Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Trains (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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

Category:Stations along the proposed New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail Line has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Stations along the proposed New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail Line, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Hartford Line stations. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Naming conventions proposal for Taiwan stations[edit]

Hi. I am proposing a naming conventions for Taiwan stations for better consistency. Feedback welcomed at User talk:Szqecs/Naming conventions (Taiwan stations). Thanks. Szqecs (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

MAX Blue Line[edit]

Truflip99 has asked for feedback on the MAX Blue Line article, before a possible Good article nomination, if any WikiProject Trains members are willing to take a look and leave feedback on the article's talk page. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Ahmedabad Monorail for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ahmedabad Monorail is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmedabad Monorail until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nizil (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Low quality of wikipedia articles related to current technology[edit]

Hi all, I have started work for a railway company not so long ago and as I used wikipedia to answer specific doubts and just to learn more about current technology, I realised the quality of content for modern technology is pretty poor. I assume this is because this is a very opaque sector that people outside the sector do not understand very well. I was pretty surprised by the low quality of the ETCS article, absence of digital interlocing and EULZNX, etc. Has anyone else had the same impression? Would this merit creating a task force for this? Cheers! Botatao (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Templates help required[edit]

I have started on adding and improving articles on railway stations in China but have had difficulty getting the s-line template to work properly, see for exaample Tianyang railway station. Any advice or help would be much appreciated.Johnkn63 (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Johnkn63: As the redlink suggests, you need to create a simple new template Template:S-line/CRH left/Nanning–Kunming high-speed railway with the code of the station at the "left" end of the railway. Sometimes you need to use a code defined in Template:CRH stations but here we can just use the simple default of providing the station name without the text " railway station" (which {{CRH stations}} adds). So the new template should just contain the text "Nanning". Similarly, we need Template:S-line/CRH right/Nanning–Kunming high-speed railway with the text "Kunming South". Then everything should work. Certes (talk)
@Certes:Thank you for your help. I was unsure about what to write in the template. Working fine now.Johnkn63 (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Links to theairdb website[edit]

A bunch of rail-station and airport articles have links to theairdb.com website, which apparently is some database with a page of details for each station. They are often listed as an IATA entry in the "Station code" section of the infobox, but sometimes in External links. The site is now dead and domain-squatted. Does anyone know a similar resource to use instead, or should these links all just be removed? As an added annoyance, it's all hand-coded in each page, not a central template to fix:( DMacks (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe www.gcmap.com? Anyway, it would be useful to template-ify this sort of thing (or even better have the infobox generate the extlink automatically) rather than hand-entering a link in each article? There are currently about 70 links to airdb.com from en.wp, but that site appears to be fairly comprehensive. DMacks (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Which country does this affect? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
By spot-checking Special:LinkSearch/*.theairdb.com, I see China, Kenya, UK, US, Canada, Australia. DMacks (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Those for UK stations outside Northern Ireland can probably be removed. These stations use either {{infobox GB station}} or {{infobox London station}}, each of which has a parameter (|code= and |railcode= respectively) which if filled in (as with all stations open at the present time) adds some official links to the infobox that show station information - location, facilities, train times, etc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Amtrak infobox headers[edit]

Cleveland, OH
Lakefront Station

Over the past few days, MrTrains227 and I have been adding the state abbreviations to to Amtrak station articles in a few states. I have picked up feedback from a few editors regarding official titles for the bigger Amtrak station buildings. Amtrak differentiates how certain stations are named, some stations on the official timetable list an alternate name in smaller font (The name of the building itself), while some do not. In regards to the infobox header, how should we define when certain station names are used, when they are on building and platform signage, or just platform signage? (Example: The Amtrak sign for Cleveland says Cleveland, OH. The name of the building is Cleveland Lakefront Station. Doesn't that mean we should default to the platform signage for infobox headers, since the platform name compliments the Amtrak style template we created? If that's the case, the title of the article should be the official building name, while the infobox header should display the name given on Amtrak's official signage.
@Secondarywaltz: @Pi.1415926535: @TomCat4680: @RickyCourtney: @Bigturtle: @Mackensen: Cards84664 (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

