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

One other H10-44

There is also a Milwaukee Road H10-44 in excellent cosmetic condition at the Brodhead, Wisconsin Museum. It sports number 781 and was built in 1950. I have no indication of operational condition but it sits on an isolated track with Milwaukee Road Caboose 01900.

Renaming VIA Rail Canada lines

Back in 2009, VIA Rail Canada stripped names from all its trains except for the Canadian and Ocean. The articles haven't yet been moved. I've done one, but would like to see consensus before continuing.

Hudson Bay (train) has been moved to Winnipeg–Churchill train. What do you think? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Going ahead with moves if no comments in 2 weeks. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ugh! I don't know if that's depressing, disgraceful, or both! ----DanTD (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's what Via uses, so that's what we'll use. If you object to it, what do you think we should do?— Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 12:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I wish I knew. By comparison, SEPTA's removal of "R-Numbers" from their Regional Rail system was tolerable. The bigger problem would be if two separate VIA lines shared the same destinations. ----DanTD (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles generally go by the common name, not necessarily the official or "formal" name where there is such a thing. That's why Calvin Cordozar Broadus is merely a redirect to Snoop Dogg. If the subject of an article has "officially" had its name changed but other sources still use the old name, I might oppose a rename. There's room to use some common sense, too. What do sources say? bobrayner (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, no VIA rail lines share common endpoints. As for the common name part of it, here is Via spokesperson Ali Macreag, quoted in the Oct 2009 Trains Magazine:

"We attempted to simplify designations along with the relaunch of our Web site because research showed that our customers were not only confused by all the different branding, but they couldn't remember the name of the train they were on or the class of service they traveled."

Therefore, I assume that the new name is intended to be used as the public name and that travelers refer to it that way. As for sources, travel reports tend not to mention the name of the train.— Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Going ahead. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Past railroads at Dallas and other Union Stations

I've been trying to ask editors that I thought would be in the know, but they haven't answered me. Does anybody know exactly which railroads used Union Station (Dallas) before Amtrak took over passenger service in the United States in 1971? I have a few suspicions, bur I want to be able to confirm them. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of Union Station articles that don't cover the railroads they had originally served. ----DanTD (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The Museum of the American Railroad in Dallas is one good source for that kind of thing. Railroads merged and changed names as decades went by, but a quick answer, true circa 1950, would be:

Santa Fe

Fort Worth and Denver Railway (Burlington Route subsidiary)

Rock Island

Burlington-Rock Island (jointly owned by the last two)

Cotton Belt

Frisco

Katy

Southern Pacific

T&P

The Union Terminal Company, owned by seven railroads, owned the station and trackage there. See the Handbook of Texas, a reliable source, for historical info on these lines in Texas and the station itself. You may also try googling up old Texas railroad maps to get a visual sense of how these railroads all converged on Dallas and Fort Worth as well, making this area a major rail hub, which it still is today. Pity nobody thought, fifty years ago, of developing an extensive commuter rail system on this network, which is only just now becoming a viable thing, at enormous cost. Textorus (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. Perhaps I should try the Handbook of Texas for Union Depot (El Paso) as well. ----DanTD (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Railroad-specific dab template

Earlier today, I created a dab-page for Berwyn Station, and after checking out the massive number of dab tags, I noticed there were others that specific categories, So how about a {{disambig railroad station}} tag? ----DanTD (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm just a little wary of the extra complexity (ie. having to remember yet another template :-)

What would the benefits be? bobrayner (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

How about the fact that there are 130,271 general dab pages as of this writing, and a railroad-specific one will narrow it down? ----DanTD (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that you should also seek the opinion of WP:WPDAB, and bear in mind a recent multiple TfD. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Color bars in infoboxes

User:Secondarywaltz and/or at least one other anonymous IP has been removing color bars from station infoboxes, because he/they finds them redundant. Can this be settled without an edit war? ----DanTD (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We are talking only about Infobox station here. The lines and colors are included in s-rail/s-line templates. If those templates are entered under {{{services}}} the simplified information under {{{lines}}} is redundant. We have many overstuffed infoboxes which would benefit from this reduction. What purpose does the duplication serve? Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, as there are certain stations that serve multiple lines, but to save space, don't show everything in the s-line. Jamaica (LIRR station) comes to mind. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The situation at Jamaica Station is not what we are talking about here. That is a mess. Let me restate the case. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• In Infobox station there are two parameters for the entry of information about service to the station. According to the documentation {{{lines}}} is for a "List of services that serve the station" while {{{services}}} "Allows inclusion of the s-rail/s-line boxes". What I have advocated is that when both sets are exactly the same, then {{{lines}}} is redundant, and can be removed, because the succession boxes in {{{services}}} include that same basic information within a more detailed format. Look at Union Station (Washington, D.C.) for an example of a larger station where the infobox is overloaded with duplicated sets of lines. Amtrak: 10 lines, same 10 services. MARC: 3 lines, same 3 services. VRE: 2 lines, same 2 services. The Metro succession box there does not even belong under services, because the subway does not operate from that facility. There will be many cases where this does not apply, but where it does we can greatly reduce the clutter and make the infobox more readable. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

