Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
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

Hastings Line FAC2[edit]

I've re-nominated the Hastings Line article for FAC. It failed last time due to a lack of reviews, so I'd appreciate some support this time round please. Mjroots (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

We're almost there. One of the coordinators has asked that the licencing for images and provenance of the sources are vetted. Would someone please do this? Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Potential source book[edit]

Came across a book about Indian railways I thought might be of interest.

Angus McDonald, "India's Disappearing Railways" Goodman Fiell, 2014. ISBN 978 1 78313 011 5

More of a coffee table book with large photos, but some text that may be useful. - 220 of Borg 02:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a nice book, I've seen it too, but I haven't looked at it very closely yet. There's actually a huge amount of reasonably accessible source material on India's railways that could be used to enhance Wikipedia. A lot of it is covered in Hurd and Kerr's recent book India's Railway History: A Research Handbook (2012), which is included in the bibliography at the end of History of rail transport in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahnfrend (talkcontribs) 05:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC) ‎
Whoops, yeah, sorry, forgot to sign. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Future railway stations by year[edit]

There are too many categories: Unless a major reorganization is performed (combining completed, under-construction, and proposed stations) is done, I think (RS denotes "railway stations", so that the table will fit on most computers; letter codes in the boxes:

  • E = category exists
  • a = category absurd
  • u = category not quite absurd, but unlikely
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
RS opened in E Ea a a Ea a a Ea a a
RS scheduled to open in E E E E Eu Eu u u u u
Proposed RS scheduled to open in Ea Ea Eu E E E E

I'm not quite sure whether to propose

    • 2015: Splitting "proposed" into "opened" and "scheduled"
    • 2016: Move "proposed" and "opened" into "scheduled"
    • 2019, 2022: Move "opened" into "proposed"


    • 2015: Splitting "proposed" into "opened" and "scheduled"
    • 2016–2024:Move all into "scheduled", whether or not contruction has started.

It's up to the project, but "opened" in a future year is speculative, at best. Whatever you (the project) decides, I'll help generate the Cfm/r templates, if you (collectively) don't have an AWB guru. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems that we can do away with all those cats, and have just two in their place. Once for stations with a scheduled opening date, and one for proposed stations. Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Can we lose "proposed stations" on the basis of WP:CRYSTAL? Lamberhurst (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL is for preventing unverifiable speculation. Proposed stations are often verifiable, by having been reported in reputable railway press: indeed, WP:CRYSTAL says "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. ... Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included". --Redrose64 (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Photo of RS-3 at top right of page.[edit]

The photo shown at the top right of this page is mine. I used to have photo credit shown but it has been removed.

While I don't mind the photo being used, I do insist on a credit line as I do own the copyright on this photo.

The same applies to the photo on this page: -


Roger Traviss — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2015

You are credited, on the file description page. If you return to the second link that you gave above, you will see at the bottom left some text "View author information" and at bottom right a button "More details" - both of those are links, click either of them and you should see all of the information that was added by the uploader, Fourdee (talk · contribs) (as amended by Jamesofur (talk · contribs) upon receipt of this OTRS ticket). This attribution is in line with WP:CREDITS and other policies. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


Recently there have been some differing opinions on the validity of retaining hitherto unpopulated fields in infoboxes. One example is Cherrybrook railway station, an Australian station scheduled to open in 2019. There are two theories;

1) all fields should be retained [1] to allow those unpopulated to be filled as information becomes available

2) only populated fields should be included [2] and can be added as required.

My opinion is that 2) is more cumbersome and requires a higher level of Wikipedia proficiency, thus less likely to occur making 1) more preferable. Not just specific to under construction stations, but infoboxes in general. Anyone care to offer an opinion? Turingway (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I greatly prefer the former, because the latter requires knowing that the fields exist. Casual editors don't know that they exist and don't add them. Mackensen (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Focusing on information being "available" is something of a distraction. Various fields cannot be filled in because they are irrelevant (most of the dates in the case at hand, and all the passenger statistics fields), and some will stay that way (I gather that the system in question doesn't have "zones" and that the country/whatever in question doesn't have "boroughs"). OTOH some fields seems to have been omitted, even from the supposedly complete list, because whoever put the thing together didn't care about them (the architecture fields in this case). There are a bunch of fields which people who don't know how the infobox works aren't going to be able to fill in (the whole "services" section). I'm not convinced that simply having the fields there, waiting to be filled in, is going to enable passing editors to fill them in when the time comes. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
All fields should be included, unless it is obvious that a field is not needed (e.g. one of two fields for a spelling variation due to different varieties of English). It does no harm having unused fields in an infobox. Mjroots (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Option 1. Useddenim (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Mass AfD nomination[edit]

