Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:TWP)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Trains (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
 
TWP discussion archives
Three rail tracks 350.jpg The Trains WikiProject
General information
Main project page (WP:TWP)  talk
Portal (P:Trains) talk
Project navigation bar talk
Freenode IRC: #wikipedia-trains-en.
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
Models talk
Rail transport in Germany talk
Monorails talk
Operations talk
Passenger trains talk
Portal talk
Rail transport modelling talk
Timelines talk

List of EuroCity services[edit]

I've created this article, based on the list that was on the EuroCity pages, to try and make it more informative and current. It's a work in progress, so it's still incomplete and a bit messy - any contributions to completing the page would be welcome. I noticed that a number of people are creating new articles for specific TEE/EC services, so this ties neatly into that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtVandelay13 (talkcontribs) 16:58, 6 March 2013

AfD[edit]

The GEC Alstom Push-pull article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk)

Naming[edit]

RfC: UK railway station disambiguation[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
By pure nose counting, Option D has the most support. RfC closers, of course, are not supposed to merely count noses and so I take note that there are a number of cogent arguments that use of parenthetical disambiguation is not policy-compliant. On further review, however, I note that most of what has been called "policy" are editing guidelines and conventions. The exception to this is the Article titles policy, which includes the Precision and disambiguation policy. That policy states parenthetical disambiguation is: Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title. The phrase "optimal article title" is open to subjective interpretation and there has been a clear expression by the participants that comma-separated disambiguation is not optimal. The consensus is therefore in favor of Option D: Use Xxx railway station (Location) for all stations. With regard to the order of preference for the contents of the "Location" disambiguator, Option 2 country then county/community has a clear consensus. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

What should WP:UKSTATION recommend for disambiguating articles on UK railway stations?--Cúchullain t/c 19:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Information (UK railway station disambiguation)[edit]

WP:UKSTATION currently doesn't include sufficient advice on how to disambiguate articles on stations when necessary, leading to considerable inconsistency in how these articles are disambiguated. It's time we come to a consensus on what to use and then add it into the guideline.

Using Scotland as an example, the following forms of disambiguation are currently in use:

Please choose which of the following form of disambiguation should be used for railway stations in the UK:

  • A: Use Xxx (Location) railway station for all stations
  • B: Use Xxx (Location) railway station if National Rail or predecessors use this form, otherwise use Xxx railway station (Location)
  • C: Use Xxx (Location) railway station if National Rail or predecessors use this form, otherwise use Xxx railway station, Location
  • D: Use Xxx railway station (Location) for all stations
  • E: Use Xxx railway station, Location for all stations

Also please choose what should be used for "Location":

  • 1: County/community (e.g., "Glasgow", "West Lothian", etc.) for all stations (with more precise disambiguation if necessary).
  • 2: Country (e.g. Scotland, England, etc.) if available, and county/community if more precise disambiguation is necessary (and further disambiguation if necessary).

Survey (UK railway station disambiguation)[edit]

