Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2011, 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Soliciting help with the Grand Canyon Limited

I've just finished creating a web page about the final Grand Canyon Limited...or, more precisely, its nameless successor (the train lost its name at some point between March and June of 1968). According to the Official Guide of the Railways for April 1971 and according to Keith L. Bryant Jr.'s History of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. it was the final Santa Fe passenger train to operate and in fact as far as published schedule is concerned (I don't have records of actual arrival times) was the last pre-Amtrak passenger train of any original Amtrak member railroad. However, when I checked the Wikipedia entry for the train, I see that it shows the train being discontinued in January 1970.

I feel that my own references are pretty sound, but I do not have any of the references cited in the article to compare reliability of the source material. I could go ahead and change the article myself, of course, and I may just do that if I can't persuade anyone here to help. However, I would prefer to work with another editor, preferably someone with access to some of the reference material that I don't have. I can provide information from a pretty extensive collection of Official Guides of the Railways and a few other books such as Some Classic Trains and More Classic Trains.

Is anyone interested in working with me on this? If so, contact me via my talk page or by email—my email address is readily available on my web site, Streamliner Schedules (I check the email more frequently than the talk page). Thanks In Advance! Ehbowen (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Eric, I had to re-read your post a couple times to understand the nuanced question: I think it's the difference between the named Grand Canyon Limited and the nameless 23/24 that kept on going after the name (and service to the actual GC) was dropped, right? I think that needs to be explained on the Grand Canyon Limited article page, and if you have Official Guides for the periods in question, those are more than adequate sources IMO.
For what it's worth, Steve Glischinski says in his book Santa Fe Railway: "A version of the train remained in service until Amtrak, although direct service to the Grand Canyon ended in 1968." (p. 141). So it seems to me that the information given in the GCL article is wrong and should be corrected. Does this help? (P.S. Love your SS site.) Textorus (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
All right, I'm planning to go back and edit the current page as soon as I get some time to sit down and put together the information. Thanks for the reply. Ehbowen (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
No problem bud. Textorus (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

8th & Market Street (SEPTA-PATCO station); Missing map

What happened to the map at 8th Street (SEPTA station)? The image was in the PATCO Speedline chapter at this link, and had two descriptions; 1)"A map of the station layout on display across from the South Fare Gates," and 2)"A map of the station layout, shown below, is on display across from the South Fare Gates." Now it has a thumbnal with a missing link. ----DanTD (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Please check Reuben Wells (locomotive)

Hello,
I'm currently working as the Wikipedian-in-Residence at The Children's Museum of Indianapolis, where students recently created the article for the Reuben Wells steam locomotive located there. I wanted to touch base with you all and ask that you check the article for any necessary clarifications. We were a DYK and some of you may have already come upon the article through that, as I mistakenly included an inaccurate generalization as the DYK hook (I know to triple check hooks, now!) We are about to post a QR code in the exhibit for this train and I thought it'd be helpful to check with you all, in addition to our curators, before that goes live. Thanks ahead of time! Let me know if you have any questions. HstryQT (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

AfD notice

The Railway stations in Burundi article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The rather similar Rail transport in Burundi has also been nominated for deletion, on the same grounds that there isn't any (only proposals so far). Tim PF (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a similar problem with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:VERIFY with the (non-existent) Railway stations in Rwanda and Rail transport in Rwanda duplicating similar content in Transport in Rwanda#Railways and about the same speculation and proposals for a possible railway to link Rwanda to the coast which just might get extended into Burundi. Tim PF (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There are very many such articles (for instance, see Niger and Yemen and CAR and G-B). Note that even for countries which do have railways, the list of stations actually just links to towns (which may or may not have functional stations; they're towns which a railway appears to pass through on a map). Altitudes are taken from an unreliable source. Most of these articles seem to be trying to be a map - for instance an article might contain a sublist of towns on a north-south line, and then a sublist of towns on an east-west line; the town nearest the junction between the two lines would appear in both lists. I planned to replace a lot of these articles with map templates but it sucked up all my free time. There's a long thread about this in the archives but I got tired of swimming against the tide - if the community is now more enthusiastic about further action (or, heaven forbid, if the creator stops churning out this stuff) then I might start work on them again. bobrayner (talk) 09:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
As for the last point, editors who persist in doing so can ultimately be blocked. Tim PF (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As a general comment, editors here may wish to add Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation to their watchlists. AfD debates with relevance to this project should be (and normally are) listed on that page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done that. Should I add an AfD tag to Railway stations in Bhutan as well, or just wait for these merge/deletes to go ahead, certain editors to be blocked, and then just proceed with uncontested merges? Tim PF (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirects?