They serve different purposes. The {{{lines}}} section is, as you say, simply a list of the services that stop at the station. The {{{services}}} section, despite its name, serves to list the next and previous stations. Now, naturally, that includes listing the services, but listing the services is not the reason the section is included. In short, its purpose is to list the adjacent stations and allow direct navigation to their articles, and therefore has a separate reason and purpose than the {{{lines}}} section. There may be some redundancy, but it's not too bad.

Also, there's the issue of s-line templates being transcluded. That makes them more prone to breakage, so having some redundancy helps keep the article usable if and when the s-line portion is incapacitated. It's a positive redundancy.oknazevad (talk) 13:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a classic case of where we just have to agree to differ. I will not touch any of the station articles that some of you are so touchy about. I just can't see why you would need to keep completely redundant information in an overloaded infobox. What purpose does it serve? So in the spirit of the season, Merry Christmas and Happy Rails to you. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to go with Secondarywaltz on this one. I can see using one or the other of these sections, but not both, because the {{{services}}} section necessarily includes the {{{lines}}} information. Mangoe (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sacramento RT Station Naming Conventions

I see something seriously wrong with the way a lot of Sacramento Light Rail stations are named. Back in May 2009, some user renamed stations like Roseville Road (Sacramento RT) to Roseville Road. If I looked up "Roseville Road," I'd think that was a link to an actual road or street. I might even think it's the name of part or all of a state or US highway. Why should Sacramento get all their system names removed from their articles? ----DanTD (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

They shouldn't. The user was acting against project naming conventions, and should be reverted, with a pointer to the project for potential discussion (if they're still around; its been a while.)oknazevad (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I went ahead and renamed everything but the split stations. ----DanTD (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Good houskeeping! How about names like Beaverton Creek, Hatfield Government Center, Hawthorn Farm, Gresham City Hall, North Prescott Street, etc? Check out the Category:MAX stations where most of the stations are similarly named. The whole naming convention is a mess, They do not even follow the official map, which for example uses SE instead of Southeast, leading to long cumbersome article names. Well, anyway, I'm not going near that one. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That will be time consuming, but I can give it a shot. Right now, though, I'm going to go out and pick up some pizzas. ----DanTD (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: Wow, Secondarywaltz! No wonder you got all worked up about the MAX stations. I actually had to redirect one of them, and judging by your description, I think I'm going to have to rename a lot of them AGAIN! While I think it's foolish to have the abbreviations for NW, NE, SW, and SE, instead of Northwest, Northeast, Southwest, and Southeast, if that's the way they do it, I fear I may not have a choice. But not now, though. I'd like to go to sleep. ----DanTD (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Just as a thought, some may object to the use of the abbreviations for intermediate directions, based on the idea of spelling out abbreviations in article names (unless the abbreviation is commonly used in most every source). That said, if the official, proper noun names use the abbreviations, such objections are, in my opinion, moot.oknazevad (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If you look at photos attached to some articles you will see that the official signage also uses abbreviations (as well as the maps). Since the convention of naming in full already exists here, I wouldn't change all that now anyway. The point was just a comment on the poorly conceived process. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Montrain

The article Montrain has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no WP:RS for the content of this article. Fails WP:V and WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I just threw a link into the article. If that doesn't work, perhaps it should be merged into AMT. ----DanTD (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD notice

American Steam Railroad has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

2007 Painesville, Ohio train derailment has also been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hainan Eastern Ring Railway