  • D, but B would be an acceptable second choice. I oppose A. For location, 2. I am the nominator.--Cúchullain t/c 19:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • B. Where Network Rail disambiguates them, the name of the station is (eg) "Newport (Essex)", and unless there's another "Newport (Essex)" railway station this is not ambiguous. Where we need to disambiguate because there are legitimately two stations with the same name in different countries (eg Georgetown) then I think brackets are better than commas. While I understand commas are the preferred go-to for geographic disambiguations, it doesn't feel right here because "Georgetown railway station" is not a place name. Regarding location I would prefer 2. For the most part we're not going to need to disambiguate within the same country unless we're dealing with closed stations, and I don't imagine West Lothian means much to most people looking for Georgetown. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • A (i.e. existing). Disambiguate using this hierarchy: country │ county (or province/state) │ railway (or operator) │ year. Useddenim (talk) 10:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Useddenim: Good point on the disambiguation hierarchy; I'll add a note to the above.--Cúchullain t/c 14:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • A - I'd prefer to be consistent across the board rather than have a mix of the two styles. As for location I have no preference. Jeni (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • D, or B as second choice, and oppose A, C and E, taking into account other places' systems (especially USSTATION, which AFAIK was changed to harmonize it with the European systems) and naming conventions for buildings (parentheses containing location, after the name). Almost no other systems' station article titles are disambiguated by putting the brackets between the station name and the station type. It's not entirely clear to me if National Rail actually calls those stations "Armadale (West Lothian) station" or similar; the parenthetical is omitted here in the address which suggests it could be put before or after "railway station". They don't really seem to care that much about the specifics of station names anyway; e.g. Queens Park (NR) / Queen's Park (TfL). I would prefer 1 for location, since articles about other buildings seem to use that. Jc86035 (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    I've always believed that USSTATION was changed in order to harmonize it with European naming conventions. At this point I'll still have to check on the other choices in Europe, before I decide anything. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    Correct, both WP:USSTATION and WP:CANSTATION were created in part to make the articles more consistent with other countries' articles, but the main reason was bringing them in line with the article titles policy and WP:DISAMBIGUATION guideline. The disambiguation system required the most work and was pretty much decided from scratch in both cases. As far as I know, the UK is the only country to use the mid-phrase disambiguation, which is pretty idiosyncratic.--Cúchullain t/c 19:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
    But the elimination of system names under the guise of removing unnecessary disambiguations were made without any consideration to the structure of individual systems. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
    You've made that argument many times in the past, but this isn't really the place to take it back up.--Cúchullain t/c 14:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
    Really? Because this involves the issue of naming conventions. You already screwed up the US station naming conventions, I don't want to screw up the ones in the UK. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
    This RfC on UK stations is not the place to discuss the US naming conventions (which were adopted by the consensus of editors).--Cúchullain t/c 16:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • A - this is the way that {{rws}} is set up to work. Mjroots (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Mjroots: I don't think that means too much, since the template just reflects the article naming of the plurality/majority of articles named that way in 2012, when the disambiguation parameter was added on that basis. One editor on the template's talk page did describe the other disambiguation forms as "aberrations", but even though many articles, such as Higham (Kent) railway station, were renamed to match in recent years (per the UKSTATION policy, despite the policy not directly specifying the method of disambiguation except for using the Newport (Essex) example), still only about 45 of articles use that system. Incidentally, I think choice D would also help to differentiate stations actually referred to by "name (disambiguator)", such as Kensington (Olympia), and stations referred to without the disambiguator. Jc86035 (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, templates are made to fit the articles, not the other way around. Templates can be updated fairly easily.--Cúchullain t/c 19:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • C as first choice, but I'd also be happy with B. As for location, the usual conventions as for any other article. -- Dr Greg  talk  16:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Dr Greg: Location conventions for places or for buildings/features? Places (e.g. London, Ontario) would be 2, whereas buildings/features (e.g. Abbey Road, London; World Trade Centre (Hong Kong)) would be 1. Jc86035 (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • D and 2 as per natural disambiguation —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • D and 2; that's the natural disambiguation. If there are stations that use the form specified in B then that's the actual name and not subject to disambiguation. Mackensen (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • D and 2 as per natural disambiguation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • D per site-wide precedent, and implementation in North America that is currently underway. SounderBruce 22:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Cúchullain, with choice D, would Kensington (Olympia) and Ingrow (West) still be titled "Kensington (Olympia) station" and "Ingrow (West) railway station"? Jc86035 (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
    Jc86035: Good question. I don't think either of those would change even with D, as "Kensington (Olympia)" and "Ingrow (West)" appear to be their actual names. "(Olympia)" at any rate would not be the way Wikipedia would normally disambiguation). I do see some sources that use "Ingrow West" for the second one, without the parentheses, which might could dissolve the whole issue in that case.--Cúchullain t/c 15:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
    Unlike "Newport (Essex)" and "Sutton (Surrey)", the name "Kensington (Olympia)" actually appears on signs at the station istelf. See for example File:British summer, Kensington Olympia, August 2015. - panoramio.jpg. It is never omitted (and occasionally is written without the parentheses), so should be considered part of the name.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for that. Clearly there will be some additional decision making for a number of individual articles.--Cúchullain t/c 15:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • B or C. Noting that e.g. "Newport (Essex) railway station" is the name of the station, it is not Wikipedia disambiguating the station name. Thryduulf (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • D and 2 with E as second choice. I'm thinking of Georgetown Rauilway Station (Scotland) versus Georgetown GO Station, or the Georgetown Railway Stations in Ontario CA, P.E.I. CA, Delaware US, or Colorado US. Markbassett (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • D and 2 would be first choice, and failing that B would be acceptable as well. Note that although "Newport (Essex)" is a National Rail format, it's not necessarily correct to say that "Newport (Essex)" is the official name of the station. The sign on the building and on the platforms just say Newport. The timetable just says Newport. In a way National Rail are just putting in a disambiguator much as we do here at Wikipedia, so going for D is fine, because we're just saying we'll disambiguate it our way rather than NR's way. For the record I strongly oppose A, and dispute the assertion above that A is the current status quo. In the early days of Wikipedia, the unwritten convention was B - use National Rail infix style where available, but otherwise use standard Wikipedia parenthetical disambiguation. But then people came along who didn't understand the distinction between National Rail and others, and thought that all UK stations were disambiguated with an infix. That was never the intention, and it creates confusion for readers if we imply that there is a National Rail disambiguator in use where there actually isn't. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • E. Parenthetic disambiguation is the last choice, per WP:ATDAB policy.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  07:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    Parenthetic disambiguation is actually the third choice, and in this case the highest one available to us, as (#1) there is no natural disambiguator in common usage, and (#2) commas are only used for place names, as ATDIS clearly states. Station names are not place names.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