Now that Railway stations in Burundi and others have been deleted, should they be recreated as a simple redirects (eg to Transport in Burundi#Railways) or specifically left deleted?

I favour using redirects as there are other articles that use the Template:Railway stations in Africa (which can be edited to point directly to the "Transport in ..." articles), but also those "Rail transport in ..." which use the Template:Africa topic, which will show up as redlinks unless redirected, and may encourage recreation as articles.

The alternative to the latter would be to create a Template:Rail transport in Africa which can also pipe links to the "Transport in ..." articles. Similar for Asia, except that Template:Asia topic is used for both "Railway stations in ..." and "Rail transport in ...". Any thoughts? Tim PF (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to redirect them (I've previously done that with others), although it could be argued that the whole Railway stations in Africa navbox is slightly redundant; it points to dozens of different articles which are either content-free or redundant, and who's going to want to browse between them if we already have more general "Rail transport in..." articles? At worst, just delink countries in the navbox if there's nothing to say about them. bobrayner (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:Redirects are cheap. Creating these redirs in place of the deleted articles will help to prevent the recreation of near-empty articles with no hope of expansion. When creating such redirs, point them at a relevant section in the relevant 'Transport in XXX' country article. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies.
@RedRose -- I'd be happy to go along with that, but doesn't that mean that any further identified non-content articles should be tagged for a merge, rather than a delete?
@Bob -- There are many continents where there are sufficient countries that have "Rail transport" or even "Railway stations" to justify articles and use a continent based navbox template; the problem is then how to handle those that don't. If only a few countries in the world justified an article (eg Countries with Irish gauged railways), I'd do a custom template (see Template:High-speed rail -- which has a few red links itself).
I've done some more homework, both on general Wikipedia Manual of Style (mostly red links and nav-boxen), and on relevant projects and task forces (Transport, Trains, Stations, and Trains/By country series task force), and am starting to get a clearer picture of things.
  1. I didn't even know that WikiProject Stations existed, but then again, it looks rather like a task force. One thing it doesn't appear to do is any "Railway stations by country" series. I also note that both regular station articles and the country series take the {{TrainsWikiProject}} template (with "stations=yes" for standalone stations).
  2. The By country series task force "writes and maintains the articles in the Rail transport by country and History of rail transport by country series" (the latter is merely a redirect to History of rail transport, although there are navboxen, and several articles exist). Apart from an Infobox and the use of generic navboxen (eg {{Africa topic}}), there is little guidance (eg on whether or not to have a stub article for a country with no railways).
  3. The WikiProject Transport also appears to have no "By country" series, although I note that there is a prominent Red Link at the Transport Portal. There is no infobox, and the navboxen are either generic or derived therefrom.
  4. The guidance for Red Links from Navboxen is that they are acceptable if part of a series (eg {{Africa topic}}), but shouldn't really be there in custom boxen (either pipe the link elsewhere, make it a non-link, or remove it). Links to redirects should be avoided, as they won't auto-embold.
  5. The advice at the continent-based templates (eg Template:Africa topic) is to use redirects to suppress red-links (but these will not auto-embold). Templates can be pseudo-created from them, but appear to be little better than a redirect.
And my conclusion? That could take months. There appears to be little project guidance on any of these By Country topics, but there could be with a some concerted effort. There's certainly nothing stopping anyone creating or recreating a Railway stations in Guernsey or Rail transport in Pitcairn Islands if they use the default continent-based templates. Tim PF (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
