about train sim. software. I've left links to here on the relevent software pages. Hopefully someone with an interest will notice and fix it up. I've added a 'advert' tag to said page, though given the limitations listed in the article it's not a very good advert; it definately can't be described as advert-spam as is. I suggest waiting a bit. Carrolljon (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a brief listing at Game controller#Others might be best. There are a few other such controllers found at GoogleJezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree.Carrolljon (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added short links at Train simulator and Game controller (as a subset of "Instrument Panels"

For me that would be enough - the products main page is linked to.

That just leaves the page itself. I'm happy to leave it (an AFD if that is proposed) to someone impartial now the item has a brief mention in the relevent places.Carrolljon (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is now listed at AFD. Slambo 42 (unprivileged login of Slambo) - T 16:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And to think this was once a DYK article. This can't be good. ----DanTD (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Amtrak derailment... in Buffalo Grove, Illinois?

I just learned of a derailment of an Amtrak train in Buffalo Grove, Illinois. I was close to adding this event to the Buffalo Grove (Metra) article, but I paused for a moment, because I didn't think Metra shared the North Central Service line with Amtrak. I see, of course that the article says it's a freight train, but my local news outlet said it was Amtrak train. What gives? ----DanTD (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Your local news sucks, or you misheard "Antioch" --NE2 04:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably the first. They once referred to a pro-wrestling accident in Nassau Coliseum as being in New York City. ----DanTD (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Partial transcriptions of ICC valuations: better in user or Wikipedia space?

For a while I have been partially transcribing the ICC valuation reports, mainly the corporate history and development of fixed physical property (see Beech Creek Railroad for an example of the latter), at User:NE2/valuations and subpages. They are useful not only as sources, but also for "what links here" to find what happened to a former company. Would it be a good idea to move the pages to Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/valuations and subpages? --NE2 03:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Train wikiproject?

So this project is basically a central area for people to help with improving train articles right? Can anyone join? I railfan frequently and am interested in the history of trains. GNRY09 (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. You can. the list of members is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trains/Members and there are lists of things to do starting at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains -see the task force sections, or you could just start writing and improving articles on train subjects that interest you. If you are new the Wikipedia:HELP gives a massive amount of info on writing articles etc

If you get stuck in general - you can ask questions at Wikipedia:Questions, there's also the Wikipedia:reference desks for topical questions.

If you write an article why not tell us about it here and someone will probably have a look at it and maybe add even more useful info to it. Good luck.Carrolljon (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that we are on the subject, wouldn't it make more sense to call this WikiProject Rail transport? It does not just cover trains but many other vehicles as well e.g. trams and certain types of ferry. Simply south not SS, sorry 23:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That would have been a better name I think - but renaming it now might be difficult, or at least time consuming. Still if you want to propose a rename I will support you.Carrolljon (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Might as well.

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Should this project be renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rail transport to to the massive scope it covers, beyond trains and that? Simply south not SS, sorry 23:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This suggestion has come up before and the biggest reason not to go through with the move is the number of pages that would need to be updated. I'm still undecided but leaning toward the rename because of the scope that we've worked with for at least as long as I've been involved (wow, more than four years already!). The assessment categories already use the suggested new name (i.e. Category:Start-Class rail transport articles), so it might not be so bad as all that. Slambo (Speak) 11:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a new wrinkle for the valuation pages (see section above), simply because I would want to make sure that this rename doesn't happen after I move them. --NE2 11:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming the rename happens - if someone can point me towards a list of all the templates the project uses I would volunteer to change the text in those.

I assume some redirects would have to be made, and maybe some catagory names changed. - I believe there are 'bots' that can be programmed to change for instance all examples of "category:wikiprojecttrains" to "category:wikiprojectrailtransport" - does anyone know about this?

What else would have to be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrolljon (talk • contribs) 16:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It is possible to get a bot to change all links to a new place as well so the task may not be so burdened. Simply south not SS, sorry 17:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Cydebot does category replacement after a CFD discussion, and would probably do it without if we agreed to rename the project, --NE2 05:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Weak oppose I see the logic in the move but Trains seems so much more evocative. Trainspotting not railtransportspotting and I used to play with trains not rail transport vehicles as a kid (still gaze at them longingly). But, note that this is just a pro-forma weak oppose! --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 16:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(sounds like someone needs to break open their piggy-bank. it doesn't have to be "..used to..")

