Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways

Template:Sheffield station

Moved to Template talk:Sheffield station

DMU identity

Someone uploaded this to commons. Can anyone identify what type of DMU this was? G-13114 (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@G-13114: It may be a British Rail Class 116. This image looks similar. Certes (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Class 116 motors flanking a Class 101 trailer. In later life, many of the class 116 trailers were withdrawn (for asbestos reasons) and replaced with spare trailers from other classes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Painting schedule of preserved locos

Do we really need this? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I've left the green, removed the transitory stuff and the unfounded optimism about schedules. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

And restored again... Andy Dingley (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

We need to do something about Moylesy98 (talk · contribs) and their continued contempt for the policy on verifiability, the manual of style, and their persistent inclusion of day-to-day events and future happenings. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I feel less strongly than you clearly do about this, but I'd have to agree all of your coments.

1. We don't care if it's in undercoat at present. That's unencyclopedic trivia, largely because it's so transitory.
2. The planned completion dates fail WP:CRYSTAL. Particularly so when they leap from year to year with a single edit, these just aren't sourced reliably enough to stand here. Completion dates for restoration projects (F*y*ng Sc*sm*n anyone?) are notoriously fluid. We are not here, as an encyclopedia, to record the optimistic hopes on projects.
3. Sourcing. We rely on sourcing, these are always somewhere between failing and ignoring it.
4. I don't care about "know more about 45596 than you as I am in the group." WP doesn't work that way. If you can't recognise that, there isn't room on WP for you. Also, just how many groups would you have to be a personal member of? You seem to keep scatter-gunning this stuff everywhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk) 23:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Oh well excuse me as im only stating the truth and know more about 45596 than you as I am in the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moylesy98 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Moylesy98: In which case you have a clear conflict of interest and must not edit articles about subjects with which you are involved. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Moylesy98 - You've had plenty of feedback. Further edits that breach WP:V and/or WP:COI and I will indeff you. Cease and desist or face the consequences. Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Another example - including a timestamp, which seems to have been frequently updated. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the timestamp. Wikipedia's software keeps track of when the article was updated. Mjroots (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Moylesy98: Remember that Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia, and consequently the typical audience and scope of what an article can cater for has to be more general and broad compared to what you can find in the archives of Ian Allen Publishing. It's also not the only website on the planet (not everything in http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/ makes it over here, for example), so if your work is reverted for the reasons stated above, it's nothing personal. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Seaton Tramway

Should the Seaton Tramway, well-known as a miniature tram in Devon and built in 1970, be described as "originally standard gauge"? It (mostly) follows the trackbed of the Beeching-axed Seaton branch. However that's a question of real estate, nothing else. There's no technical continuity or commercial continuity. It was a new private development, a relocation of a tramway from elsewhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Bure Valley Railway and Kirklees Light Railway are stated as originally standard gauge, so for consistency I'd say yes. Optimist on the run (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Yet the Exeter–Plymouth line, which is a direct evolutionary continuation of it, doesn't mention its broad gauge origin. "Consistency" (and I'm a big fan of the Emerson quote) is no substitute for accuracy, clarity and conveying useful information. Exeter-Plymouth should give its origin as broad gauge, but all three of the others are too far from the original railway for it to remain relevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Copy and paste from template:Infobox Heritage Railway:

• Commercial operations
  • linename name of the railway in its pre-preservation s*tate
  • builtby name of railway's constructor; most likely a railway company
  • originalopen original opening
  • originalgauge details of pre-preservation track gauge
  • originalrack details of pre-preservation rack system (if applicable)
  • originalelec details of pre-preservation electrification (if any)
    That is the guide. Peter Horn User talk 20:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

But it's not a preserved railway. It's a new-build tramway, in the same place. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

According to that reasoning Bure Valley Railway and Kirklees Light Railway are not preserved railways either but new-build heritage railways on the old track bed. However both were treated as being preserved railways, if only because they preserved the old track beds Read all the fields in template:Infobox Heritage Railway. Peter Horn User talk 01:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Heritage railway? You mean, "a railway operated as living history to re-create or preserve railway scenes of the past." – yet none of those three are re-creations or preservations of earlier railways?