All good points. As far as unwanted articles are concerned, I've watchlisted a lot of them (and will systematically watchlist all of them, when I get to the bottom of my todo list) so any stray new article should be spotted. Watchlisting isn't just for active articles.
Lacking formal national guidelines, I don't think we need to worry too much about all these articles (apart from the sheer workload); hopefully we can apply common sense in judging whether or not we need a separate article on railways-in-X or whether it can be rolled into a parent article, or whether a certain infobox or navbox is appropriate, &c. My personal feeling is that where a country X has (or had, or will have) a single railway, then it would often be better to follow WP:COMMONNAME and write an article about that railway rather than try to apply generic headings & conventions to a "Railways in X" article even where they're an uncomfortable fit. I feel that the "national" pattern is just another attempt to create a neat matrix where it might not always be necessary, and then somebody feels they have to fill every point in the matrix...
Redirects are cheap - and easy. However, sometimes I feel a little guilty where a redirect is effectively getting rid of an existing (albeit useless) article without going through AfD or PROD. It feels extrajudicial. Nonetheless I've used it for things like Railway stations in Sikkim, Qatar, Mauritius &c and others have done the same thing with Vatican City and Lesotho.
I've noticed articles on my watchlist being recreated (or moved there).
Applying common sense would be useful if it wasn't an oxymoron; that's why we really need rules (or at least guidelines), and remember Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. I'm not against "Rail transport in X", "History of rail transport in X", or even "Railway stations in X", so long as they are used sensibly, and some of the ones we have seen recently are patent non-sense.
One of the guidelines is to avoid having a stubby article which could easily be merged elsewhere (eg into "Transport in X"), and another is not to annoy the reader by pointing them to a "main" article which adds nothing to the current article.
I would agree with your single railway in some cases. The stubby Rail transport in Mongolia duplicates quite a lot of Trans-Mongolian Railway and the "Railways" section of Transport in Mongolia, whilst Railway stations in Mongolia merely links to the very stubby Ulan Bator train station. I'd agree to keep the Trans-Mongolian Railway, but the rest of the articles could probably be merged into Transport in Mongolia (with appopriate redirects) without losing anything.
I think a national pattern can work in some cases, especially where they are nationalised (in which case the "Rail transport in X" can redirect to the "X National Railway Co", but that may not always work (there are still independent railways in France, for example).
Redirects aren't really extrajudicial, as they can be reversed, history may be checked, and any useful information can be recovered and merged elsewhere. But did you really want to lose that Good Article Rail transport in Vatican City? Tim PF (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm so glad you brought this up, Tim. Have you seen the "Write - by region" section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Todo/Write? It's almost entirely redirects to national railroads. When I brought it up, nobody paid any attention. ----DanTD (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't, actually, or at least not that I remember. I note that that page has fewer than 30 watchers, so that could have had something to do with it. My immediate thought is that those of us concerned about it "sign up" at Trains/By country series task force, and see if we can agree a sensible way forward with the others there.
I notice that the task force pages mentions the {{Infobox rail transport by country}} template as uniquely used at Rail transport in Switzerland, rather than the {{Infobox rail network}}, which appears to be used by a mixture of "Rail transport in X", "Y National Railways" and a few private railways (which should perhaps use {{Infobox rail}}). So, that's another thing that needs to be resolved. Tim PF (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Reassessment req