    Obviously, I mean "last of those under discussion", let's not be silly. Commas in this sort of construction are in fact natural and used all the time (e.g., [1] and a zillion others). COMMADIS does not at all say what you imagine it does; place names are an example, among others. Concrete proof the list is not exhaustive? WP:NCLL, "common and acceptable ...: List of foos, A–K", yet long lists are not enumerated at COMMADIS. And since when is "Diana, Princess of Wales" a place? The only requirement is that words be presented in natural order.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  12:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
In the case you mention, "London Victoria Railway Station" is much more common than "Victoria Railway Station, London" in the sources.[2][3]--Cúchullain t/c 16:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
But WP doesn't disambiguate that way, so WP:DGAF. :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  13:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • D or E, and please clarify that these options are only for stations needing disambiguation, not for all station articles even those with unambiguous titles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Correct, this is only for stations that need disambiguation. UK railway stations don't currently disambiguate unambiguous titles.--Cúchullain t/c 15:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • E much preferred. Parentheses are sometimes inescapable, but avoid their visual and parsing disruption where possible. Tony (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
    Parentheses are preferred to commas, per WP:ATDAB, except for place names. I don't know where this sudden hatred of parentheses has come from, but the community has generally preferred them as the default disambiguator from day one, and they are easier for a reader to parse than commas, since they stand out from the main name. There are numerous topics that could be disambiguated with a comma, like "John Smith, explorer" instead of "John Smith (explorer)".  — Amakuru (talk) 11:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
    Please actually read WP:COMMADIS and stop blatantly misrepresenting what it says. This is twice in row you've done that. The comma construction here is in fact WP:NATURALDIS that happens to have a comma. Even if it were not, COMMADIS doesn't permit unnatural word order (which "Foobar station, City" is not); that is why we don't use "John Smith, explorer".  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  12:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: WP:NCDAB indicates that parentheses are preferred to commas (COMMADIS' hatnote says to also read WP:Disambiguation, which NCDAB is a section of). Buildings that aren't railway stations, roads, and rivers are often or always disambiguated using a region name in parentheses. Jc86035 (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    Not responsive to what I said. But I'll bite. If a guideline WP:POLICYFORKs from a policy, the policy trumps it. Next, no building is a road or river, so I'm not sure what your point is. We do have a large number of building articles that are unnecessarily parenthetically disambiguated, because wikiprojects and random editors keep doing whatever the F they feel like. This needs to be rectified, not worsened. Numerous stations are outdoor and are not buildings but open-air platforms (i.e., places), so the WP:OTHERCRAP argument to use parenthetic in imitation of various building articles doesn't work out anyway.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  20:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    The policy doesn't say that though. It says (1) natural disambiguation, then (2) commas for places, then (3) parentheses. And commas aren't natural disambiguation. If they were, there'd be no need for criterion 2, which advises using commas for place names, where natural disambiguation wasn't possible. NCDAB is simply reiterating that policy. In my opinion commas just don't work well for non-places, and yes that is my opinion, which clearly differs from yours, but the opinion is backed up by the way the policy is worded as well as established practice for topics such as John Smith, explorer, as well as structures in the United States, most UK railway stations etc. etc.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    If you can't, won't, or pretend not to [I don't read minds] understand that use of a comma in an "A, B" construction that is not unnatural (like "Jackson, Michael" and "dog, sled" are unnatural) but which occurs in everyday spoken and written English is natural by definition, and that COMMADIS is about the unnatural kind, then I can't help you. If you can't, won't, or pretend not to understand that, regardless, the section on COMMADIS illustrates examples which include but are not limited to places and various other things, including names of royalty/peerage, and you just will not see that it isn't an exclusive list, even after shown further proof of this (above) at WP:NCLL (quoted for you again: "Common and acceptable: ... List of foos, A–K"). Please stop this WP:ICANTHEARYOU game. It's unbecoming.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  14:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    SMcCandlish, the issue is whether the comma form is used enough that it's really WP:NATURALDIS well established in sources. It does not look more common in sources than using parentheses. Sources do use parentheses as well in many cases (eg [4][5]), so it could be argued that that's natural disambiguation as well.--Cúchullain t/c 16:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
    Except even if it fails WP:NATURALDIS, it still qualifies as "raw" WP:COMMADIS, which is still preferred in the policy over WP:PARENDIS when the comma form is sensible. We don't use the comma form for things like "John D. Smith, biologist", because it's awkward (it sounds like someone introducing himself at a conference). We do regularly use comma disambiguation for place names, and all that's required to make this "natural" is that it's a natural feature of everyday English, written and spoken, which it obviously is. Whether one particular station is most often disambiguated this way is completely immaterial. WP:COMMONNAME pertains to the base name (e.g. Foo station), not to the disambiguated form. Once we hit disambiguation, we're already past the COMMONNAME phase of the naming flowchart. And "I don't think stations are really places" is a really, really weak argument. This is why I opened the VPPOL RfC about this (though not specifically about stations; it was inspired by a trifecta of similar "I don't want place to mean anything that interferes with my style pet peeves" arguments about public monuments, institutional buildings, and stations, all ongoing.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  13:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: Note that the proposal also covers the renaming of articles for closed stations which are disambiguated by the company that owned them. We would always disambiguate using brackets for company or system disambiguation. Disambiguating by using England/Wales(?)/Scotland could use either bracket or comma disambiguation (similar to e.g. A8 road (Scotland)), but I don't think it should be deliberately made different to other railway station articles' disambiguation. Jc86035 (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    Sure. There's more than one way to disambiguate various things; I'm just trying to address the default style, which for too long has been pretending that WP:AT prefers parenthetic, which is the opposite of the truth.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  13:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • A, 2 since that's how the majority have been for several years. No need to change established practice. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • D and 2 per Cuchullain and Amakuru. -- Tavix (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • C and 1: C because it goes with what outside sources say if necessary, and 1 because precision is desirable wherever possible. Sb2001 00:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • B and 2. B follows from WP:ATDAB:
  1. Where NR use Newport (Essex) or similar, there is a natural disambiguation, so let's use it. Essex isn't a Wikipedia perenthetical qualifier, it's part of the name like Housing (Scotland) Act 2014, so we should put "railway station" after it rather than in the middle.
  2. Are stations place names or other contexts? It's a matter of opinion. My POV is that comma-separated disambiguation isn't the best choice here.
  3. Where NR don't disambiguate but Wikipedia must (to distinguish from a foreign or closed station), the leaves us with adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name (not in the middle of it).
If there's an NR qualifier we should use it as is, even an abbreviation like (Hants) which wouldn't be Wikipedia's choice. Otherwise, 2 follows from WP:PRECISION: where the only other contender is abroad, use Patna railway station (Scotland) rather than (East Ayrshire) etc. In practice, I expect most such cases will need to be distinguished from closed or confusingly similar British stations, so we'll need a county or year. Certes (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • C and 1. We use comma disambiguation for structures and places in the UK. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    That convention, which is not written down, and which I personally disagree with, has never applied to railway stations. There is no reason to move them all to an anachronistic format now, when they never have been before, and all other statoins around the world use parentheses. That's why D is preferable to C.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion (UK railway station disambiguation)[edit]