And why are you adding more nonsense to the Seaton Tramway article, such as it being two foot gauge, or having third rail electrification? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Seaton Tramway
Commercial operations
Name	London and South Western Railway
Built by	London and South Western Railway
Original gauge	4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge
Original electrification	None
Preserved operations
Operated by	Seaton Tramway
Preserved gauge	2 ft 9 in (838 mm)
Preserved electrification	120 V
Commercial history
Opened	1838
Closed	(>)

The section Seaton Tramway#History told me that the Seaton tramway started out as a 2 ft operation and was converted to 2 ft 9 in at some point. The template used in all three previously mentioned operations is Template:Infobox Heritage Railway#Usage. Hence it is only appropriate that all the available data be entered into the infoboxes of the articles as defined by the fields of said template. However the original London and South Western Railway was apparently not electrified on that route. Peter Horn User talk 12:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

No, the article doesn't say that. I don't think it ever did. Even if it did, WP is not WP:RS.

The tramway did run for its first season as battery electric, but then went overhead once the lines were up - just as is normal for trams. It never had any sort of third rail, only you have said this. Nor did the L&SWR use electrification. To confuse the electrification over in the South East of England with happenings on a rural branch line in Devon - that's just slapdash. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

According to the template usage I said that the third rail was on the original London and South Western Railway, if the branch was electrified at all. According to the template usage, I NEVER said that it was on the tramway. Read and study the template as used. That said, template:Infobox tram network might possibly have been more useful in this article. Other than that, you may need new glasses. Peter Horn User talk 15:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC).

LSWR electrification was purely suburban in nature, and did not get any closer to Seaton than Surbiton, which was reached in 1916. Subsequent extensions to the system by the Southern Railway and BR eventually brought electrification to Worting Junction (and Bournemouth) in 1967, but no further along the main line to Exeter. The closest as the crow flies is Dorchester/Weymouth, which was reached in 1988. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

So in this field |originalelec = None is correct, Peter Horn User talk 18:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Just leave it off, it only causes unnecessary clutter. After all, I assume that you're going to omit |originalrack= --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Commons: CfD - Category:Locomotives of Great Britain up for deletion

Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/06/Category:Locomotives of Great Britain

Or maybe a rename to 1435mm track gauge locomotives of the United Kingdom? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thameslink and Great Northern

Someone hasproposed a semi split/merge of sorts of Thameslink and Great Northern. See Talk:Thameslink and Great Northern#Merge discussion. Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 22:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

As this has no objections, I propose we follow through and split the Southern article into GTR and pre-GTR. Talk:Southern_(Govia_Thameslink_Railway)#Split_discussion. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Chains, again

See recent all edits of 86.181.161.141 (talk) also Talk:East Croydon station#Chains. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: The disruption on East Croydon continues; I requested temporary page protection, to which the responding admin—one Fish and Karate—made an editorial decision to refuse on the grounds that, "having these articles specify the distances in miles and chains is really stupid"—wtf?! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Chains RFC

The issue of the use of chains has again reared its head. It is now time to put this to bed by having a discussion and reaching consensus on the use of chains in railway articles.

Articles likely affected

Articles on railway stations and railway lines in the British Isles.

Articles possibly affected

Artcles on railway stations and railway lines where the British had strong influence in their construction. Basically the British Empire and other areas, such as Argentina.

The dispute

Some editors claim that the use of chains should be deprecated as they are a generally archaic measurement. Other editors claim that the use of chains is appropriate as long as external sources use chains, and that chains are a unit of measurement still used by the modern railway in the United Kingdom today.