The Gare de la Bastille article needs to be reassessed please. Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Standardized info boxes?

Currently I have noticed that a lot of the foreign trains, for example the German ones, have infoboxes taken straight from the German language version of the wiki. Obviously when I see them, I add the conversion figures in, but should the English wiki have a standardized layout for ALL train infoboxes? I appreciate this is a lot of work but I'm myself fixing a heck of a lot of older train articles that lack conversion tables.

Lukeno94 (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Where there is a huge number of articles from a foreign Wiki it is not uncommon to use a version of their infobox as it saves huge amounts of time. Note that this one cleverly translates all the fields automatically into English. Other such infoboxes even translate some of the data. Standardising is a good aspiration, but needs to be thought through carefully. For example, it makes sense to include the best features of both infoboxes, not just discard one. The German one covers all railway vehicles, not just locos, and has some extra fields. It also has a neat colour scheme based on the railway colours of the railway operator or firm. The standard loco box probably has unique features too. And the German infobox is a massive help to translators as it leaves them free to do what others can't - translate the article text. Otherwise they have to convert every infobox in every article individually - not good use of their time or skills. If you explain what conversions you have been doing, I may be able to fix the problem within the infobox. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
PS Actually there is a more fundamental question here: is it really necessary want to clutter infoboxes with two or sometimes 3 sets of data in different units in every field? Why not leave the data in the units used by the country of origin? --Bermicourt (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
See WP:UNITS and MOS:CONVERSIONS (which is a subsection of WP:UNITS). --Redrose64 (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
We are writing for a global audience, therefore both metric and imperial measurements should be given. Mjroots (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
We could update the info box to do the conversions automatically. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
An infobox with auto-conversions would be a brilliant idea, would save everyone a lot of work in the long run. I was more on about unit conversions rather than changing them to the British train-style layout, as obviously doing that on my own whim would be a very bad idea. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
My attitude to this sort of thing has changed somewhat over time since I became an editor. My present view re articles about non-anglophone-world rail topics is that top priority should be given to the task of translating the articles, rather than to fiddling around with the infoboxes. Certainly the translation of German language articles is made a lot easier by the English language versions of the de.wiki infoboxes, and those infoboxes are more than presentable enough to be used otherwise unmodified on en.wiki. A similar technique is used on some other wikis, eg articles on Japanese wiki about Italian rail topics use modified versions of the it.wiki infoboxes. It's also possible to create a so-called "wrapper" infobox that will automatically transform, eg, a de.wiki style infobox into an en.wiki style one, but I haven't been game to try creating such a "wrapper" just yet - that task would require a fair bit of confidence in getting the programming just right. On the topic of measurements, my view is that both metric and imperial should always be given on en.wiki, not least because both are commonly used in English - metric in most Commonwealth countries, and imperial in the USA and UK. There are various different convert templates that can be used in infoboxes to convert measurements in one of these systems to the other one. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
On measurements, I agree that both metric and non-metric (Imperial &/or US-customary) units should be used on International, US, UK (and probably Irish) topics, but am less worried about seeing non-metric conversions on topics from metric countries (including post-conversion Commonwealth countries and RoI), even if this is at odds with WP:MOSCONVERSIONS.
If it's easier to just take infoboxen from other wikis (eg DE, IT or JP) for their own trains but just with the original metric measurements, then I'd be happy to see that, rather than not getting them at all due to a problem with converting the units. Tim PF (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the metric system is fairly well established now. Having measurements only in that does not significantly alter the usefulness of an article, and its not as though readers will be without web access if they want to invoke a conversion utility in another window. I would not bother converting metric to inches in any context. The content is perfectly valuable without conversion. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Stainby railway station

I'm fairly sure this never existed. There is a discussion at Talk:Stainby_railway_station#No_evidence. If anyone knows anything could they join there, else I will nominate for deletion. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Not mentioned in Jowett. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Weight or Mass?

Should infoboxes use the term Weight or Mass? Separate, slightly different, but related, threads started at Template talk:Infobox locomotive#Recent changes: weight to mass and at Template talk:Infobox train#Recent change: weight to mass. Comments there are invited. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Weight". "Mass" may be correct scientifically, but nobody ever talks about the "mass" of a locomotive. Since the likelihood of our ever having articles on railroads in orbit or on other planets are slim, in this context the terms are synonyms so go with what's most common. – iridescent 15:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Images of Stations in the ScotRail Network

I am currently applying to ScotRail for permission to take photographs of all the stations on the Argyle Line for the purposes of illustrating their Wikipedia articles, where the current image is more than one year old. In my letter to them I have explained that my interest is to ensure all Wikipedia articles for stations on their network have relevant, up to date images which accurately depict the stations (for example, the Carluke railway station has changed quite a bit since the photo currently in use was taken in 1998). I have asked permission to photograph the Argyle Line because my local station lies on it and I wanted to focus on a small group at first. However, if there are any stations in Scotland which this project feels need photographs urgently, I will add them to my application. It will be sent to First ScotRail's Sponsorship and Events Manager on 26 April 2011 so I need any requested stations by them. Please note, Glasgow Central and Edinburgh Waverly are operated by Network Rail, who have more stringent security in place and give out permits to take photos less frequently (and generally also charge people for the privilege). --Terryblack (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

NER Class D

Currently, there is an article which covers the 1913 locomotive, but there was also an older version. I propose a rename of the Class D article, for more see it's talk page. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

London Underground station list

I have again proposed this for splitting but with further reasoning. Please see Talk:List of London Underground stations#Ah, that age old question. Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 17:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Track gauge issues

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.