A mass nomination of between 40 and 50 railway station articles has been opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aviation Academy Railway Halt. Mjroots (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Platform Boxes[edit]

In Sydney Australia we currently have a recently joined member who is deleting platform boxes from stations because they do not have specific references as to which platform certain routes depart from or there is only one platform. I believe this is taking the reference argument to the extreme. I and another member have been reverting his posts but he continues to do so. See User_talk:Mqst_north#A bit of free advice Examples are Berry railway station and Albion Park railway station. Any discussion please.Fleet Lists (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Some progress has been made with the issues now more clearly defined with some comments in Talk:Bomaderry_railway_station We would appreciate some further comments on the last two issues listed there so that these issues can be resolved.Fleet Lists (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Using "(new)" as a disambiguator[edit]

See talk:Visakhapatnam – New Delhi AP Express where a proposed new name for the train article uses the format " (new)" for the new name -- (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Soviet and Russian locomotives[edit]

I am creating articles for some early Soviet diesel locomotives, e.g. ВМ and I would like to discuss names for the articles. ВМ looks like BM but it is Cyrillic script so it is likely to cause confusion. Could we please develop a naming convention for Soviet and Russian locomotives. I am currently working on shch-el-1 or Щэл1 at User:Biscuittin/sandbox2. I assume that article titles in English Wikipedia should use English characters. Biscuittin (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be an existing naming convention for subjects whose names are normally written in Cyrillic script or Russian language. However, we do have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). --Redrose64 (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I have moved ВМ to Soviet locomotive class VM. This title is loosely based on the British Rail ones, e.g. British Rail Class D16/1. Biscuittin (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I have moved it again to Russian locomotive class VM to match the Russian steam loco titles, e.g. Russian locomotive class IS. Biscuittin (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I guess the thing is that if Western sources in their own literature use "BM", then BM it should remain. Mangoe (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
These two letters look like B and M, but in Cyrillc script they are В and М. The letter М is sounded just like our own letter M, but the В is sounded like our V. Consider the word "Восток" (which means "East"), it is normally Latinised to "Vostok". --Redrose64 (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
A comment on the use of "Soviet" and "Russian". If the locomotives were introduced before 1992, then the article should be located under a "Soviet" title. For 1992 introductions and later, then the "Russian" title is correct. Those classes in service across 1991-92 should probably be housed at whichever title covers their longest period of service, with a redirect from the other title. Mjroots (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Sydney Metro (2008 proposal)[edit]

Sydneysiders among you will remember the previous Sydney Metro proposal of 2008-10, which at the time spawned five separate Wikipedia articles referring to the various aspects of the project. (All were cancelled within two years; a separate program, also called Sydney Metro, is now under construction.) There's an ongoing discussion regarding whether these should be merged into a single article called Sydney Metro (2008 proposal) at Talk:Sydney Metro (2008 proposal). Any thoughts? Mqst north (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Alleged discovery of train carrying Nazi gold[edit]

This story might be worth keeping an eye on. Could be an article if it is confirmed to ave been found. Mjroots (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Considering the notorious ways the Nazis used to get a lot of their gold, if this is found to be legit, perhaps there would be some question of what would be done with the train once the potential reparations are made. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

REO Motor Car Company manufactured train cars?[edit]

While trying to resolve ambiguous links in WikiProject Canada articles, I came across Brockville, Westport and North-Western Railway with a link to "Reo". In this edit, I wikilinked to REO Motor Car Company (a.k.a. REO or Reo), attributing manufacture of "gas-powered rail cars" for the BWNWR to that company. However, the REO / Reo article covers only manufacture of autos and trucks and buses. Does anyone know of REO railroad cars being manufactured or used anywhere else? Can any references be found to document that in the REO article? I still assume my edit was accurate, but would be happy to be corrected if it turns out there is some other Reo company that made train cars. TIA, --doncram 17:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This page reproduces an extract from a primary source describing the railbus: it was built by Ledoux, Jennings Ltd., of Montreal (Reo agents) and powered by a Reo engine. Your edit was correct. Thanks! Choess (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Major copyright problem[edit]