Could someone please have a quick look at the infobox. I'm quite lost when it comes to gauges and radii. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The curve radius and gradient looked very wrong to me (I've changed one to a more plausible value, and removed the other, til we can get a realistic number from some source or other). What source did you use? Maybe something got twisted in translation; chinese whispers, perhaps. bobrayner (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I just pinched it from here, which actually says m and mm. I accidentally put both as mm. I will try to dig up a source. Thanks for your help in fixing it up. (hoooo hooooooooo ling ling ling ling) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah. The gradient in that article is 12‰ not 12%. That's an easy one to overlook (and % is more familiar to most lay readers) so I've converted it to 1.2% in your article. However, none of the refs on that http://zh.wikipedia.org article appear to mention the gradient. Finding a chinese-language source may be an uphill struggle. bobrayner (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw that ‰ and thought it was a translation mistake. I'm sure facts will come along. The railway doesn't even have a website yet. Thanks again for your help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

% is per cent, or parts per hundred, ‰ is per mil, or parts per thousand. Mjroots (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the first time I ever saw that in my life. Cool. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There's now an article in Railway Gazette which is more accessible to anglophones. Some of the numbers differ from what's in the article - that's a problem. bobrayner (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Eurotunnel Class 0001

Request for images at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Image_request_Eurotunnel_Class_0001 - someone living near the channel tunnel with a camera etc.. Please respond there, and a belated happy new year.Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Fréjus/Mont Cenis Railway

Despite the line having been projected as Chambéry-Modane-Turin in what was initially a single country, there are two different articles for the French and Italian part of the line. Furthermore the first article makes confusion between the Chambéry-Modane-Turin and the Mont Cenis Pass Railway, giving wrong links (the interwiki link on the left leads to the Mont Cenis Pass Railway fr.wiki article, the link called "Mont Cenis Pass Railway" in the main text leads to the Fréjus tunnel article). I think both articles should be merged, as they describe what was historically a single railway. Finally a clear dinstinction should be made between the "Mont Cenis" and "Fréjus" names, they are two different mountain passes: the confusion is created because the Chambéry-Modane-Turin cross the Alps under the Fréjus pass, but is often called "Mont Cenis railway" because it replaced the Mont Cenis railway and road, which is some dozen of kilometres away from the Fréjus pass. I hope this is clear...any comment? Coccodrillo (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Fréjus railway article appears to have begun life as a translation of its it.wiki equivalent, and the Mont Cenis Railway as a brand new article. The former describes the section of the overall railway that is now in Italy, and the latter describes what is now in France. I would suggest that they be left as two separate articles. However, I agree that there should be some co-ordination of them. At the very least, each should have a "See also" section with a link to the other article. It would also be desirable for the text of each to state clearly that the relevant article describes only a section of a single overall railway.

Finally, I agree that there are several problems with the Mont Cenis Railway article. One problem is that the article is wrongly named. It should be named "Maurienne railway" (or similar) and interwikilinked with fr:Ligne de la Maurienne. A second problem is that the fr:Chemin de Fer du Mont-Cenis article has no en.wiki equivalent, and therefore should not be interwikilinked to en.wiki at all. A solution to both of these problems would be to create a new article named "Maurienne railway" (or similar) as a translation of the fr.wiki article about that railway, and then rewrite the Mont Cenis Railway article as a translation of the fr.wiki Chemin de Fer du Mont-Cenis article. I would be happy to do both of these jobs, but I can't start immediately, because I'm presently working on another project. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If we decide to keep the two articles separate we will have to choose entirely new names (as Mont Cenis and Fréjus are, in the case of the railway, quite synonyms), and decide where to split the line, like "Maurienne railway". But where should we split the line? At the border station of Modane or in the middle of the Fréjus tunnel? But I still think we should consider it a single line, just like the Brenner railway (plus an article for the Mont Cenis Pass railway). Coccodrillo (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the logic of what you are suggesting. However, the problem is that it.wiki already has an article about the Italian part of the line, and fr.wiki already has an article about the French part of the line. If we were to continue with two articles in en.wiki, we could interwikilink one of them with the it.wiki article and the other one with the fr.wiki article. So I think it would be sensible to continue with two articles. From what I can gather, the place where the voltage changes from Italian 3,000 V to French 1,500 V is Modane. I therefore also think that Modane should be the place where each article should end. How about naming one article "Turin–Modane railway" and the other one "Culoz–Modane railway"? That would mean that both articles would have unambiguous names that conform with standard practices for naming en.wiki articles about railway lines. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Calling the two articles "Turin-Modane" and "Culoz-Modane" is as you suggest is accettable, but then where should we redirect "Fréjus railway" and "Mont Cenis Railway"? Make a redirect only to one half of the line would still be incorrect. As I speak French and Italian, I could ask on the other Wiki what to do. After merging the two halves of the lines on the three fr-it-en.wiki I could then translate the missing parts on each wiki (Turin-Modane oin fr.wiki, Culoz-Modane on it.wiki). The merged article should be named "Fréjus Railway", plus the article about the Mont Cenis Pass Line. Coccodrillo (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If we have two articles "Turin-Modane" and "Culoz-Modane", then "Fréjus railway" and "Mont Cenis Railway" could both be disambiguation pages linking to both "Turin-Modane" and "Culoz-Modane", and, in the latter case, also to "Mont Cenis Pass Railway". But a more satisfactory solution would be for there to be one article about the whole line on each of the three wikis (en.wiki, fr.wiki and it.wiki), plus an article about the Mont Cenis Pass Railway, as you have suggested. I look forward to hearing from you about the responses to your enquiries on the other wikis. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Taipei Metro EMU C371