User:TrackConversion and massive changes to gauge categorisation

TrackConversion (talk · contribs)

Massive and inappropriate metrication of gauge-related categories, also some bizarre renaming. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

  • What is bizarre and what is inappropriate? Beside shouting are you able to say anything more specific? TrackConversion (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Can I enquire why all track gauge related templates have been turned into metric measurements? Over the past few days this has been creeping into the category names as well. We used to refer on Wikipedia to "15 inch gauge"; this was then changed to "1 foot, 3 inch gauge"; it has now been changed to "381mm gauge". Why is this? Is there some part of the world where it is common to talk about "381mm gauge railways"? If so, is it an influence from that geographical region that is causing these changes? I have been involved with the miniature railway world in the UK all my life, and I have never ever heard any miniature or light railway gauge referred to in metric terms. We talk about "the 15 inch gauge" or "2 foot gauge", or "seven and a quarter inch gauge". There are various clubs and societies for enthusiasts of these railways, and again they talk in imperial measurements, some of them even for their own names - eg "The Seven and a Quarter Inch Gauge Society". I suggest that for most British rail enthusiasts the phrase "15 inch gauge" immediately means something, whilst for most the phrase "381mm gauge" is meaningless. Our templates should bring up imperial measurements; OR, if the use of metric is important in some nation or region, then the templates should bring up both styles of measurement. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 18:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
This activity appears to be coming from a single, very new editor. In the space of around 24 hours over 500 edits have been undertaken without any consensus. Being bold is one thing, however I believe this goes bound those realms. For example, the North Welsh lines have historically been called two foot gauge whilst being anything between 1ft 10 1/2in and 1ft 11 5/8in (and more). They are two foot - not 597, 600, etc mm gauge lines. --Stewart (talk | edits) 19:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I would agree, this editor seems to have undertaken a one person campaign to convert all track gauges to metric, totally without discussion or consensus. Da.squirrels (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, let's drop the WP:ABF and not WP:BITE the newbie please. From what I can tell, the editing is in good faith, and with the intention of improvement of categorization of articles. It may be that some of the categories would need to be renamed to their imperial counterparts. Exceptions would be those gauges that are metric gauges, such as 500, 600 and 750 mm gauges, for example. Mjroots (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Let's not squabble amongst ourselves, though with respect I really don't think anyone was WP:ABF. I agree with everything else you say, Mjroots, and the issue of today's category changes needs to be addressed and resolved. However, I was also raising issues going further back in history. The railgauge template for the 15" gauge, which is actually called (and written) ((RailGauge|15)) used to produce text which referred to "15 inch gauge", but now instead refers to "1 foot, 3 inch gauge". It also shows the metric translation, which is fine by me; but why the strange language of "1 foot, 3 inch". I can do the mathematics, and I realise it is the same distance as 15 inches, but why not just let the template produce "15 inch gauge" since that is the way we would all normally refer to a railway of that gauge. Of course, I may be wrong, and the world may be full of people who talk about the good old "1 foot and 3 inches gauge", but I don't think so. It would be good if we could sort out both the categories and the templates so that they speak the same language as English-speaking railway folk. That way, the encyclopedia is reflecting the real world, rather than something theoretical. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 19:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to some of the comments on TCs talk page as well as here. Down to the matter in hand. The Gauge template and its conversions are beyond me, so someone else will need to sort that out. We should look at all the categories TC has created, and discuss whether they would be better off renamed to their imperial counterparts. Some closely related metric gauges may be better off combined into a single imperial category. Mjroots (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I was thinking this sounded somewhat familiar, remembering that there was some conversation about this not too long ago. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2010, 2#Narrow gauge categories Here it is, just as information. Personally, I believe that the cats should be named based on the original defining units, that is to say, if a gauge was originally defined in imperial units, then the cat should likewise be named in imperial units.