PS Why isn't there a railway modelling project - and does anyone have any thoughts on adding subsections of "scale models of." into locomotive/carriage etc articles - is it too trivial?Carrolljon (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wall Street already emptied out my piggy bank. Sigh! --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 19:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There is the Rail transport modelling task force. Generally adding scale models sections to articles is considered much like adding popular culture sections to articles. Many editors discourage this because they think it introduces a vast amount of {{trivia}} that does not substantially add to the narrative; we don't really need to know all of the manufacturers and available models throughout the years of the EMD F7, for example. I would usually agree with this except in rare cases such as on Pioneer Zephyr where a very limited number of models have been produced commercially. Slambo (Speak) 19:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Railfanning, not trainfanning --NE2 19:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

LEGO trains, not LEGO rail transport :) ++Lar: t/c 03:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Train-spotting not rail-spotting -- isn't that enough justification for a move on its own??
:o) EdJogg (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I have created a few articles about rail lines, and wondered if they were within the scope of this wikiproject. Apparently they are, and the name of the project does not adequately reflect its intended and actual scope. --Una Smith (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• neutral leaning to a weak oppose - no compelling reason either way, so it's busywork. This is project space, not article space, so names are not as important as they are in articlespace. Interested editors are almost certainly going to find the project from an article banner, so it could be called xyzzy and it would still work out fine. That said if there's consensus, and if someone wants to AWB everything, great. ++Lar: t/c 03:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- I started neutral, partly due to the amount of work required in changing pages, but on balance I think that 'rail transport' is a more scholarly name than 'trains' (one talks about 'playing trains', for example) and -- more impotantly -- more accurately reflects the scope of the project. This latter point is entirely in keeping with Wikipedia's policy on article naming.
  EdJogg (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose -- No need to rename; "Trains" is more invocative and catchy; "rail transport" sounds snooty.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 23:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Category - rolling stock leasing companies

Question - is there such a category - I can't seem to find anything?? If not where should the new category go - category experts please.Carrolljon (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC) UPDATE Category:Rolling stock leasing companies now exists - if anyone can add to it etc. Thanks.Carrolljon (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops

It seems there are now two categories - I need to do a merge - any advice on which to keep and which to delete - the choice is Category:Rolling stock leasing companies or Category:Rail transport leasing companies. Thanks.Carrolljon (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

merged - getting one deleted now.Carrolljon (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Category renaming proposal

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 23#Railroad categories --NE2 07:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Question - locomotion capital

Does anyone know anything about Locomotion Capital - as far as I can tell it was a joint venture between Vossloh and Angel Trains - My guess is that is was absorbed into Angel Trains cargo (european leasing company) - but as I said I can't find much more. It really should have at least a stub article - Thanks.Carrolljon (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Diesel Traction Group pages

The original page Diesel Traction Group has been moved to Diesel Traction Group (NZ) with a disambiguation link to Diesel Traction Group (UK). The British Rail Class 52 page has also had a link placed on it to Diesel Traction Group (UK) in the hope that such a page will eventually be written, meanwhile the Diesel Traction Group (NZ) page is being expanded. PatrickDunfordNZ (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Frank Smith (fireman)

The article Frank Smith (fireman) was recently reviewed through AFD and closed as a no consensus based on the signifigance of having participated in an historic event, the last steam powered train run in the UK. However, it appears that his run may not have been the last. I was wondering if somebody from Wikiproject trains with some familiarity with steam locomotive service in the UK could have a look at the material in the article and on talk:Frank Smith (fireman) and shed some light. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Timetables

This i just a small question based on past experiences on Wikipedia. Its probably just minor but i just want clarification as to what counts as original research when referencing timetables. Also, should timetables be used as references? Simply south not SS, sorry 14:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Passenger timetables: sufficient for the existence of a station or named train, unless there's evidence otherwise. Employee timetables: sufficient for line names, track geometry, signaling, etc. --NE2 15:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move notification

I have requested the move of Empire Builder to Empire Builder (Amtrak). Reasons given at the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

SNCF station templates

fr:Gare de Bordeaux-Saint-Jean and most of the French rail stations have great templates allowing to show the services that serve a specific station. Is there any way that we can make S-line work with SNCF stations? Thanks. gren グレン 19:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sure, the only issue is upkeep. Mackensen (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• Follow-up: It would help to find some definition of "lines." Those templates show the TGV (for example) going every which way, without much explanation. Mackensen (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