Just to complicate this discussion somewhat further, participants are invited to have a look at User:Amakuru/Disambiguated stations, where I put together a list of all present and past rail stations with an article, and categorised them as to how they are disambiguated. Note that many of them are not actually disambiguated by location at all, but by the rail company that owned the station. This makes sense, because often there used to be two stations in the same town, and the only difference between them was which line they were on. For example Banbridge (BJR) railway station and Banbridge (BLBR) railway station. It probably makes sense to conclude the above discussion first, but if we end up going for something like option D, we should then discuss whether that should extend to these other formatted stations. Personally I would say yes, and we should move the above pair to Banbridge railway station (BJR) and Banbridge railway station (BLBR). Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Minimum criteria for a Station[edit]

What contitutes a (railway) station, for the purposes of article naming? Useddenim (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Primarily with respect to tram, trolley and streetcar lines, but some editors are in the habit of labeling all stopping points as a "station" or "transit station". Is there any support for the idea that in order to be called a station (at least in Wikipedia), there should be at a minimum:

  • a permanent, weatherproof platform
  • some sort of passenger shelter
  • a point of sale for fare media

Anything less should be a "stop" (setting aside the specific British legal definition of a "halt"). Useddenim (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

If those are the criteria, half of the UK's stations will vanish. We have platforms (and some countries just don't) but passenger shelters are pitiful, often missing altogether or no more than an open-fronted bus shelter, and a means of selling tickets is much in the minority. None of these three are requirements for a station. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: Would "have or had" be better? Useddenim (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Andy Dingley that those criteria are too restrictive. For me, in Britain at least, if passenger trains regularly call there, it's a station. -- Alarics (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Denton is just as much a railway station as is Grand Central
I agree also; this set of criteria is insanely restrictive. "A point of sale for fare media" would wipe out most railway stations in the UK, "Permanent weatherproof platform" would wipe out large swathes of the US and India, and "some form of passenger shelter" would take care of much of the remainder. A station is a place which appears in passenger rail timetables as a station, and we shouldn't be trying to come up with fancy exceptions. ‑ Iridescent 09:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
If a railway company has timetabled trains to call there, and the public can use said trains, then it is a station, no matter how small it is. These should almost always be capable of meeting WP:GNG. Stations not open to public services (eg: Hoo Junction Staff Halt) may also be capable of meeting GNG, but should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Some of the smaller halts opened by heritage lines (e.g. Bluebell Halt) may be better covered as part of an article on said heritage line. Public freight sidings (e.g. Churn Siding) are almost always going to need to be covered by the article on the line. It will be a rare exception that these will be able to meet GNG. Mjroots (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Mjroots the OP was about stations in the context of "tram, trolley and streetcar lines", in which case it isn't as clear-cut; in a tram-heavy town like Amsterdam there are probably well over 1000 tram stops, most of which are just bus stops which happen to have a couple of rails in front of them. My opposition is to any "if it doesn't have a ticket machine it's not a station" rule as originally proposed, but there is a legitimate debate to be had here; sure Berney Arms is unquestionably a station, but is something like Langsett/Primrose View in Sheffield? ‑ Iridescent 15:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I suggest that we delegate the question of the notability of tram stops to WP:TRAM. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Look above at Articles without references -- It's going to be a big challenge to find reliable sources to demonstrate notability. See WP:GNG. Rhadow (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Nah. At least with regards to the UK, Mjroots, Redrose64 and myself could provide at least three references for any given station within minutes. The 1965 Bibliography of British Railway History lists well over 20,000 books about British railway history alone, with a further 20,000-ish in the subsequent supplements—there's virtually no aspect of British Rail and its predecessors too obscure to have been covered in detail, and certainly not something high-profile like a station. ‑ Iridescent 16:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This would be truly counterproductive. Probably half of UK mainline stations would fail, but almost every tram stop would pass! -mattbuck (Talk) 17:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Super! Please help me find a reliable source about Iyoki Station and Asahi-ekimae-dōri Station. Rhadow (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
There are more extensive articles on both at ja:伊与喜駅 and at ja:旭駅前通停留場. You will need assistance with translation to make any progress with them and auto-translation is not yet viable for Japanese. However I can just see you itching to PROD or AfD these as "unsourced", and if you try that you will get very short shrift. Deleting an article just because the sources are all in a (to you) inaccessible language is not looked upon well. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Really, Andy Dingley, since 2005 ja:伊与喜駅 has one timetable reference. That's not notable. Please don't speculate about my intent, nor threaten me with barely adequate time for confession before execution. Rhadow (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
No need to speculate, I've read your edit history. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I ran ja:旭駅前通停留場 through Google Translate. Reveals four book sources and a newspaper source. Mjroots (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It's currently in use and served by trains it is a station unless it is called something different in reliable sources. If it is disused and was served by trains it is/was a station unless it is called something different in reliable sources. If it is or was served only by something that is not a train (e.g. trams, cable cars) then it is not within the scope of this project to decide whether it is a station. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the above is probably the wrong approach. These are probably best decided (as currently) based on what the operator calls the station, regardless of the system or how large/developed it is. If you just want to fix some article titles, fix the Tiananmen/Tian'anmen discrepancy or propose a consistent disambiguation style for numbered metro lines. Jc86035 (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with the comments above - a station is a station if it is defined as such by its operator, and in sources. I think that means we stick with the way we're already doing things. The proposal above is a solution looking for a problem, and would definitely be a step in the wrong direction. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Follow the sources: It's not Wikipedia's job to try to police language usage. If reliable sources call it a station (or a word in non-English that translates to station) then we also call it one, per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RECOGNIZABLE, and WP:NOR. Wikiprojects don't get to make up their own magical rules out of nowhere (they try it all the time, and when people notice, it gets reversed). Whether something can have an article here is a WP:GNG matter. A tremendous number of pointless stubs on stations and alleged stations needs to be merged into the parent articles on the transit system, exactly as we do with non-notable schools and the local school system's article.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  12:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @SMcCandlish, it's not as straightforward as that. It takes no effort to find sources describing Lebanon Road tram stop or Exchange Square tram stop as "stations" (just google "lebanon road station" or "exchange square station" manchester), despite their clearly being tram stops and not railway stations, and that's in Britain where the tram stops do tend to have some kind of physical infrastructure. For something like the San Francisco cable cars where the stops are literally no more than a "cable car stops here" sign in the road but where numerous sources still describe them as "stations", things get even more blurry, and these examples are all from English-speaking countries where we at least have the fall-back of "what does the operating company call it?". For somewhere like Amsterdam where "halte voor tramlijnen" can be translated in multiple ways (the City of Amsterdam translates it as 'station' (quote marks in original) while GVB who operate the trams translate it as "stop") not having a rule would mean chaos. Then of course there's the gray area of places like Woodlands Road tram stop (a heavy rail station for 78 years; a tram stop for 21 years; now demolished) where there's a legitimate case to be made to use either "station" to represent what it was for most of its existence, or "tram stop" to represent what it was most recently, and where not having a rule in place would be an invitation for a permanent edit-war. I know Wikipedia already has a proliferation of rules, and that I'm one of the more vocal critics of the urge to incorporate a formal rule on every damn thing into the MOS, but station naming is an area where retaining the arbitrary "if scheduled passenger train services call there it's a station, and if its status has changed go with what it was most recently" existing rule makes sense. ‑ Iridescent 13:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't confuse mention with in-depth coverage in multiple, independent sources. Tram stops rarely get the latter, thus are generally not notable. Your belief that there's missing policy for this wikiproject to fill with its opinions is just an illusion. Similarly, it does not matter if some sources here and there call a no-structure stop a "station"; if it's not the predominant name in a significant majority of such sources, it is not the WP:COMMONNAME. Follow the WP:P&G, as written not as how you'd like to re-interpret them, and the issue just goes away. And WP:Use common sense; halte is 'halt, stop' in Dutch, not 'station' (also station in Dutch); one source that gets it wrong is meaningless. Where something was a station and a tram stop in different eras, just follow the sources. If most of them address it as a freight station, write the article from predominantly that standpoint, or vice versa if most of the material is about the trams stop, and name accordingly. If these are just passing mentions and not in-depth coverage, the subject is not notable and should be merged to something more general, or just deleted. There is no encyclopedic purpose in writing separate articles about every single point at which some railway, bus, subway, or street car lets people off. The solution to an existing rule that makes no sense and which we do not actually need is to delete it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  14:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In general, all stops on heavy rail should be regarded as stations, including halts. On light rail it's more subjective, but probably anything more than a tram stop with a sign, seat and/or shelter at the side of the road should be regarded as a station. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Railway line disambiguation[edit]

Of the eight editors in attendance there is a clear consensus: option "C", "all the articles should be named the same way", using the first form of disambiguation. (Two editors saying the third form is also acceptable.) I commend Jc86035 for a well presented question with clear options. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


How should railway and subway/metro lines, particularly numbered lines, be disambiguated? Should there be a consistent naming style across systems? Jc86035 (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Information (Railway line disambiguation)[edit]

There are 70 English Wikipedia articles for lines named "line 1", "Line 1", "U1" or "S1" (ignoring Line 1 Yonge–University). Since there is no guideline specifying how they should be disambiguated, they follow different naming conventions (as do the other numbered lines).