I can't find any sources on Google. Help? Thanks. Perseus, Son of Zeus 23:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The table on Taipei Rapid Transit System gives similar names to rolling stock from different vendors. So, I'm guessing that "C371" is a label handed out by somebody in Taipei, not somebody in a rolling-stock factory.

Here's what the manufacturer says - http://www.khi.co.jp/english/rs/product/detail/pro_taipei.html - there's also a press-release on Kawasaki's site about a recent sale of almost-identical rolling stock, but the table on the TRTS article gives it a different code.

Very little on RG, just passing mentions here and here (search results may get polluted by some other rolling stock of a much more eyecatching nature which Kawasaki has sold to Taiwan). bobrayner (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Citing another wikipedia article is probably a Bad Idea. Why start writing an article before you've found any real sources?

I found nothing on IRJ. According to this the main difference from other kawasaki-built rolling stock is some minor changes in seat layout. The pages on zh.wikipedia.org are a bit sparsely referenced too, but they do reveal bits & pieces like this. bobrayner (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a point that I wanted to make earlier, and fumbled. :-) The point is that we don't necessarily have to draw article boundaries along the same lines that another wikipedia has, or along the boundaries drawn by one external organisation if they're not a particularly good boundary. Maybe it would be logical to group otherwise-similar vehicles into the same article even if the end-user gives them different slightly different badges, cf British Rail Class 350. With that aggregation, it might be easier to get sources & establish notability. But that's just a suggestion... bobrayner (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Citing another Wikipedia article is not just a Bad Idea, it's prohibited, see WP:CIRCULAR. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, but can't didn't find any other web refs. I can only say by experience, now. Perseus, Son of Zeus 16:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Then don't say it. If you can't find sufficient information on the topic for a standalone article, perhaps a better solution would be to have it as a section of another article, and make Taipei Metro EMU C371 a redirect to that page. C628 (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

+1

I'm going to boldly assert that if you want to create articles, start from sources. Most weak articles are weak for lack of sources, and most AfDs appear to hinge on notability - you're halfway to overcoming both of those if you start from a good source which discusses some subject in depth and you think "Hey, I could write an article about that subject". Above all, content in wikipedia should be verifiable. I used gentler words earlier because I didn't want to put off somebody who is somewhat new to article creation and who came here to get help with the very problem that we're complaining about.

Perseus McZeus: I'm sure you've had the point made to you enough times by now; but apart from the sourcing problem - a very serious problem to be sure - the article looks nice otherwise. If there's anything else we can do to help, just holler... bobrayner (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be glad if a Chinese speaker could help me translate properly [1] this section. Thanks! Perseus, Son of Zeus 21:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sameboat (talk · contribs) springs to mind; see also Category:User zh-N. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak (talk · contribs) (who commented on this page a few days ago) seems to have created some Chinese articles recently, including some on rail-related subjects; they might be able to help. bobrayner (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested translation from Sameboat (talk · contribs). Perseus, Son of Zeus 15:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just spotted this disucssion. Unfortunately to say, the inline citations for 371 section of zh:台北捷運列車 are both unreliable, one being from knowledge.yahoo which is usually answered by amateur/random netizen. However unless the subject itself is very serious or controversial, lacking few citation is actually tolerated in Wikipedia. This is not what the founder of WP, Jimmy Wales, had hoped, but that's the reality. Citation from reliable source allows the reader to judge if the information is trustable or should be dealt with caution. If you feel inappropriate to publicized it, you can always remove it by yourself for lacking citation. But adding the {{Citation needed}} or {{unsourced}} templates after writing an unsourced information is strongly discouraged. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sacramento RT Station Naming Revisited