Though it should be noted that there's nothing preventing us from having two parallel sets of categories, one imperial and one metric, and putting an article in both appropriate categories. That's something that categories can do that other items (such as titles, templates, and navboxes) can't do. oknazevad (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is seeking to rename "metre gauge" as "forty inch gauge", but nor is it reasonable to reanme "two feet" as "610 mm". Commons favours widespread use of category redirects, WP doesn't, but on the whole I'd suggest just keeping the categories in the relevant units for the originator or main user. There doesn't seem to be any problem in doing so. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Rail Gauge vs Track Gauge

The Rail gauge article actually redirects to Track gauge, but now Template:Rail gauges has now been retitled as "Track gauge" (although not yet moved to Template:Track gauge) by TrackConversion. I'm raising this as a sub-section here, as I think that the discussion is related but separate.

Just for the record, Rail gauge has an awful lot of links to it, and it is the term I would use. Whilst I am all for consistency, that is something that I would have raised here to identify the preferred term before changing it (or reverting edits / moves). Tim PF (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've just seen the discussion at Talk:Track gauge#Requested move, but it seems that this logic should then have been consistently applied to the two templates (Template:Rail gauges and Template:Rail gauge). Tim PF (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
"Track Gauge" is the creation of one single editor. There is no place for it (although we do seem to accept redirects from the most unlikely rephrasings). "Rail gauge" is a far better term. This editor's edits (and I haven't seen any worth keeping) should be reverted with extreme prejudice and a size #10 cluehammer. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Track gauge by size

  1. 597 mm and 610 mm have a difference of 13 mm, they are better presented by different categories.
  2. With inch and quarter inches the categories would get very long names.
  3. Most users from outside the US and UK do not understand imperial units at all.
  4. India, Australia and other countries undertook metrication, one would have to split Indian gauge articles into different categories if categorized by original definition: The older ones go into ft/in the newer lines into mm.
  5. Foot and inch categories can exist inside the mm-categories. TrackConversion (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a list of track gauges by size.

  • imperial means: imperial units are or were used to define an installation
  • metric means: metric units are or were used to define an installation
  • grouping: The international grouping. Depending on context, broad or narrow gauge can refer to other limits.

The quarter inch is the smallest fraction shown for gauges defined in imperial units.

Gauge imperial metric other unit Name Notes Grouping
2140 yes no Brunel's broad gauge UK, and other Broad
1829 yes no Broad
1676 yes yes Indian gauge Broad
1672 yes, 6 Castilian feet (historic) Broad
1668 yes Iberian gauge Broad
1664 yes, 5 Portuguese feet (historic) Broad
1600 yes yes Irish gauge Broad
1588 yes no Pennsylvania Trolley Gauge Broad
1581 yes no Pennsylvania Trolley Gauge (variant) Broad
1524 yes yes Russian gauge original and Finnish gauge Broad
1520 yes Russian gauge redefinition in the 1960s Broad
1473 yes no Broad
1445 no yes Italian broad gauge Broad
1,435 mm (4 ft 8 12 in) yes yes Standard gauge Standard
1422 yes no Narrow/Medium
1372 yes yes Scotch gauge Narrow/Medium
1295 yes no Narrow/Medium
1270 yes no Narrow/Medium
1245 yes no only UK (England) Narrow/Medium
1219 yes no only UK and US Narrow/Medium
1100 yes only in Germany Narrow/Medium
1093 yes only one line in Sweden Narrow/Medium
1067 yes yes Cape gauge Narrow/Medium
1000 yes Metre gauge Narrow/Medium
950 yes Italian metre gauge Narrow
914 yes no Narrow
891 yes yes, 3 Swedish feet Swedish narrow gauge only in Sweden Narrow
838 yes no Narrow
802 ? only historic in Sweden Narrow
800 yes Narrow
785 ? Narrow
762 yes no Narrow
760 no yes Bosnian gauge Narrow
750 yes Narrow
711 ? Narrow
700 yes Italian narrow gauge Narrow
686 yes no Narrow
622 yes no Narrow
610 ? Narrow
603 yes no Narrow
600 yes Decauville 600 Narrow
597 yes no Narrow/Minimum
578 yes no Narrow/Minimum
558 yes only Dominican Republic Narrow/Minimum
530 mm yes ? Narrow/Minimum
500 no yes Decauville 500 Narrow/Minimum
483 yes no only Isle of Man Narrow/Minimum
457 yes no Narrow/Minimum
400 no yes Decauville 400 Narrow/Minimum
381 yes yes Narrow/Minimum
311 yes no Narrow/Minimum
305 yes no Narrow/Minimum
260 ? Narrow/Minimum
184 yes ? Narrow/Minimum