Out of those 70 articles:

  • 25 are disambiguated "Line 1 (system)", "S1 (system)" or "U1 (system)" (all U-Bahn and S-Bahn line articles use this form)
  • 17 are disambiguated "System Line 1" or "System line 1"
  • 28 are disambiguated "Line 1, system "

Of the six lines named "Line A", four use "Line A (system)" and two use "System Line A". (Edit: For simplicity, I only used as examples lines named "1" and lines named "A", since most named lines do not need disambiguation. 15:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC))

Except for Line 1, Kolkata Metro (which is inexplicably named differently to the other lines in the system), all lines named "Line , system " are in Mainland China and were written almost entirely by ASDFGH. I believe the comma disambiguation is incorrect, as this form of disambiguation is usually only used for place names and occasionally roads and buildings, and the disambiguator is always a place (not a system).

Should any articles be renamed to have a consistent disambiguation style? (pick one of A, B or C)

  • A: no, the article titles should all remain as they are
  • B: only some articles should be renamed (pick one to three of B1–B4)
    • B1: just the articles named "Line , system "
    • B2: just the articles named "System Line  "
    • B3: just the articles named "System line  "
    • B4: just the articles named "Line (system)" (+ U-Bahn, S-Bahn lines)
  • C: yes, all the articles should be named the same way
If articles should be renamed, which form of disambiguation should they use? (pick one)
  • 1: "Line (system)"
  • 2: "System Line  " (uppercase)
  • 3: "System line  " (lowercase)
  • 4: "System Line  " or "System line  " (depending on the form of capitalization used in that place or by the system's operator)
  • 5: "Line , system "

Survey (Railway line disambiguation)[edit]

  • C and 1 (nominator). Jc86035 (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • C & 1. Version C1 will automatically remove the disambiguation in a piped link, if desired. Useddenim (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • C and 1; and this should apply to names by color, e.g. Red line, names by number and/or letters, and if it comes up, shape (Circle line). —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Anomalocaris: This would probably apply to all railway lines (e.g. Airport Express, Beijing Subway would become Airport Express (Beijing Subway)). Jc86035 (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
    Jc86035: I think Airport Express (Beijing Subway) is a better name for the article than Airport Express, Beijing Subway, but it might be possible to convince me otherwise.—Anomalocaris (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • C, 1. And I agree that it should also be used for letter-named lines, and even full words if they happen to be the same word (like the common use of "airport"). oknazevad (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • C, 1 – without overcapitalization. If the "line" part is not the first word in the article, lowercase per MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS. Serial number designation like "U1" are capitalized (per virtually universal treatment this way in sources, and regardless of topic).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  12:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: If you're referring to lines which aren't numbered as well as lines which are, almost all systems (regardless of train type) outside Europe and Australia use uppercase "Line", especially for named lines (this may sometimes be an American English thing). I would favour using uppercase Line where more than 90% of RSes use uppercase, since "Line" is often considered to be part of the proper name, especially where a non-generic name is used for the line. Interestingly, Sydney uses both capitalized and non-capitalized, seemingly to differentiate lines and services. Jc86035 (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    Sounds like more WP:SSF to me. WP doesn't imitate the house style of random publishers (and especially wouldn't when the publisher in question can't even be consistent). For cases where there are a lot of independent, secondary reliable sources and they almost uniformly capitalize, then there's a case for diverging and using caps that might not otherwise be used. Most of the time these disputes come up, it's railfans arguing that signage and the transit agency's own internal use are their sources, which is obviously nonsense, since signage is usually overcapitalized, and so is governmentese and internal memo-ese, pretty universally. They're not reliable sources for anything at all pertaining to English usage, even if they are for something like "this train does not stop here on Sundays". Same goes for signage-equivalent things, like timetable boards and paper timetable brochures. All primary sources, and completely irrelevant to encyclopedic style questions.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  21:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    That doesn't change the fact that if we impose our own style of phrasing instead of using what is actually represented in sources, that's the very definition of WP:OR. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • C and either 1 or 3: I do not have a significant preference as to which. They both make sense. If pushed, I would opt for 3, because I see it as being cleaner. Certainly not 2 and 5—a comma is inappropriate, and we should avoid overcapping. Sb2001 00:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • C and 1 make the most sense here. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • C1 and C3 (without overcapitalization) are both OK, depending on the conventions for the system. Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Changes to Infobox services[edit]

AJ Pachano (talk · contribs) has been making large numbers of changes to the Infobox stations "services" field in several different articles. These are typically unsourced and have no edit summary. He's been reverted a few times but just keeps re-applying the changes. I don't know enough to tell whether these changes are correct or not. Can someone take a look? There are several articles involved, the one I'm watching is Martin Luther King Jr. Plaza (Toledo). Thanks. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Kendall-K1: blame Cards84664 (talk · contribs) for who do this about large infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJ Pachano (talkcontribs) 1:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Several hundred articles and templates, that's my estimate. I've been watching Union Station (Pittsburgh). Also this. Cards84664 (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Wow. Hate to say this, but the writing is so poor I have to wonder if the editor's reading comprehension is likewise. That might explain why the editor thinks they know something but are actually mistaken outright. oknazevad (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Also note the latest discussion on their talk page. Cards84664 (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Blind retaliation. I've had enough of this. Cards84664 (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Cards84664: If he's not receptive to explanation I would report him to WP:AN3 or similar. Jc86035 (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I think we have a WP:CIR case here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Exactly what I was thinking. This user lacks the competency to edit Wikipedia. oknazevad (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm thinking, their "sources" appear to be just other wikipedia articles, so I recommend we go through their contribs and re add whatever templates they removed, and sort out how the new ones work. For starters, I've already fixed the newly created Chicago North Shore templates on the Chicago 'L' articles. Cards84664 (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Oknazevad: @Redrose64: @Kendall-K1: Ok, which of you want to take AJ Pachano and "PhilEvolution" to ANI for pulling a WP:SOCK? Be my guest. Cards84664 (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Nevermind, I'll start the report, you guys can join in as well. Cards84664 (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Another block evasion, 112.200.107.143. Cards84664 (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Also note, I found this one after I was notified of some reverts, the revert summaries were blanked. Cards84664 (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Another one, User:RoyalCon. Cards84664 (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