Good evening. I've just discovered that Oanabay04 (talk · contribs) (currently blocked, not sure of details) copy/pasted large portions of text wholesale from George Drury's Historical Guide of North American Railroads. He used the 1994 edition; I have the 1985 edition in front of me. So far, starting from A, every article is affected except Adirondack Railway (1976–1981) (which I wrote earlier this evening; maybe it's not in the 1994 edition). I've started keeping a list at User:Mackensen/Drury copyvios and I've filed a request at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations, but cleaning this up is going to be obnoxious. Hopefully in most cases it'll be possible to just revert to the last good version, accepting that some edits may have to be reinstated. Mackensen (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Details at User talk:Oanabay04#Block extended and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oanabay04. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted the last of the copy-paste edits I could identify; one article is pending deletion and the B&O has been listed for follow-up. In total 54 articles were affected. I suspect there are others; in my opinion not a single edit by this editor can be trusted without verification. Mackensen (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

2015 Thalys attack[edit]

I added a navbox to the 2015 Thalys attack article. This was later removed. I initiated the D part of WP:BRD at talk:2015 Thalys attack#Navbox but so far there has been no response. I'd like some discussion to take place so that there is consensus formed, not just a difference of opinion between two editors. If the navbox is kept off the article, so be it. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


At the risk of poking the bear, I noticed that some Crimea transport articles and templates have been moved from Category:Ukraine transport templates to Category:Russia transport templates. Do you know if any consensus has been reached about this? Useddenim (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

Feel free to comment and/or leave feedback at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Metra stations/archive1. Thanks, Sportsguy17 (TC) 13:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Top-cited missing journals[edit]

WP:JCW has recently updated, and the coverage of trains and railroad publications on Wikipedia could be improved. Many of the top cited 'journals' (which include magazines and websites, etc...) will be of interest to people in this project, so I figured I would compile a list.

The above classification maybe a bit off, because I'm just basing myself off the languages and titles of those publications, so don't chew my head off if Die Bundesbahn covers more than the trains of Germany!

Any help you can give writing these articles is greatly appreciated. You can consult our writing guide at WP:JWG (journals) and WP:MWG (magazines) for some guidance on writing articles on journals and magazines. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Can I add Heritage Railway (magazine) to the list? Mjroots (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The compilation missed "Heritage Railway" because currently that redirects to Heritage railway (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/H6). You can create Heritage Railway (magazine) and put a {{redirect}} notice on Heritage railway.
You can add whatever you want to the list, those above are simply those picked up in Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/Missing1 through Missing5 (which are the most used magazines/journals/websites without articles). There are many other publications I'm sure. Just search 'Rail' and 'Train' or similar and you'll find plenty more. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Advice needed re. preceding & following, stations / stops[edit]

Hello, I am seeking confirmation of the correct way to 'render' preceding and following stations &/or stops in the s-boxes at the bottom of the pages. For example George Street tram stop... has Church Street tram stop under preceding stop whereas in fact, it is the stop that follows George St. (the trams only run one way at that point). It can be read as correct in that George St. precedes Church St. and therefore could be said to be be preceding Church St. but I would have thought that in the case of George St., the preceding stop is the one the tram leaves before reaching George St. (In this case East Croydon Station) but am wondering what the convention is for this project. Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Mostly the routeboxes are west to east and north to south, so for the Croydon system you'd put the stop that is towards Wimbledon on the left, and that towards Beckenham Junction / New Addington / Elmers End on the right. There is that loop and triangle though. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that clarifys it. I can see the reasoning... but in this instance it appears to be wrong because of the one way operation. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
In my experience, UK routeboxes tend to follow the "down" line, so the London terminus will be the one with no "preceding" station. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes that would be the north/south, west/east scenario clarified by Redrose64. It is slightly confusing in this instance as the line here (tramlink) runs east/west only at this point, with the return line following a different route. Eagleash (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Lua-based route diagram template[edit]

(Hopefully this is the right place to announce it) I just finished localizing the documentation of Lua module:routemap so map created by it will load faster than map composed of the older BS series templates. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)