The person who misnamed those Sacramento RT light rail stations is threatening to undo my renaming of those articles. Somebody stop him. ----DanTD (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Misnamed? You added unnecessary disambiguation to them, contrary to the article naming conventions (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)), despite claims you made that the naming conventions supported your move. You can always try WP:RM to find general consensus for your guideline-violating and unnecessary moves of course, instead of running to a project for support. Projects (and editors) don't own articles and can't just ignore general guidelines. Fram (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The basic standard is to have the name of the station, and the company or agency that serves the station in parentheses. The moves I made were not unecessary, and in fact the moves you made are. ----DanTD (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't find any mentioning of applying parentheses OUTSIDE of WP:DISAMBIG, so I suppose it is better to avoid it altogether. Actually "(Sacramento RT)" is not helpful for the reader to understand the nature of the subject, WP:DISAMBIG suggests avoiding proper noun in the parentheses, so if you must make the title intuitive, adding "station" or "stop" after the station name is FAR BETTER than applying "(Sacramento RT)". But I'm perfectly fine without these supplementary notations as long as they're not ambiguous with other namesake. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The way Fram wants it, too many of the stations would have the names of streets, Interstate Highways, sections of the city and buildings in the city. Somebody looking for stations might not know to look there, and somebody looking for those streets, buildings, and what not would end up with articles on the stations. This is why the use of the "(Sacramento RT)" in the name is important. ----DanTD (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Only when ambiguity happens WITHIN Wikipedia requires disambiguation. For example, if Canada and Amercia both have a "Samantha station" but only the article for the Canadian one exists in Wikipedia, there's no need to title it "Samantha station (Canada)". It can remain as simply as "Samantha station" until someone has written the article of the Amercian station. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It still creates confusion for readers outside the area, including myself. If there's only one Samantha Station, fine. But if I want to look up Samantha Street I don't want to wind up in an article on the railroad station at Samantha Street, or if I want ot look up Samantha Park, I don't want to wind up looking at a light rail station at Samantha Park, and so on, and so forth.

You say that these naming conventions are only requited when there's ambiguity. Fine; I disambiguate one. And if I have to, I'll do more. ----DanTD (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

When there's ambiguity within Wikipedia, not otherwise. Fram (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• NOTE - There's only one article related to Merillon Avenue on Wikipedia, and it's Merillon Avenue (LIRR station). Are you going to get the "(LIRR station)" part of the name removed because of that? ----DanTD (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this as disrupting Wikipedia at all. ----DanTD (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the (LIRR station) part should be removed. I'll not start looking for all places where such incorrect disambiguations are used, but when I do come across them, I move them to the proper title. Fram (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

And I reverted your WP:POINT disruption at Roseville Road. Please calm down and stop this. Fram (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have filed an edit warring report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:DanTD_reported_by_User:Fram_.28Result:_.29. Fram (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Whilst it is unfortunate that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations) never got approved as a guideline, we in the UK have produced our own Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations). Every rail station has the word "station" in the article title, no matter what type of system it's on, nor whether it's name is itself unique. The only exceptions are combined rail/bus stations, which get the word "Interchange" instead, and stops on tram (streetcar) lines.
So, we have Didcot Parkway railway station, even though there is no other Didcot station in the entire UK; and, AFAIK, nowhere else in the world is there a place/street/whatever named "Didcot Parkway" (there isn't even a street in Didcot named "Parkway" - we have Park Road, and also Broadway). Put simply, it's the name on the station signs ("Didcot Parkway"), plus the word "railway" (because there's only the national heavy-rail system there) plus the mandatory word "station".
Perhaps the UK guideline could be borrowed (and adjusted where necessary to suit different circumstances). --Redrose64 (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Any reason why stations can't just follow the general guideline when nothing more is needed, and only have a guideline for what kind of disambiguation is used in those cases where one is really needed? Most other projects use this system, where the guideline only states that in the case of disambiguation, we add e.g. (artist) or (comics) or (railway station) to the article title. Article titles (before the disambiguation part) should always reflect either the most common or the official name (e.g. the Latin name of plants) of subjects, not some Wikipedia-only version of it. Fram (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. However:

