Talk:Railway post office

Merge with Travelling Post Office?

I just found the Travelling Post Office article describing basically the same type of equipment as used in the United Kingdom. I think a merge would be in order, but under which name? slambo 11:28, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps merger of the RPO and TPO pages is now a moot point, since it is 4 months past the date of the original discussions. If a merge is still under consideration, I believe that separate articles would better serve the subjects at hand. RPOs and TPOs do share many common characteristics, but the developmental history for the North American and the European versions were unique, and it would seem difficult to properly cover that diversity in a merged article. Cross linking the two pages under the "see also" mechanism should be sufficient. RI-Bill 04:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:OP-19515.jpg

Image:OP-19515.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Railway post office/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article is being reviewed as part of the WikiProject Good Articles. We're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. This article was awarded GA-status back in 2005, so I will be assessing the article to ensure that it is still compliant.Pyrotec (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

This article is wide-ranging, well-illustrated and is generally complaint with WP:WIAGA, but it is deficient is some areas: mostly WP:verify.

I will consider the article section by section, leaving the WP:lead until last.Pyrotec (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• History -

• The first five paragraphs appear to be compliant.
• The last two paragraphs, however, lack WP:verification.

• Standardization -

• Only the first half of the fourth paragraph appears to be verifiable via an in-line citation. Does ref 12 cover the whole of this paragraph?

• Cancellation stamps -

• These paragraph are unreferenced.

• Decline and withdrawal -

• This section is mostly unreferenced.

• Preservation -

• Appears to be OK.

• WP:Lead -

• I'm currently expanding this: at present it acts as an introduction, but it does not adequately summarise the main points of the article.
• The follow statements do not appear in the body of the article and are not verifiable. If they are to remain here, an in-line citation is needed:

• "From the middle of the 19th century, many American railroads earned substantial revenues through contracts with the Post Office to carry mail aboard high-speed passenger trains"; and
• "In fact, a number of companies maintained passenger routes where the financial losses from moving people were more than offset by transporting the mail."

I'm putting this article review On Hold, to allow these points to be addressed. A decision will then be made whether to maintain or withdraw the GA-status of this article. Pyrotec (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As none of these points have been addressed I'm delisting this article. Once they have been addressed, the article can of course be re-submitted to WP:GAN. Pyrotec (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Mail hook

This is a minor mechanical feature that is intrinsic to the Railway post office's function. ww2censor (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Merge by making Mail hook a section of Railway post office. Mail hook would become a redirect specifically to that new secion like Railway post office#Mail hook. Peter Horn User talk 22:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

A better target would be the more specific Catcher pouch; the mail hook is necessary for the catcher pouch to work, and the catcher pouch page already contains material related to the hook, including an illustration of it. Klbrain (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Klbrain Sound like an even better idea. Go ahead. ww2censor (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Catcher pouch into Railway post office

I do not see why this article needs to exist. It is a mail bag. The notable concept (mail by train, and the concept of having a train grab and drop off mail on the fly) is covered sufficiently within the railway post office article.

This is a special case, as the catcher pouch article is the work of an editor indeffed for copyright violations. If we merge anything to the target article, it will need to be rewritten or very carefully screened for copyright violations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

At Didcot Railway Centre, every few months they demonstrate mail bag exchange using TPO stowage van no. 814. Having watched this a few times - and also worked in the mailroom of a local business - I can say that the pouches used are not standard mailbags: they are smaller and much stronger. A normal mailbag, if mis-caught, could tear and distribute letters around the area. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Closing, given the (implied) objection and no support with stale discussion. Suspected copyright concerns are best dealt with in the other ways. Klbrain (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)