Talk:List of passenger trains
|WikiProject Trains / Passenger trains||(Rated Redirect-class)|
Need to make clear -- are these famous physical trains, ie an engine, or a famous train route?
- It seems to be primarily routes, as the summary says. It's totally inconsistent though, as the Shinkansen is included (a type of train, not a route necessarily), but the TGV is not. I'd think the TGV is much more famous than the Intercity 125, which is included. This type of article is always going to be problematic on Wikipedia Jpp42 09:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Surely entries like Mallard would be more appropriately shown in the famous locomotives category? Or how about a famous locomotives list? I'm not sure about the Bullet train or TGV, though. Nsorelli 13:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
There are also some famous trains in Asia; i.e. Darjeeling Mountain Train (the oldest working steam trains in operation; Darjeeling, India) and The Eastern and Oriental Express (between Singapore and Chiang Mai via Bangkok). I also believe that there is another tain that runs from Dehli to Kabul that is world famous.
Famous trains - yellow train
I would like to add a little section about the Yellow train, or yellow canary. This train is in the South Eact of France, just north of the Spanish border. The track is a relatively short run, just 63 kilometres.But it climbs from very close to sea level to nearly 1600 metres. The line was built in 1903 and it is a very dramatic and enjoyable journey. Would appreciate any thoughts on the value of this addition Collieman
- The article on Yellow Train is pretty short - maybe you could help to expand it? And what makes this train "famous" - this is a much higher standard than "notability" keep in mind. There really should only be a few famous trains. Jpp42 09:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
What about Trotsky's armored train during the Civil War?
- Is there an article about this on Wikipedia yet? Jpp42 09:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Famous trains - or historical?
The title of this page has been changed from famous trains list to historical trains on the grounds that it is less subjective. I'm not sure that's right, but I think use of the word historical (that is, belonging to the past, not the present) is incorrect. Many of these trains still run and indeed, like Eurostar, are recent additions. I agree we can argue about whether a particular train is famous or not, so perhaps notable is a more appropriate if less impressive title. Personally I'd be happier with famous. Anybody else care? Nsorelli 05:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- The naming conventions state that titles shouldn't use subjective words like "famous" or "notable", and articles that are called "List of famous X" are frequently deleted for being subjective. Historical may not be the most accurate title, so if you or anyone else has any suggestions, as long as they don't use "famous", "notable", "noted", "significant", or "important". Masaruemoto 05:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think "historical" dramatically broadens the scope of the article - almost to the point of uselessness. Sure, "famous" has a degree of subjectivity to it, but we can probably source comments attesting to the train's fame in comparison to other services. There's no way I could sneak something like the Culverden Express into the article - a train so poorly known that even books on New Zealand railways mention it in passing while giving just about every other express substantially more attention. However, the Culverden Express is quite legitimately a "historical" train. And if it could be put on here, so could any other historical service and it would quickly become a sprawling list . Worse still, it would be barely distinct from List of named passenger trains and a merge would probably be justified. - Axver 06:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Sentence makes very little sense
"rail travel was the predominant means of transportation for long-distance travel - and was therefore most common only for the wealthy or those with an urgent personal or business need."
The preceding sentence makes very little sense. What it the intended meaning ? It appears to be a complete non sequitur to me. During the 1860-1960 heyday of rail transport, it was indeed the predominant means of transport. How is therefore causative of being most common only for the wealthy or on urgent business ? Is the author of this sentence trying to imply that the poor did not generally travel at all, or that they used other means of transport ? Eregli bob (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you, it's a ridiculous assertion; railroads were the Interstate Highway system of the time, everybody traveled on them. So I deleted the sentence; then I realized the rest of the statements in that paragraph were also wrong or misleading, and had no real bearing on the topic of this article, so I deleted all but the first sentence. It's a silly article to begin with, because there are no stated criteria from reputable sources to define "famous trains"; the whole article really should be deleted, imho. Textorus (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought it over, and I can't see any justification for keeping this article alive. It was started as a list of only four trains in 2003, and since then, it seems, folks have just been adding to the list according to their whimsy. But NOBODY has provided any verification by reputable sources for their listings - and what exactly is the definition of "famous train," anyway? - so it appears to be just a vanity list of "my favorite trains." Anyone disagree? Textorus (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure deletion is necessarily the answer here, although the inclusion criteria are completely arbitrary. Perhaps it would make sense to redirect it to Lists of named passenger trains, and at least preserve the article history. A good number of the entries are notable in one way or another. --RFBailey (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- But what exactly is there worth saving in this article?? The trains that already have their own articles are covered there; they are (or should be, I haven't checked) also already be listed in the List of named passenger trains article; and the trains here that have no articles are just names with little or no information provided. So what purpose does this list serve? What exactly does it tell us about these particular trains? Other than that somebody, somewhere thinks they are noteworthy....but every train in the world is "famous" to someone. This is a vanity list, pure and simple.
- And again, there is no verified source for the noteworthiness of any of these trains. As it says at Wikipedia:Lists#Listed_items, "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." Textorus (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Textorus makes some good points, but his emotionality causes me problems. His statement that "This is a vanity list ..." is not acceptable language for a Wikipedian. He says this on two occasions, why? I think the content of the list should be checked to ensure that the information is present on other pages, else it should be treated in the sensible way that RFBailey states. Olana North (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Textorus, Olana North, please try not to escalate the situation. (However, I do get the impression that this nomination has a touch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT about it.) Now, as I see it, many of the entries on the list have articles about them, so that suggests that they are notable (to some people, at least). Most of the entries are about named passenger trains (i.e. particular services); however, some seem to be about types of rolling stock, or operators. This confusion is one of the problems that this article has; i.e. people are unclear what the scope of the list is, or don't understand the distinction between the two, which makes it look a bit like indiscriminate information. So, if we were to remove those rogue entries and focus it entirely on named passenger trains, then at least it would be consistent. But we already have Lists of named passenger trains which does that job. Hence we can redirect this article to there. Any entries on this list that are not already present on that (or rather, on its sub-lists) can be added if necessary, with citations. As I mentioned above, this would have the advantage of retaining the article history so that non-admin editors can go back and have a look.
- Merge into List of named passenger trains. All of the trains listed on this article have names, therefore, they should all be included in the main list. Slambo (Speak) 11:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have removed the prod taqg, as what seems to be under discussion is a merge. But Ihave a question---given the complexity ad division of the main list, how would someone get a chronological list of the most famous passenger trains? This relativelyu crude page would do it--the more complicated list (s) don't seem to. DGG (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Redirect in place
OK, so I've gone ahead and merged as much information as I could find sensible homes for into the sub-lists of Lists of named passenger trains. (Those lists were something of a mess themselves, but that's a topic for another talk page.) I didn't merge anything about rolling stock, train operators, railway lines (i.e. stretches of track) or anything without an article. --RFBailey (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Some of the Belgian trains are missing from the European list. I haven't checked any of the ones for other countries, like South Africa or New Zealand yet. ----DanTD (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)