Previous discussions

• Talk:Darlington railway station#Distance from London (January 2018)
• Talk:East Croydon station#Chains (July 2018)

Policies affecting this dispute

• WP:V

Guidelines affecting this dispute

• WP:MOSUNIT
• WP:JARGON

Enforcement proceedures affecting this dispute

• WP:GS/UKU

I therefore submit the following two proposals for adoption. Mjroots (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for adoption (I)

The use of chains as a unit of measurement in articles on railway lines and railway stations is appropriate, where chains (or miles and chains) are given in a quoted source. Where chains are not given in a quoted source, they should not be introduced by way of conversion, but decimal miles and decimal kilometres (to two decimal points) shall be used. For example High Speed 1 was built in metric units.

Support

1. Mjroots (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

   Optimist on the run (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC) switching support to option III

3. Jc86035 (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
4. SovalValtos (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
5. Dr Sludge (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
6. Serial Number 54129 11:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
7. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
8. Markbassett (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC) (prefer proposal 3)
9. Salix alba (talk): 07:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
10. scope_creep (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
11. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Fish+Karate 09:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC) - I oppose using just chains and km, I am ok with using fractional (decimal) miles, chains, and km, in any order. Fish+Karate 10:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Mangoe (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Mark999 (talk) Mark999 (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
4. Carrite (talk) 06:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
5. The chain should never be the primary unit. A conversion (from mi or km) to chains is acceptable if sourced. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
6. What is appropriate for technical use within the industry is very different from what is appropriate for encyclopedia readers. I don't think we can expect readers to know about chains, so we should not present distances to them in those units. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for adoption (II)

Where chains are given as a measurement, then conversion shall be from miles and chains to kilometres (two decimal places). Where the conversion is 49 chains (1078yds or 985.7m) or less, conversion shall be to metres. Conversion from miles and chains to decimal miles and kilometres shall be deprecated.

Support

1. Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

   Andy Dingley (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC) In favour of Option III below

Oppose

1. Jc86035 (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Dr Sludge (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
3. ianmacm (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
4. Fish+Karate 09:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
5. Mangoe (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
6. Mark999 (talk) Mark999 (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
7. Markbassett (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
8. The chain should never be the primary unit. A conversion (from mi or km) to chains is acceptable if sourced. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for adoption (III)

(Per Ianmacm below) Where chains are given as a measurement, then conversion shall be from miles and chains to both decimal miles and kilometres (two decimal places).

e.g. "It is 10 miles 28 chains (10.35 mi; 16.66 km) measured from London Bridge."

Support

1. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Fish+Karate 09:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
3. ianmacm (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
4. Jc86035 (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
5. Mangoe (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC) but prefer IV below
6. Dr Sludge (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
7. Mark999 (talk) Mark999 (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
8. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
9. GrindtXX (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
10. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
11. Optimist on the run (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
12. Markbassett (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
13. Salix alba (talk): 07:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
14. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
15. Maproom (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Mjroots (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
2. scope_creep (talk) 08:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
3. The chain should never be the primary unit. A conversion (from mi or km) to chains is acceptable if sourced. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for adoption (IV)

Distances shall be shown in miles and/or kilometres. Chains shall not be used.

e.g. "It is 10.35 miles (16.66 km) measured from London Bridge."