More Line capitalization issues[edit]

Dicklyon has moved another few dozen articles, for railway lines in Mainland China, to replace "High-Speed Railway" with "high-speed railway", and edited Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) to reflect this; the guideline is now inconsistent because not all articles were renamed. He also moved articles titled "Railway Station" to "railway station". Was there consensus for this? I believe these may be correct but an RfC should be made first in order to gain consensus if there was no previous discussion. Jc86035 (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

If he's made them without prior discussion, even if they were correct, then it's time for a topic ban. He is permitted to make such changes, by a process of general agreement, but past behaviour has made it clear that the community does not trust him to make such changes on his own. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Numerous previous discussions have concluded that "XXX station" and "XXX railway station" don't get caps, with few exceptions where Station is an actual part of the name. See WP:USSTATION, WP:UKSTATION, WP:CANSTATION, WP:Naming conventions (Australasian stations), WP:NC-PLSTATIONS, and discussions that led to them; there are differences, but none suggest caps for station. Yet I found a cluster of stubs for stations in Asia that had caps, so started working on that; many of them already had the "XXX" part alone as title, and "XXX station" lowercased in the lead, so nothing but a move was needed in those cases. Similarly "XXX line" and "XXX foo railway" don't get caps unless sources show that they are almost always capped, either as a proper name of a line or of a company; that was not the case on the ones I've changed (in some cases, the article does distinguish a company by the same name, XXX High-speech Railway LLC Inc or such, and I left the caps where that was the case, but not for the article title which was clearly about the line not the company). And yes, it's still inconsistent, as there's more to be done. Is there a thought here that Asia is different? Or China particularly? The convention that I edited had an assertion that such things are proper names, which is seldom the actual case as you can see by looking at sources, so I simply removed that statement which appealed politely for over-capping. Are they any particular objections to specific moves that I've made, or just discomfort that's it's me doing it? Dicklyon (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, make no question of it: it's just discomfort that's it's you doing it. Your past behaviour means that you have lost my trust for doing that. Maybe other people here feel the same.
None of us have the right to make unilateral changes on our personal whims. If our judgement is trusted, or AGF is extended to us, then we might make them anyway and they'd be accepted post facto, or else discussed and reverted. But your history is a burden to you. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: Don't forget your obnoxious habit of moving great tranches of pages and not fixing a single link. It's taken Colonies Chris months to clean up after your downcasing of UK rail lines. Useddenim (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
@Useddenim: Be fair, many of them were not broken links, as redirects were created when the pages were moved. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
And any that are double redirs are rapidly fixed by a bot. This invective (did Andy Dingley really say "Oh, make no question of it: it's just discomfort that's it's you doing it" (emphasis in original)? Any excuse to attack Dicklyon. If this persists, it's not going to end well. And actually getting page titles in line with policies and real, site-wide guidelines is not "personal whims", it's standard operating procedure. The refusal of a handful of editors in this one wikiproject to accept that rules they don't like still apply to them is the whim issue, and is a WP:CONLEVEL policy problem. These tendentious antics bring the entire wikiproject system into disrepute, which it really doesn't need these days given that an increasing number of editors are coming to the conclusion we should just do away with them as hotbeds of anti-consensus canvassing and an barrier rather than a boon to open participation, walling off and WP:OWNing content against "outsiders".  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  12:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, was I insufficiently clear for you, about how much of a problem Dicklyon has been here? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm entirely aware of the history and nature of your dispute with him; you've pursued it so tendentiously, it would be hard to miss. The fact that you don't agree with him is no excuse for pointed incivility. And when these go to full RMs, then tend to go the way he suggests the majority of the time, so consensus does not agree with your assessment of him being "a problem". The legitimate problem, long resolved at ANI, was manually making large-scale mass moves after objections were raised to them, instead of stopping and using RM, which he now does. Complaining that DL uses the prescribed forum for coming to consensus about article titles, to come to consensus about article titles, as somehow anti-consensus and a "problem" is obviously fallacious reasoning. Now, instead of arguing with me about whether it's okay for you to persist in uncivilly personalizing style disputes, after repeated WP:ARBATC {{DS/alerts}} (if I see it happen again, I'm just going to open a WP:AE request for sanctions, because this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior has to stop), did you have something substantive to discuss?  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  15:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: Regardless of Dicklyon's page moves of articles for British lines, we do now have RfCs which can fully address the issues I was posting about, so it would probably be more productive to participate in the RfCs instead of criticizing Dicklyon's actions again. Jc86035 (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The link fixes that Colonies Chris did were mostly in templates that retained the over-capped titles; I've thanked him again for his help. Nothing was broken, but I agree that continuing to change the over-capped uses to the MOS-compatible versions is worthwhile work, and I'm willing to help and do more of that. I tend to work on titles first, and then cleanup in the moved articles, with the hope that links will be gradually fixed over time. Like I say, happy to help, but I can't do it all. And the accusation of "not fixing a single link" is grossly unfair and untrue. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Just adding, all the Station articles for the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) have a capital s for Station, for example, Ubi MRT Station (used it as it has shortest name). Do we change or keep it with caps? -1.02 editor (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@1.02 editor: I am not 100% sure but the capitalization is probably incorrect per MOS to avoid over-capitalization and to use RSes for capitalization conventions. The Straits Times uses lowercase "station" and "MRT station", as does the Singaporean government on this page. As for line name capitalization, the Straits Times uses uppercase "Line" although about 5–10% of sources use lowercase "line". Same probably applies to other systems in SE Asia but I haven't checked. Jc86035 (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The BTS Skytrain also uses caps for Station, so does the Taipei Metro for example. -1.02 editor (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The BTS stations mostly used lowercase station in articles; over-capitalization was mostly just in titles, probably because someone didn't understand about WP:NCCAPS. Fixed. There are a lot more in the Singapore and Taipei cases, but they should be fixed, too. Dicklyon (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Market Harborough rail accident prodded[edit]