1. I think that the disambiguating text should itself be clear - RT is not a very informative acronym to some readers. Also, bearing in mind WP:COMMON I would also prefer to see a disambiguated title which at least looks vaguely like what might be mentioned in sources. Bearing those two in mind, we might even be able to unbracket the disambiguating term - I think "Arbitraryville station" far preferable to "Arbitraryville (RandomRail Station)". I consider it more important to have accurate readable names than to have the same string at the top of many different articles.
2. If there are already many articles with titles which aren't too bad to start with, mass moves (ie. renaming every station in a network) are likely to be controversial. Probably a good idea to seek wider community input.
3. Editwarring is bad. If in doubt, step back and discuss, even if you're sure that you have the Truth (and sometimes you do), even if the other editor "started" it. bobrayner (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Gobbledygook! How much more ambiguous can you get than a station article named "Park", "Road", "Inn", etc. How about Historic Folsom, where you might expect to find the Fulsom Historic District as at historicfolsom.org - it's a frickin' Sacramento light rail station article. We're not talking about disambiguity or station naming conventions here - this is about common sense names matching the subject of the article. Many station article names do use the system name as a suffix, which was the naming convention when those articles were created. If you want to call them all "station", that is good, but then you have to change them all, including matching the related Templates and Navboxes. If you have never dealt with this series of station articles before - just leave it to the people who are happy to keep them in good shape. What you have done otherwise is, parachuted in to town, thrown a couple of hand granades and left the mess for somebody else to cleanup. Oy vey! Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • That's what I was trying to tell Fram and Sameboat. In the case of Roseville Road the article isn't about the road. It's about the station. In the case of Marconi Arcade, it's about the station as well. If I didn't know any better, I'd think it was for some old obscure video arcade in a mini-mall during the 1980's. ----DanTD (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Looking at the five main points on article naming, I see that Roseville Road fails the first (recognizability) badly, the second (naturalness – "a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English") absolutely, and the third (precision) as badly as the first. It should be baldly obvious that either Roseville Road station or Roseville Road (Sacramento RT) is better, though one can certainly criticize the latter (and by extension the city or state transportation department) for being a bit cryptic. We can revisit the naming convention, but I will continue to insist that names that give no indication that this article isn't about a street are absolutely unacceptable. Valuing consistency over the other points is WP:POINTy to extremes; it's more important that the title of the article say what the article is about. Mangoe (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Recognizability; what is the station called in reliable sources, and in general? If it is generally called "Roseville Road", then that is the recognisable name. If it is generally called "Roseville Road Station", then that should be the article name. It is definitely not generally called "Roseville Road (Sacramento RT)" though... It doesn't fail the second point absolutely, the DanTD disambiguated title does though.
  • I have no objection to moving this (and similar) articles to "Roseville Road Station", since it looks to me as if the added "Station" or "station" is generally used when referencing it, so this may well be described as the most common name. It is recognisable, follows our guideline, and is hopefully acceptable for everyone. I have no problems with a discussion to reach an informed conclusion, I just oppose the "my way or the highway" approach DanTD used here, and the claim that some unneeded disambiguation was supported by actual accepted guidelines. Fram (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • This isn't simply a "my way or the highway approach," and it's not just me suggesting this. ----DanTD (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • You two can argue about who is being the WP:POINTiest editor at leisure; personally I think both of you need to back down a bit. Be that as it may, could I suggest taking the approach of the Washington Metro station articles and name it Roseville Road (Sacramento RT station)? Mangoe (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Wahy not just Roseville Road station, which seems to be the most commnly used name? Fram (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Woohoo! Yes - why not? If anybody thinks that there are possibe conflicts you could use "LRT station" to eliminate those and yet provide clarity and consistency throughout the system. Note that "metro station" is often used, to distinguish from the regular "railway station". Is there really a need for the "extended mix" version? Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Roseville Road station is fine with me. Clear, unambiguous, descriptive, and it seems to be used by external sources too. bobrayner (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