Support

1. This or III, which I think has more chance of succeeding. Fish+Karate 12:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Mangoe (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Carrite (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Optimist on the run (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Mjroots (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
4. The joy of all things (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
5. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
6. Dr Sludge (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
7. Mark999 (talk) Mark999 (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
8. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
9. GrindtXX (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
10. ClemRutter (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
11. Markbassett (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
12. This would require misrepresentation of at least some sources. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
13. scope_creep (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
14. I see no need to deprecate a conversion (from mi or km) to chains if sourced. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
15. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Just to note that if chains are an archaic measurement (which I dispute), the so are furlongs, but that doesn't stop horse races being measured in them. Optimist on the run (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm opposing proposal II primarily because chains are nowadays a fairly rare unit of measurement and it may help some readers in the US, UK and a few other countries to specify decimal miles. If it were common there wouldn't be multiple editors mocking the article for containing an archaic unit of measurement out of context and/or editing the article to replace said unit. Jc86035 (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I've supported a compromise option, which is "It is 10 miles 28 chains (10.35 mi; 16.66 km) measured from London Bridge." This is enough to keep the railway purists happy while avoiding the MOS:JARGON problem.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, so I'll add it as a formal option. Although it's unclear what the best imperial unit would then be for shorter distances - yards? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Fractional miles, maybe. 0.5 miles = 40 chains, and so on. Maybe switch to yards for really short measurements (10 chains or less?), as 3 chains is a lot easier to parse as 66 yards / 60.3 meters than it is as 0.0375 miles. Fish+Karate 10:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Neither of the two options are satisfactory to me. My preference would be to deprecate the use of chains entirely, following the MOS:JARGON principle that states Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do. Failing a complete deprecation, then at the very least the distance should be given in fractional miles / kilometers for the benefit of the reader, with chains also provided if they must be. We should not expect our readers to be expert in archaic railway measurements, and we should not expect them to have to stop and work out what "1 mile 48 chains" means, when "1.6 miles" is much easier for the average person who thinks in miles to comprehend (I exclude those who prefer their distances in kilometers, as I think everyone is in agreement that a kilometer conversion is appropriate). I would also like to nip in the bud the idea that just because a source gives a distance in miles and chains, it would be original research or some weird violation of WP:V to convert it to fractional miles. Converting a distance for the convenience of the reader is not breaking WP:V. Fish+Karate 09:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

If neither option is acceptable, then you are at liberty to oppose both. I honestly won't think any the less of you for doing so. You are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine, and a civil discussion is taking place. That is how it should be. If the use of decimal miles is not deprecated, then these conversions may be included. You will notice that I have not edited the East Croydon station article to remove the decimal miles conversion. The issue is being discussed and that means the status quo is maintained until a decision is made.

Chains are hardly "new" or "specialised". They have been a standard unit of measurement for hundreds of years in the British Isles. It is accepted that they are not a "common" measurement nowadays outside of the rail network, although I do believe some horse race distances may be quoted in miles, furlongs and chains. The use of furlongs in the horse racing world does not seem to be challenged. For the benefit of those unfamiliar 10 chains = 1 furlong, 8 furlongs = 1 mile (80 chains). Mjroots (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Please can you insert a third option, proposing IanMacM's format, which I would support? Or would you be happy for me to do so? This RFC would have been much easier for editors to parse by just proposing the possible different formats, and asking people to pick their preferred option(s). Like so:

1. It is 10 miles 28 chains (10.35 mi; 16.66 km) measured from London Bridge
2. It is 10 miles 28 chains (16.66 km) measured from London Bridge
3. It is 10.35 miles (16.66 kilometres; 10 miles 28 chains) measured from London Bridge
4. It is 10.35 miles (10 mi 28 ch; 16.66 km) measured from London Bridge
5. It is 10.35 miles (16.66 km) measured from London Bridge

And so on. I would add that nobody has said chains are a new measure. I don't think it's right, though, to say that chains are not a specialised measure, if they are exceedingly uncommon outside of the rail network or horse racing. And in horseracing, race distances in the United Kingdom are measured in miles, furlongs and yards. Fish+Karate 09:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like I was beaten to it. A third proposal has already been inserted. Interesting re horse racing being in miles, furlongs and yards. For some strange reason, tunnels are only measured in yards or miles and yards, not in chains. Again, I'm in favour with going with what the source says, and not introducing other measurements except conversion to metric. Mjroots (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The third proposal is much better, as the two options you proposed are 1) We use chains and km if there is a source or 2) We use chains and km whether there is a source or not. That is either deliberately or inadvertently missing the point of people's objections in the first place, which was "why are we using chains at all". The third proposal still uses chains, so it's a compromise, but at least helps the reader by translating them into fractional miles and km. Fish+Karate 10:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The reason why we use chains at all is because sources use them. So we are adering to a policy (WP:V), which trumps a guideline (WP:MOS). It may have been better for the last sentence of my Proposal II to have been listed separately as Proposal III, but it's too late now to change it. Mjroots (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