A great loss to any article bearing them. Either put these services in prose or a bulleted list but not an S-line table. If you must ruin articles by adding these monsters make it so they are hidden by default. All articles I have created and maintained do not have these templates on purpose as they do not offer any advantage over prose are cumbersome, are not esthetically pleasing are full or brands which are not wikilike and pretty much every property of these templates is unappealling. Gare de Pontoise is an example of how it ought to be done to avoid the Playmobil table. a simple navigation table at the bottom of a line's article (for the SNCF it is a nationally numbered line or a service) witha link to the line's article on a station's article. If there is no line article, red link to encourage edition. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

AFD for Frank Smith (fireman)

There is currently an AFD for Frank Smith (fireman) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Smith (fireman) (2nd nomination) which is discussing the last steam powered train service in the UK. As this AFD involves rail transport, your opionions would be valuable in the AFD. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Science Park MBTA station

I have a question about naming conventions for train stations. the current page Science Park/West End (MBTA station). They MBTA just recently added "West End to the signs at the station, but they have also stated that "West End" will not be added to mbta maps or to other documents.Should thsi page be named Science Park/West End (MBTA station) or just Science Park (MBTA station)? --Found5dollar (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Rogers Locomotive and Machine Works

User:Bedford has nominated Rogers Locomotive and Machine Works for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Another merger proposal

Back in January 2009 I requested that Boston and Maine Railroad Depot should be merged into Reading (MBTA station) since both stations are one in the same. Since it doesn't seem like anybody has been paying attention, I thought I'd address the issue here. I'm also going to bring this up on WikiProject NRHP. ----DanTD (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me if they're the same structure, or on the same site. Mackensen (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

List of defunct United States railroads

I've been thinking about this article recently. It will never be fully complete, and any attempt to complete it will be pretty thoroughly unmanageable. I've come up with a possible solution: split it by decade, for example list of defunct United States railroads (1990-1999). Every railroad that operated or owned trackage during that decade would be listed. Does this sound like a good idea? --NE2 04:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, perhaps in conjunction with the existing list. ----DanTD (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the existing list is feasible. There seems to be, at an absolute minimum, 10000-20000 defunct U.S. railroads, which would put it right at the top of Special:LongPages. --NE2 05:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely the answer is simply to split it into alphabetical subpages? These could be further split as required. The existing list page would act as master for all the others and explain the scope for inclusion on the list. (I'm sure I've seen this kind of splitting elsewhere, on lists of railway stations, maybe?)

Splitting by date sounds awfully difficult. During (1990-1999) for example, are you only going to list railroads that became defunct during that period? If so, the article title should reflect that, as in list of defunct United States railroads that became defunct during (1990-1999), since, with the previous title, any railroads that were defunct prior to 1990 could legitimately be included in the list!

The previous scopage of "Every railroad that operated or owned trackage during that decade would be listed." seems flawed, unless it is again implying that the railroads listed will have become defunct during the period (this is not clear).

EdJogg (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the main problems is that there are just so many that nobody's tried to complete the list. Splitting it by letter does nothing to make it easier, while splitting by date means that you only have to deal with a small period. I actually meant to title it list of United States railroads (1990-1999). --NE2 12:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It might be more practical to abandon a national list and focus on state-level lists. List of Michigan railroads, is more or less complete (it lists all companies which actually operated). Mackensen (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

List of common carrier freight railroads in the United States

I have redone this list, and I believe it to be almost complete. If people can check railroads that they're familiar with, that would be great. There are possibly a few outdated reporting marks, and Conrail doesn't seem to have one since 1999 (how can that be?). --NE2 22:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Regional Railroad of the Year and other similar boxes

I question whether we should have boxes like the one at the bottom of Wisconsin and Southern Railroad. It doesn't seem that being given one of these awards is important enough to call that much attention to. --NE2 06:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree. Only one railroad company per year is so named, which makes a succession box logical for navigation. It's important enough for at least one of the railroads so honored to note the honor on its locomotive cabs. I don't remember which one at the moment (I think it was one that operated around New York). Slambo (Speak) 11:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Steam traction technical details

Hello I am about to start improving the tractive effort article - unfortunately I don't know a lot about steam engines - specific it is clear that a steam engines tractive effort (when using a connecting rod type drive) would vary as the drive wheel rotates.