I've applied a PROD template to Market Harborough rail accident, and since the creator has not edited since 2013 and I don't see any other substantial authors in the history, I'm notifying this WikiProject in case anyone here can see reason why it should be kept. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have a link to the RAIB report? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be one, in fact there doesn't appear to be any online for incidents pre-October '05 Nightfury 12:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah, wondered why I couldn't find it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
This page.[6] of Railways Archive suggests that the accident was not the subject of a published formal accident investigation report] - Morphenniel (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
RAIB was created seven months after this accident and its first online report is on an incident the next day. I can't find an HMRI report. The road driver received minor injuries and a £200 fine, no one else hurt, so probably not notable. Certes (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you folks have found a deeper version of what I've found. There was a later accident at Market Harborough that does have a report (2010? I believe in that case the Intercity derailed). Yngvadottir (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Undiscussed page moves by User:Irkediambed[edit]

User:Irkediambed has been making a host of un-discussed page moves. Most involving SEPTA or PATCO. There is little evidence for any of these moves. This user made their first edit to Wikipedia just one week ago, but seems to already have knowledge of page moves and redirects that I would only expect from a more experienced editor. Do I smell a sock ?? - Morphenniel (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope, I smell it too. I already reverted at least one move, probably could revert more. oknazevad (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Transit system icons in nav templates[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Transit system icons in nav templates. 18:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Stylistic discussion, mergers and reorgs[edit]

FYI, I'm engaged in a discussion with another editor about how much coverage Wikipedia should give to the corporate mergers and re-organizations for the article Southern Pacific Railroad and how those should be covered. As we are just going back and forth, could I solicit some outside opinion? I'm posting here as this potentially has implications for the articles on other large railroad companies. Discussion at: Talk:Southern_Pacific_Transportation_Company#Additions_made_since_August Dave (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

DB Class VT 12.5[edit]

I have perhaps offended a RR expert. I was going through the backlog and discovered this article about 34 DMUs. I searched for references WP:BEFORE, but perhaps I was unsuccessful because I did not search in German. I PRODded the article. It was immediately reverted. Is there some exclusion from WP:V for this article? Rhadow (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can WP:DEPROD, though it's polite to give a reason. The article seems to be a summary of de:DB-Baureihe VT 12.5. That has a Literatur section, with a few magazines in German that don't happen to be on my bookshelf. There are also a couple of external links (one in German, one in Japanese) though neither shouts "reliable source" at me. The information sounds plausible and is probably verifiable by the right specialist, i.e. not me. Certes (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Certes -- So if there is a German language article, the English language article is excused from WP:V? I don't doubt the veracity of this article, but I worry for all of the unsupported articles. Many thanks. Rhadow (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@Rhadow: - Your ongoing inputs to the WikiProject Trains project are all negative, unhelpful and unwanted. As I have stated to you before, if your only purpose on Wikipedia is to PROD articles, busy then you have misunderstood the purpose of the encyclopedia. That said, I am more than willing to keep you busy by supplying lists of articles in other areas (not railroads), that you can PROD because they also lack references. As I, and many others have told you, any article you PROD will be reverted. Your underlying theme of getting people to work for you to improve articles rather than taking the time to improve them yourself. Your behavior is now starting to exhibit many of the signs of disruptive behavior, and if it does not cease, then you will find yourself being held accountable at WP:ANI. Morphenniel (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
No, the article isn't "excused" from WP:V. However, the existence of a German-language article with German-language sources suggests that a PROD with the rationale "No reliable sources found today" is untenable. Mackensen (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I think any more of this is time for WP:AN and a formal topic ban. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaguar XJR sportscars‎ too. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Morphenniel -- There are 200,000 articles that are unreferenced. I happened on this one today. I am sorry that it happened to be in your area of interest. Fine. You can give me other articles to chase down, articles that are not in your back yard.
As to the specifics of this single article, as it turns out, the only references for this article are in German. That's not surprising, the article is a direct translation of the German language article from ten years ago. No one bothered to copy the references for ten years following. I bear no ill will toward the Trains Project, no more than against the cricketers or keepers of the railroad station names. The rule is that WP articles are verifiable. Just because this article slid for ten years doesn't justify it. The nine articles I created in the last month are verifiable. It wouldn't bother me if they were challenged. The result is that our readers can rely on what they read. If you feel I need to be banned for that, please be guided accordingly. Rhadow (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

German Locomotives[edit]

We now have further evidence of disruptive editing by User:Rhadow per this comment [7]. Same approach, raise a question of verifiability with the thinly veiled threat of the article being PRODed, and thus getting others to improve the article. The "What to do?" at the end of the comment is typical, and shows no attempt to improve the article, even though it is in decent shape. Morphenniel (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

And the list continues to grow:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphenniel (talkcontribs) 17:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, this is now disruptive. A ten minute search found plenty of sources are available for the DR Class 250 article (see talk). Maybe it's time to head to ANI and ask for a topic ban. Mjroots (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
How is it disruptive to say on the article talk page what work he did to look for sources? Mightn't it encourage others to chime in if they have sources available? You could fix this once and for all by adding the sources that you found in ten minutes. Dicklyon (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
It is disruptive because there are article on the DR Class 250 in no less than eight languages. Most of the articles have references. Didn't take long to find some useable references, so BEFORE had obviously not been done. Why should I fix the mess? Not of my creation and I'm not the one complaining. Mjroots (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Mjroots -- The references discovered for DR Class 250 were (1) from print magazines (or at least no url was provided) and (2) other databases in German. The second set of references did not include DR 250, but rather the string Baureihe 155. The article creator probably knew that, but a non-German-speaking editor would have no way of knowing that. I didn't, and I don't think that changes my original observation that the article was unreferenced since it was created in 2008. I didn't PROD this article, nor nominate it for AfD. Rhadow (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
References do not have to be online, nor do they have to be in the English language. Obviously, English language references are preferred, but they are not essential. Mjroots (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
So based on the lack of references for articles that do exist, and a large number of articles that have not been prepared, what are we going to do about this sad template Template:German DMUs?? Do we remove all the classes without articles? Do we go the whole none yards, and delete the entire template on the basis that even the articles that have been created will likely fail both WP:V and WP:GNG?? The question being asked of us by Rhadow is whether we should start to dismantle, delete and generally perform a mass cull of the work done by the railways project over many years? Answers on a postcard please! - Morphenniel (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Another round of "presumption of notability" of railway stations[edit]