So is this "new agreement" going to be for all stations on the Sacramento RT and MAX or just Roseville Road? ('cause that would be a bad idea) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 21:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Roseville Road station and alike is a better choice than Roseville Road (Sacramento RT) or Roseville Road (Sacramento RT station), the latter being unnecessarily cumbersome. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you know that Sacramento County has a "transfer station" and "recovery station" on Roseville Road? Well now boys and girls. How many kinds of station can you think of? OK, just relax. Where is DanTD on this? Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As long as there're no articles for the transfer station and recovery station, this isn't really a problem. The definition of "station" is primarily related to railway structure, the others being secondary and usually used in the form of phrase. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC) - I said "OK, just relax" - and you didn't. Go to your room! Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 04:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I was in bed, Secondarywaltz. I've got to get some sleep sometime. As for the subject of other sites getting the name "station," I've been trying to rename an image File:Amagansett-station.jpg to File:Amagansett CG Station.jpg, because the name could also apply to Amagansett (LIRR station) even though the image is for a United States Coast Guard life saving station. ----DanTD (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(deindent) Gfoley4 said "So is this "new agreement" going to be for all stations on the Sacramento RT and MAX or just Roseville Road? ('cause that would be a bad idea)". My proposal would be to have station articles, in those cases where they are often referred to X station (like Roseville Road), at the Rosseville Road station and similar, and in those cases where there are different stations with the same name, a real disambiguator can be added (if there were other Roseville Road stations with an article, this could be Roseville Road station (Sacramento RT) or Roseville Road station (Sacramento) or whatever is preferred. The same goes for MAX and any other system. It's straightforward, makes clear that they are stations, and allows for disambiguation where needed, as is the general rule on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a good idea. They're all Sacramento RT stations, and Metropolitan Area Express stations. They deserve those suffixes. The same goes for every other station. ----DanTD (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles don't deserve suffixes in their titles, they get them when it is necessary. Fram (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Station articles get suffixes, because they're stations, and are linked to specific railroads. ----DanTD (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't use edit summaries to attack other editors. bobrayner (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Naming of some high-speed trains

I want to move the Taiwan High Speed 700T train article name to a better name. However, I am not sure what version would fit the project guidelines most, and looking at articles on other high-speed trains, I found usage somewhat inconsequential.

The Taiwanese train was derived from the 700 Series Shinkansen, a type with multiple manufacturers that is operated by two companies (JR Central and JR West) on Japan's Shinkansen network (as far as I know, Shinkansen literally refers to the infrastructure), hence I see that the lack of manufacturer or operator designation for the 700 series is justified. The Taiwanese train has multiple manufacturers too, but is operated solely by the Taiwan High Speed Rail Consortium (THSRC), so "THSRC 700T Series" is one possibility. But, like in Japan, Taiwan's high-speed rail has a different gauge than the normal rail network, and the network name, "Taiwan High Speed Rail", or its acronym, "THSR" is used as often as, and interchangeably with, the company name. In fact the company's website writes: "the Taiwan High Speed Rail 700T trainsets". By Google hits, "THSR 700T" is way more common than "THSRC 700T". So "THSR 700T Series" would fit common usage, even though, if I am reading it right, not the WikiProject Trains style guide.

As for other high-speed trains:

• ICE 3 has multiple makers and is operated both by Deutsche Bahn and Nederlandse Spoorwegen, so I can see why an operator designation like in SNCF TGV Duplex is out of place. However, ICE 1 and ICE 2 are operated by DB only, so should they not be "DBAG ICE 1" and "DBAG ICE 2"?
• Same for (FS) ETR 500 and (Korail) KTX-I, KTX-II.
• The E1 Series Shinkansen, E2 Series Shinkansen, E3 Series Shinkansen, E4 Series Shinkansen, E5 Series Shinkansen and E6 Series Shinkansen are all types operated by JR East only. It's logical if "Shinkasen" is enough as specifier, but is that okay with the style guide?

--Rontombontom (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There are five good criteria for choosing an article name here.

Some inconsistency between the titles of different articles is inevitable, because there is so much variation in manufacturers, users, and popular coverage of the subject. Inter-article consistency would be nice, but I think other factors are more important. bobrayner (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:RDT Rollbahn

Template:RDT Rollbahn is orphaned and unused. Is it still wanted? If not, it can probably be deleted. It seems to be something to do with this, but I can't make head or tail of it. Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be more related to the article on the Wanne-Eickel–Hamburg railway, which contains the same section of line in reverse, although it doesn't call the template. I have alerted the template's creator. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

templates being deleted

A bunch of rail templates have recently come up for deletion at WP:TFD. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Station building article