But the source being in chains doesn't mean we can't convert them instead, or as well. And just a note that while I don't, and I don't think anyone does, really want to go looking to change the RFC now, it's never too late to change, or re-start, a bad RFC. Fish+Karate 12:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNIT states In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units, except that: [copying bullet point one only] UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn up in (but road distances are given in imperial units, with a metric conversion – see next bullet); If the sources use miles, chains and yards then this MOS guidance specifically allows for their use in articles as long as conversions are added assuming it is accepted that railway lines/station articles etc are engineering topics. Incidentally WP:UNIT also allows for the use of archaic measurements like hands for the height of horses. Nthep (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm reluctantly ok with chains providing we also provide a conversion into decimal miles and km. I've been convinced that far. Fish+Karate 12:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of the antiquity of chains, and their lingering relevance to issues of surveying and real estate, their use in British rail articles is obscure to outsiders, even the American rail-savvy. American employee timetables prefer tenths of a mile, for comparison. Since we can and are even allowed to do simple arithmetic, I don't see verification as an issue here, even if decimal amounts are somewhat less precise, as it's easy enough to verify that they reflect the value in chains. Mangoe (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mangoe: - That the chain is obscure presents an opportunity for Wikipedia to educate the reader, by clicking on the link and going to the article. It is part of Wikipedia's remit to educate, is it not? Mjroots (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

As I believe was mentioned above, "do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do" already answers that. Mangoe (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mangoe: Why do you feel that the chain is a "new word"? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Pretty sure Mangoe meant (and that the MOS:JARGON guidance means) it was "new to the reader", not a new word as in a word that has only existed for a short time. For instance, until I arrived here, chains were an unknown unit of measurement to me, and thus a "new word". —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

As far as furlongs in the horse racing articles are concerned, the North American articles all give race lengths in miles and fractions, then miles and furlongs (and meters if they remember, which they frequently don't); the Aussies and Kimis use meters. It's only the British and Irish articles that omit fractional/decimal miles. SO presumably the corresponding project has institutionalized the same exceptionalism. Mangoe (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned that a chain is the distance between the wickets on a cricket pitch – a sight that will be familiar to many English speakers outside North America. Maproom (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm pro-chain as the main unit of measurement. The UK rail network is mostly measured in miles and chains (hello there LU, HS1 and all you other crazy exceptions), and while we are allowed to convert I think it's sensible to keep the original unit of measurement. I certainly don't think we should go with miles and yards, as that would be giving unjustified accuracy. I don't think however that chains are appropriate for the lead of the article. I've written a number of Good Articles about stations, and experience there has given me the following standard:

• The lead should include distance from the local terminus, in integer miles and kilometres (or 1 decimal place if it's a distance under say 3 miles).
• The description section should include distance from the local and national termini (plus adjacent stations) in miles and chains with a conversion to 2dp kilometres.
• When first introduced, chains should be linked and a note left stating that UK railways are, for historical reasons, measured in miles and chains, and that there are 80 chains for each mile.
• Distances should be measured as appropriate - platform lengths are generally in yards (convert to metres), distances if a station is resited would be in chains, and whatever unit the source states should go first.

It's not perfect, and I welcome the clarity this RfC will hopefully bring. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Miles and chains is how they are measured. We must retain the unit or we lose accuracy. When we do the convert, there are some interesting points to consider.