updated TrackConversion (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

TC, thank you for the table. It makes proposals for discussion much easier. As I stated above, the categories should be mostly under imperial measurements unless there is a compelling reason to use a metric gauge. Therefore I suggest that the following renaming takes place, including some consolidation of categories Such renaming to be done via WP:CFD.
This category would also cover 1672, 1668 and 1664mm gauge railways.
This category would also cover 1588 and 1581mm gauge railways

None of the above are set in stone, and all are open to discusson. Some of the above would be head categories, with subcategories by country, should the number of articles in each category justify subcategorization. Mjroots (talk) 05:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to say I've found more categories not listed in the table above, and have added them to the proposals. Also, some categories already exist under a slightly different name, so these alternatives are also included. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Metric units for metric countries: Why should anything outside the US, the UK and Burma be in foot or inch? All(?) other countries are metric, see metrication.
    • Iberian gauge is not defined in Imperial units, but in mm.
    • Brazilian broad gauge is 1600 mm.
    • -> I think the categories should reflect real world and real world outside US and UK is almost entirely using metric units for length.
  • Accuracy: Why throw together
    • 622 mm with 578 mm into a 610 mm (2 ft) category?
    • 483 mm and 457 mm?
    • 891 mm and 914 mm? This creates confusion.
    • I think the categories should reflect real world and real world tells the difference between 622 mm and 578 mm is 44 mm.
  • Readability: Having Foot/inch ´, mm and inch alone makes reading and comparing mroe difficult. See esWP + huWP how organized the cats are: de:Kategorie:Spurweite hu:Kategória:Nyomtáv TrackConversion (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Metric units for metric countries: Why should anything outside the US, the UK and Burma be in foot or inch? All(?) other countries are metric, see metrication - The reason is an historical one. Railways in many countries across the world were built by British navvies, for example Argentina, much of Africa, and many countries in the British Empire. At the time, imperial measurements were used. Europe naturally used metric measurements, as did railways in those countries ruled by European powers, hence the recognition that some metric categories are valid. I've proposed the grouping of categories by not taking "x ft xx in" as a precise figure, with the one exception of standard gauge (either a railway is standard gauge or it is not, 4' 7¾" gauge [e.g. Glasgow tramways] is narrow gauge). The category pages can have a statement that the category covers railways of between (min) and (max) gauge. I would say that what other language Wikipedias do is not binding as to what is done on the English Wikipedia. We may adopt an idea from there, or we may chose to do something different. Whatever method is chosen, it is by consensus and discussion, as we are doing here. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I note, for an example, problems with Iberian gauge (and some others):
  1. As far as I can see, it has never been defined in (British) imperial units.
  2. Both 1672 and 1664 appear to have essentially been subsumed into 1668 without alteration, as they were within tolerances, and so should have a single category.
  3. It is unclear if 1668 is sufficiently close to the 66 Provincial / Indian gauge to allow interoperability (I suspect they may, but only at low speeds); so it should probably have a separate category from Category:Five foot six inch gauge railways.
  4. The Germans are so organised at de:Kategorie:Spurweite that they have completely missed it out.
  5. Non-imperial based gauges should not really have convoluted fractions of an inch (without good authority), and so these should use approximate decimals: 1,672 mm (5 ft 5.8 in), 1,668 mm (5 ft 5.7 in), 1,664 mm (5 ft 5.5 in). The same goes for others such as 1,520 mm (4 ft 11.8 in) revised Russian gauge, 1,000 mm (3 ft 3.4 in) metre gauge, etc..
  6. One further note is that, whilst Brazilian broad gauge is 1,600 mm, it is indeed 63 Irish gauge; pt:Bitola larga no Brasil clearly states "also called Irish gauge because it originated from the Irish rail system" and includes an image from Ireland.
Tim PF (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
TimPF, as I stated above, these proposals are for discussion. There's no reason why we cannot have Category:Iberian gauge railways should we so desire it. This could cover 1665 and 1674 mm gauges. Hollingsworth (Hollingsworth, Brian. Railways of the World. London: W H Smith. p. p101. ISBN 0 86124 023 5. ) states that although the Portuguese and Spanish rail gauge is nominally 5ft 6in, they are in fact 1.665 and 1.674 metres respectively. A small number of vehicles were fitted with wheels with a special profile that enabled them to run on both systems, but the majority of vehicles were confined to their own system. Mjroots (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