Meant to ask this days ago. This article was recently created, using the Polish version as a basis, as there apparently was no interwiki link from the Polish article. But I noticed that there's already an article for head house covering the same thing (the buildings at stations themselves, which are suitable for an article from an architectural as well as a rail operations standpoint).
Obviously, there needs to be a merge, as having both is redundant. But what titleshould the merged article have? "Station building" sounds too generic and is used more as a description than as an actual noun. "Head house" I've heard used even for stations such as Reading Terminal, but may be too obscure. I wanted others thoughts on the matter. oknazevad (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As a railway fan, I've never heard of the term "head house" and I can't find it in my usual reference docs. "Station building" on the other hand is pretty common and is not generic, but refers to the main building at a passenger station with ticket offices, waiting rooms, shops, etc, as distinct from the separate goods sheds, loco sheds, signal boxes and other outbuildings. Nevertheless, it would be useful to track down some authoritative references first to ascertain if they are exactly the same thing and whether usage is regional so we can make an informed decision. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The term "head house" is normally affiliated with the New York City Subway and stations like Bowling Green. I have to admit, I've never heard the term outside of the NYCS. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 18:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me to be an Americanism. I know that in New York, it's a subway term. (I live in New Jersey.) So it seems that the merged article should be at station building for commonality purposes. But we may want to keep the separate article for the subway usage. oknazevad (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon the control house article also. 3 articles for roughly the same subject. Something is got to give. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 03:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Head house and control house (whose merge has already been suggested) would appear to be very specific kinds of station buildings. 'Control house' is also a relatively new article (Dec 2010), 'Head house' less so (May 2008, but only about 11 edits since first created) and both seem specific to New York subways, so it might be best to link to these from 'station building'. ('Head house' makes some sense when the rest of the station is underground, but surely it's not a term used for surface railroads? Also, as a UK enthusiast, I've never heard the term used.)

Station building is clearly an overlooked subject. Suspect it will need some work once translated from Polish -- lots of world view differences! -- EdJogg (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I am the creator of the station building article, and I agree with Bermicourt. As an Australian, I am very conscious of the many differences between British English and American English. But I'd never previously heard of the expression "head house", nor of the expression "control house", even though I've been a rail fan for some 40 years, and have travelled coast to coast on Amtrak. If "head house" really is an NYC-specific expression, then there's no reason why it can't be a standalone article, suitably modified to note that it's NYC-specific. But I doubt that any Australian looking for an article about the main buildings at railway stations would use the expression "head house" to search for it. Before starting the article "station building", I actually did more than one en.wiki search for articles using that expression, and the searches brought up lots of articles about railway stations in which that expression is used. However, I've just done an en.wiki search, and also a google search, for "head house", and they didn't produce anything like a similar result. What I suggest is that when I expand the station building article by adding the translation of (most of) the Polish article (which I intend to start doing in the next week or so), I will incorporate a reference and link to "head house"/"control house", and we can take it from there. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good to me, though I will note that "head house" is not an NYC-specific term. As noted , it's used for the former Reading Terminal in Philadelphia, which was also a mainline railroad station. It may be that it specific to terminal stations though, as the "head" could be referring to the rail head. Now that I think about it, that may be the actual etymology. I think we have a good course of action here, though, as a specific usage, the NYC Subway specific material at head house should likely go to an article called head house (New York City Subway), while the existing head house article becomes a redirect to station building, reflecting its wider use. oknazevad (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Funny thing - I'd never heard of the term "head house" before, but have certainly encountered "control house" many times, specifically when reading about the history of the New York system, which led me to create the control house stub article. If consensus is that head house is preferable to control house, then so be it, but to my mind "station building" sounds rather generic. I'd love to do some more detailed searching to come up with sources for control house references, but frankly don't have the time this week. Just throwing in my two cents. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'd have just one article, with a paragraph each for the two less-widely used terms. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a finely organized article of similar terms is better than a bunch of stubs. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You're all forgetting one other non-NYC related headhouse article; South Station Headhouse, which is currently tagged for merging with South Station. ----DanTD (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Three comments. Firstly, the articles have been merged. Secondly, the name "South Station Headhouse" is apparently the official name on the National Register of Historic Places, indicating the term is known in the US for other than subway stations. And, thirdly, as a terminal it seems that my idea of the etymology of the term may be right. oknazevad (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, when I posted my message on the subjet, it wasn't merged. Now I see that it is. In the meantime, I'd say the NRHP-related infobox needs to be improved... maybe even merged. ----DanTD (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Shay engine

The Shay engine area does not mention the Shay engine (on static display) at the Royal Gorge Route station. They say it was being used on the Georgetown Loop Railway before they received it. I saw this engine the week after Christmas 2010. I have pictures, but can't copy and paste here.

Warren Nilsson 22:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.204.30 (talk)

Opposition to the Guangzhou-Hong Kong Express Rail Link

Opposition to the Guangzhou-Hong Kong Express Rail Link has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.13.210 (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Korean rail stubs‎/Template:Korea-rail-stub

Feel free to discuss the splitting of this stub type at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/January/19. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)