• Internal consistency: once it is decided to do miles chains =>(miles centimiles, km m) once, all conversions in that article should be of that format. The test should not be whether the each geotag has a source quoting chains, but any.
• Centimiles are a made up unit, miles to 2dp are units for expressing a rounded approximate distance.
• I believe that in railway uses such as on the HS1, distances are measured in km to 3dp- again km to 2dp would be seen as a rounded approximate distance.ClemRutter (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking proposal 1 to show chains if used in cite is decent, except that one probably could always find the track atlas that shows use of chains or one could always google up something that does not use chains so it becomes a useless guide. I'd think it depends more on the context but that too is debatable and it would perhaps confuse folks to sometimes show one way and sometimes show another so for now I'm thinking proposal 3 (just show both) is simpler to use and understand. I'd suggest that Imperial measures and Gunter's chain should also be shown as a background topic, just as one might expect Gauge to address variations in measure. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Markbassett: - the intention of Proposal 1 is that if a source uses chains, then the article can. That another source doesn't use chains does not nullify the validity of the source that does use chains. However, should it be the case that no sources can be found that use chains, then they shall not be introduced by way of conversion. Mjroots (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Mjroots - Understood. But I'm dubious on how much if any such actually exist. I'm thinking that almost all lines are old enough to be in a track atlas that uses chains and the Engineer's Line Reference refers to it, such as this. Even if a new line is made that was not made to imperial measure, I would not be surprised to find external references provide a translation -- so I'm dubious that 1 has any realistic utility. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Miles/chain information will always be available because it's what Network Rail uses. You don't need to go searching obscure books to find the data. NR has released its definitive source into the public domain (the Sectional Appendix - check out our wikipage about it). The SA comes in 7 flavours and currently lives at http://archive.nr.co.uk/browseDirectory.aspx?root=&dir=%5csectional%20appendix%5cSectional%20Appendix%20full%20PDF%20copies. I suggest you download them all for safe keeping, since NR may take them down eventually. It's not the end of the world if they do though, as there are railway professionals here who own some printed versions. If you need info, or help deciphering them all you have to do is ask. Dr Sludge (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This book uses miles and chains:

• Kelman, Leanne (December 2017) [1987]. Brailsford, Martyn (ed.). Railway Track Diagrams 1: Scotland & Isle of Man (6th ed.). Frome: Trackmaps. ISBN 978-0-9549866-9-8.

It was published seven months ago and depicts the railway network as of November 2017. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

And that has nothing whatsoever to do with what a general work like Wiki should show. The question is not what is used within the industry, it's whether it is for obsessives or the general public. The general public neither know, nor ought to know, what a chain is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.239.153 (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@86.180.239.153: Could you express support/oppose for the various options given above? Thanks--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Speaking as an historian, I do know what a chain, rod, perch, rood, and acre is. I'm also quite happy with pounds, shillings and pence too. gallons, bushels, pecks, firkins, barrels, tuns? Yep, I know about them as well. That a reader doesn't know what a chain is, gives Wikipedia the chance to enlighten that reader, by means of a wikilink and article. Mjroots (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what modular forms are, and our article about them enlightens me not one bit. But I don't cry out for its removal. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Terrible analogy. The average person can understand an amount given in chains through the application of a bit of 2nd grade arithmetic, but it's going to take a lot of math education to get anywhere with modular forms. Mangoe (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dondervogel 2: None of the proposals suggest to use chains as the primary unit. Two of them mention miles and chains, that is, a meaurement such as 10 miles 28 chains. Think of it like feet and inches, or pounds and ounces. For proposals I, II and III, you wrote "A conversion (from mi or km) to chains is acceptable if sourced." - but none of these proposals are to do that conversion but the opposite, indeed, prop I says where chains are given in a quoted source (original italics). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: The unit chain is poorly defined and unfamiliar to most readers. Mixing it with the mile does not change that, but just complicates the conversion to well defined and familiar units. There is always merit in converting to the units of the original source, and even stating the exact value in those units where precision is an issue, but not be at the expense of clarity. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Please clarify proposal I. Currently the first sentence reads The use of chains as a unit of measurement in articles on railway lines and railway stations is appropriate, where chains are given in a quoted source. Unlike proposals II and III, this one does not mention miles and chains - and I think that some people may be reading it as if it were chains alone, that is, it is suggesting that we would write 828 chains (16.66 km). I don't think that was your intention. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I've clarified the proposal to say "chains (or miles and chains)". The latter will generally be the case in sources. Mjroots (talk) 07:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)