User:Rhadow continues to assail the railroad community, and this time its the old chestnut of the notability of railway stations. Here is a list of some articles where he has re-asserted the WP:V question.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphenniel (talkcontribs) 17:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Where he says "Without references, the article is all original research and the assertions cannot be confirmed", I wouldn't consider that to be an attack on notability, but a question about what can we say without sources. Maybe we should just say it appears on the map, cite the coordinates, and say no more. Or maybe instead just redirect to a notable line that the station is on, if there's nothing to say other than that it exists. Dicklyon (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dicklyon -- Sorry to chime in on the old chestnut late. You are correct. I am not challenging the notability of train stations or named populated places or locomotives that clearly existed (and for which there are photographs). What I challenge is the creation of articles without references whatsoever. In other fields of human endeavor, the requirement for sources is undisputed. It seems strange that there are pockets of interest where interested editors believe that the subject matter is excused from sourcing. Finance is one, nautical matters is another. Ninety-nine percent of the articles are great. The remaining one percent are junk, and in many cases are counter-factual. I think we owe it to our readers to deliver articles on which they can count, and for which there are sources. In the railroad realm, here's list of old articles. They are just a few of the 200,000 articles with no references whatsoever. Rhadow (talk) - Morphenniel (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it's important that these be tagged as unreferenced, and it's not a bad idea to remind editors of that at a relevant project page, as that might motivate them to look for sources. E.g. for the first one, here are a couple. Note that there's no apparent reason to capitalize class here either; that should be fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
So we can now add Dicklyon to the list of lazy editors who have nothing positive to contribute to Wikipedia, and would rather spend their time tagging articles for improvement or PROD-ing them for deletion. I have just spent a quick 10 minutes and added references to the four German Railway (DB/DBAG) articles. I think we need to get a topic ban for both Dicklyon and Rhadow for being time-wasters and disruptive. Morphenniel (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I have worked with Dick on non-train projects and consider his contribution to Wikipedia to be positive. We all need to tag or PROD occasionally but, with 73,000 edits in article space, this editor is hardly "lazy". Certes (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Here is clear evidence of disruptive behavior by Rhadow. I improved this article that he had tagged by adding missing references and providing at leat one inline citation (more than enough considering the article length). Accordingly I removed the tag. Almost immediately afterwards the tag is restored, with no discussion on the talk page, and no further attempt to add more information. Worse, the editor then implies that the references are invalid because "I do not possess the paper book" [8], which infers a lack of faith and suggests that any inline citation is not acceptable to him unless he has the book himself. This is getting ridiculous. - Morphenniel (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Please don't be so sensitive. The book is a fine reference, just one not available to me. If I didn't trust it, I would say so. Rhadow (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@Rhadow: WP:V means that a reference has to be verifiable. It does not mean that you have to be able to verify it there and then. Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Anyone can look at my 100,000 contributions over the last 12 years and see that I seldom PROD or tag anything, and that I add tons of content to WP, and I do lots of gnoming style improvements without much drama. And I take a lot of photos that I upload to commons and place on articles that can use more or better illustration. What's this sudden attack about? Dicklyon (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
To be fair to Rhadow what he actually said was "inline; I would help with the inline citations but I do not possess the paper book". He is demanding that there are inline references, which is Wiki policy for anything contentious, would help but doesn't have the book. Some people interpret "sufficient" references in a short article such as this as one good one to show where the information came from. Others believe that every paragraph needs a reference, even if it is the same one repeated from the previous paragraph. The ideal is probably somewhere between the two. I have added a {{reflist}} section and the inline references now show up, If you could add a {{sfnp}} at the end of each paragraph that ought to deflect any criticisms. Martin of Sheffield (talk)
Give me a couple weeks and I'll help when my copy of the 2-part German Railways book arrives if it still needs it by then. One thing I find helpful when sources are not online is to include brief quotes from them in support of the points made; so I'll try to do that. Dicklyon (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Books arrived already. Boring bunch of tables, mostly, but do ask me if you want anything verified. When I feel patient I may do some inline refs. Dicklyon (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

In the DB Class 614 article I've clarified and fixed the citations like this:

But I think I'll remove the second one, as I don't see anything about that class in there. And I'll add page 155 to the footnote. Dicklyon (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Comma or parenthetic disambiguation for "small places"[edit]

 SMcCandlish has started an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Comma or parenthetic disambiguation for "small places" to always disambiguate small places, such as railway stations, with commas rather than parentheses. Useddenim (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move discussion[edit]

A move discussion is taking place at Talk:Arden railway station, Melbourne#Requested move 28 November 2017 which may interest the members of WP Trains. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject[edit]

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Trains

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 19:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rodw: The DAB solver doesn't work. I tried to fix the disambiguation in Arthur M. Wellington and it wouldn't save so I'm doing it directly. CravinChillies 23:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks - I don't know why the tool didn't work for you - might be worth asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation, but thanks for the work you are doing on these without it.— Rod talk 07:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move discussion[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:NRE N-ViroMotive Series#Requested move 8 December 2017 regarding a requested move of that article. This discussion is of interest to the members of this WikiProject, and you are invited to share your thoughts. -happy5214 01:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on CONSISTENCY and USEENGLISH (and dashes and capital letters) in Russian train station article titles[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Russian railway line article titles.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  04:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

New York Central MU Cars[edit]

Hi:

I was just looking at the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Central_MU_Cars, and noted that the photograph in the upper right corner of the article is incorrect-- it is of a wood rapid transit car, not of a New York Central MU car. Good photos of NYC MU cars described in the article can be found at: http://passcarphotos.info/Indices/NYC2.htm. One that looks particularly good is: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/nyc4174.jpg.

-Eric Bott 108.89.250.75 (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, due to copyright issues, Wikipedia can't just indiscriminately post images from anywhere. Useddenim (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be one that's made of steel here. Wasn't there a commons category for NYC EMU's? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)