If anyone has any expert knwoledge on this - specifically the things steam engineers do to minimise or work with this effect - then it would be good if they could improve that section with more info, or alternatively leave links to sites dealing with this aspect on the pages talk section so that someone else could incorporate it. Thanks.87.102.43.12 (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Drawn images of liverys - conflict over removal

As described at Talk:CrossCountry#removal_of_picture there is some disagreement over the value of the 'computer drawn livery images'. I would suggest their blanket removal - others want to keep them - or start some project of standardisation.

My arguments for removal are fairly clear at the link above. ThanksFengRail (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the type of image I wish to remove:

As a suggestion - British Rail corporate liveries covers BR liveries in detail with references - note that the paint decription codes are provided. Inclusion of RAL (color space system) ,Pantone or British Standards color number or the equivalent would be important. Maybe a Post privatisation British railways corporate liveries page would be a good idea?FengRail (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 January 27#All livery image files for Toronto subway and RT stations (result: kept). All digital rendition of existing architectures, including those trivial part such as livery design and name tag image files are tolerable within Wikimedia. So what are you waiting for? Let's make Wikipedia a more artistic and pleasure place. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

File:TTC North York Centre Station - Digital Rendering.PNG

Are they accurate? If so, I don't see the problem. They're probably too simple to be copyrighted, and do a good job of showing what a train will look like (rather than just the head-on angle shots so popular with railfans). I see the above "North York Centre" as much more of a problem, since it seems to be "bloat" without any benefit. --NE2 02:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm the one who nominated the deletion for that station name tag rendition. This will serve us the precedent (though I imagine there's more nominations of the same respect before). Instead of nominating some random file, you should bring up a new consensus to establish a new policy "against" these unofficial second rendition by enthusiasts (be they Wikipedian or not) if you really think they're inappropriate in Wikimedia, I will vote for you. I do not prefer double standard, if either one is kept, the others should be kept as well not matter their purpose to exist is to offer eye candy for the related article. If the discussion generally agrees the inappropriateness, delete them all for good, and no files should be grandfathered. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a big difference between an image that shows what the train looks like and one that simply shows the station name on a tiled wall. --NE2 03:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, bring a new discussion in the general policy page and decide what's appropriate and what's not. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the argument that states "they show what they look like" - the images don't in my opinion give a realistic impression of what they look like. (especially because the pictures are totally flat with no perspective)

As to their use as a demonstration of the colour scheme I am more sympathetic - but the bitmap does not give any clue as to the type of paint - was it gloss, metallic, etc - what about metal trains - on the image they will look - grey? silver? from photograph it is easier to tell all these things due to reflections etc/

There are also issues of reliability of these self made images - which nobody who wants to use them has yet been willing to address.

Also I made the argument on the other page that if these images are ok, then a photo of model train makes a better illustration. - being three dimensional and professionally produced. Repeating my rhetoric again - does anyone seriously expect that an image of a model train makes a suitable illustration for an article on the "1:1 scale" model?

That sums up my point of view. Please feel free to copy it to the 'village pump' if you wish.FengRail (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Just assume how the opposite will counter in the discussion:
User A: "They're harmless. Considering the capacity of Wikimedia has been increased considerably, their size is extremely tiny and makes no difference to delete them."
User B: "I'm living there and encounter with the real object everyday. I can prove the accuracy of the rendition."
User C: "the entity the files represent is enough significant, they deserve to be kept."
User D: "If enthusiasts want to contribute free content like this, why not let them?"
These are the reasons that the Toronto subway and RT stations livery rendition to be kept. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Image creator

Curiously the creator of many of these images appears to have requested their deletion see User_talk:Unisouth#My images deleted and User:Unisouth - though I may have misunderstood that message. I have tried to contact them about this discussion anyway. (I'm not attempting deletion - just suggesting that they are unsuitable for the train articles - perhaps that amounts to the same thing)FengRail (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have supposed to be retired but this conversation is very hard to ignore. The original intention was to provide simple diagrams that shows off what the livery and the train looks like. It was never supposed to be 100% accurate. I believe they are OK for what they are but if you lot disapprove then delete them at will, I don't mind, in fact I want them removed because I don't want to share them now I am retired. Unisouth^(A•C) 08:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)