There is NO reason that an intermodal transportation center with a proper name should use the geographic destination descriptor used by Amtrak. They are not owned by Amtrak and are utilized by several transportation agencies. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate Cards84664 bringing the discussion here. Per MOS:INFOBOX the name field in an infobox should either be the common name or the full, official name. For Cleveland that would be "Cleveland" or some variation of "Cleveland Lakefront Station". We shouldn't be using postal abbreviations in infobox names unless we're planning to use them in article titles. The purpose of timetables and station signage is geographic orientation; it's not relevant to encyclopedic usage and presentation. Mackensen (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I have no problem with adding the state abbreviations to the infoboxes for articles on Amtrak stations, as long at it is understood that this is done only for articles that are primary references to facilities in active use by Amtrak/ The train agency uses state abbreviations not only in platform signs, but on printed and posted schedules and stationary, so when the train station is primarily being used as a train station, using the abbreviations is in line with the customary usage of the entity that is the primary user. Bigturtle (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
{MrTrains227}: Well, i'm back. Anyone agree with my edits? Still fixing this mistake? Well make sure to read the section in Template:Amtrak stations. Wait.... look closely at the sign on the image in the Elyria, OH station article. See?
I agree that if the building isn't owned by Amtrak, its official name should instead be used in the info box. I reverted the change on Durand Union Station because of this. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a timetable nor a travel guide. The kind of inconsistency described above, where sometimes the infobox parrots an Amtrak timetable and sometimes it doesn't, will confuse everyone. We were better off when the infobox drew its name from the article title, which is the common practice with these things. Mackensen (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Informal RFC for opening sentence format[edit]

I opened up this discussion at WP:USSTATION a few months ago, but consensus was never reached. I'd like to revisit this issue with a larger audience. The first question is: in station articles, what should be bolded in the opening sentence: just the station name, or the station name and the word "station"? For example, "Hastings-on-Hudson station is a Metro-North Railroad station in Hastings-on-Hudson, New York." vs. "Hastings-on-Hudson is a Metro-North Railroad station in Hastings-on-Hudson, New York." The second question is that some station articles, particularly Metro-North Railroad ones, start with the word "The" and describe what it serves, ex. "The Yankees–East 153rd Street Metro-North Railroad station serves Yankee Stadium and Highbridge, the surrounding area in the New York City borough of The Bronx." I believe there should be consensus and standardization on this.

I realize the first issue may be too widespread for a discussion in just one WikiProject: it may need a true RFC, as wouldn't this pertain to all other articles that repeat what they are in the bolded text and again when describing what it is in the opening sentence, such as on articles about high schools? Please refer to the linked discussion for the arguments that have already been stated, and add your thoughts and comments below. Thank you! –Daybeers (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Getting concenus will not be easy, but that does not mean that discussion is useless. For articles in general, having the first words of the first sentance as the non-bracketed parts of the title in bold is best. Where this does not work, it is often an indication that the page title should be changed. The most common exception to this rule is when 'the' is placed before. Whilst for some structures such as bridges adding 'the' is the norm, IMHO this is not the case for stations.Johnkn63 (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
This was already the subject of an RfC here. That RfC found consensus for keeping the name in the lead sentence the same as the article. That shouldn't be changed without a new consensus in another formal RfC, preferable back at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section.--Cúchullain t/c 14:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Maybe the sentence structure should be changed then, ex. "Hastings-on-Hudson is a stop on the Metro-North Railroad Hudson Line in Hastings-on-Hudson, New York." or "xxx is a terminus..." –Daybeers (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
If "Station" is part of the name of the station then it should be bolded, if it's just there for natural disambiguation/consistency with other articles then it should not be. Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Train crash Oss 20-9-2018[edit]

Today the Dutch city of Oss was struck by the severe train accident with a stint bicylce, which killed four children (4,4,6,8) and two more people very badly wounded in the hospital. Can someone explain me why this tragic events had turned into an article on Wikipedia? Oss_train_crash

It is very rude and irrelevant to do this. Can this page be removed?

--Bigknor (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@The joy of all things: Cards84664 (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@Bigknor: All major crashes are listed on Wikipedia. What is your reasoning for an exception to be made?Cards84664 (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I explained this above. Why list accidents? People are mourning their deaths. Everyone is in despair. Dutch newspapers already cover this very detailled. What is the purpose of writing articles on Wikipedia on local accidents in other countries?
For the second time, please remove this article which is ethical unjust.
--Bigknor (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@Bigknor: These articles are created to retain railroad history. Without compiling this research, we wouldn't have informative articles, like this train crash from 1876. Cards84664 (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
The timing is terrible. History is always written much time later. Hopefully you will respect this as the feeling of The Netherlands right now. Thank you.
--Bigknor (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mackensen: Cards84664 (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Respectfully, you're addressing the wrong audience. WikiProject Trains doesn't have the ability to simply delete an article. The author of the article, The joy of all things (talk · contribs), isn't a regular participant here and probably does not know that this issue has been raised. The proper place to discuss this matter would be at Talk:Oss train crash. That said, Wikipedia is not censored. Events such as these tend to be covered; Wikipedia is summarizing an event already covered in major newspapers. In that regard, it is treated no differently from mass shootings, terrorist attacks, airline accidents, or other man-made catastrophes. Wikipedia's role in these events, such as it is, is to summarize existing information in a neutral fashion for the benefit of those who wish to learn more. Best, Mackensen (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I disagree. Wikipedia is no newspaper. That's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigknor (talkcontribs) 23:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@Bigknor: You have left similar notes on other pages, such as User talk:Cards84664 and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Netherlands#Train crash Oss on English Wikipedia. This goes against WP:MULTI, and any case these are all the wrong venues. To discuss article content with a view to amending it, please do so at its own dedicated talk page, which is Talk:Oss train crash; but if you believe that the article should be deleted outright, the various avenues that are available are described at WP:Deletion policy. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@Bigknor: Like other editors, I must disagree with your view. I would in fact offer a counter view, that more reporting and more publicity of accidents like these is needed. Reason? Often times, public opinion is powerful, and can often get things done that would not otherwise happen. Improved safety only comes about when the public is made aware of the issues, else they tend to get swept under the carpet by the authorities. I am very sympathetic to the families that lost loved ones in this tragic accident. Remember that good things can come about from bad accidents. If this leads to safety improvements elsewhere that save lives, then I will always take a positive outcome that results from a negative incident. - Morphenniel (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear Morphenniel,

Safety improvements do not come by Wikipedian publications, they are created by the country itself, by the companies like NS, ProRail etcetera.

--Bigknor (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Bigknor, frequently the reports in the news media often have incorrect facts or sensualist reporting. Hopefully Wikipedia can contribute in some tiny way by collating the known facts with a neutral-point of view, and giving the direct citations back to those sources and the findings of the Police/ProRail/NS/Stint. Facts facilite discussion, which helps accurate reporting, and helps people to inform themselves; and being able to make a difference that benefits the wider population in the long run. As you note the safety improvements will require people and organisation to work together. Please make suggestions for improvements on the Talk:Oss rail accident page. —Sladen (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Bigknor, I created the article and it in no way is dissimilar from any news report albeit that Wikipedia does not sensationalise the facts if done properly and is cited. The story is tragic and harrowing and if you feel that it should be deleted, then make your case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion where it can be decided by other editors than myself. Morphenniel, Mackensen and Cards84664 have all postulated sound reasons why the article should be kept (thank you to all) and is no way different to the articles created after the 2017 Westminster attack or the Ponte Morandi viaduct collapse. I wish you well. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)