Support Mjroots proposal because it names the gauges either imperial or metric depending on their origin. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Support -- if we're voting...this is the correct solution, although I prefer the 'numerical' category names (more succinct) than the 'verbal' ones. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I Support the Mjroots proposal, also a project page, or something similar (easy to find) that documents the categories to be used. I have no real preference over numerical or textual categories names, though if pushed would probably go for textual. --Stewart (talk | edits) 14:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Note, that naming according to origin would mean that the new lines in India that are originally defined in mm, go into a category different from the old lines build before metrication in India. Same for other lines in South Asia, maybe except for Burma. TrackConversion (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Support per MJroots et al. I'd also, like Ed, go with the shorter "numeric" forms.
The units should follow the original naming of the gauge that they're originally derived from. If this gives India some lines of both "metre gauge" and "thre foot six gauge", I don't see any problem with that. Categories aren't generally comparable like that anyway. If we did make a list article of "gauges by size", then pretty obviously it would two columns: imperial and metric, where they could be sorted appropriately and metric equivalents given for easy comparisons. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Support MJroots' proposal that the gauges should be named as per the original units. I'd say that if a new railway line is built with a gauge specified in mm then it should normally be in a metric gauge category, however if the gauge is chosen so that it is identical to (or within tollerance of) the gauge of an existing railway line that was built to imperial units then the two lines should be in the same, imperially named, category. The reason for this second point is that there is no reason to categorise something like the Ffestiniog Railway and the Porthmadog cross town link in separate categories (assuming the latter was built in metric). Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
except that the Porthmadog cross town link is not a new line, but the restoration of an old line, with a deviation. --Stewart (talk | edits) 16:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Support MJroots' proposal that the gauges should be named as per the original units (if actually metric or Imperial), with Thryduulf's proviso that similar gauges that allow interoperation at normal speeds (ie within tolerance) should be in the same category. This would mean that standard gauge would be all Imperial. I also think there may be advantages in some named gauges, such as for Iberian gauge that don't really fit either metric or Imperial, and other commonly named gauges. Tim PF (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Looking at named gauge categories, we have Category:Metre gauge railways (as opposed to 1 metre gauge or One metre gauge). To this we could add Category:Cape gauge railways, covering 3' 6" gauge railways in southern Africa, Category:Iberian gauge railways, covering Spain and Portugal's nominal 5' 6" gauge lines, Category:Irish gauge railways, covering the 5' 3" gauge lines, and Category:Russian gauge railways, covring the nominal 5' gauge lines in the former Soviet Union. Each could be a subcat of the relevant imperial category. Mjroots (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Only thing is, that having it as subcategory means the imperial category will have no articles. Maybe better a redirect from the imperial? Then at the same time there could be a redirect from the metric, so all entry points are possible. An example for a redirect is at Category:2140 mm track gauge. TrackConversion (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Track gauges by imperial unit - numerical vs textual

From the above there is consensus to have imperial unit categories. Shall they be numerical or textual? Mjroots listed numerical first, EdJogg prefers numerical. The heavily used Template:RailGauge gives numerical output as standard output, that means it could be best to use that format. Maybe making automated categorization or at least checks of correctness in the future easier. Also readability might be better. On the other hand, what is more common? Currently used is textual. If using quarter values, would they be easier to represent textual? User Pencefn/Stewart prefers textual. I have no strong opinion. TrackConversion (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My preference would be for numerical - it's more compact and easier to read. Mjroots (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Track gauges by imperial unit - precision

I think quarter inch precision should be used, but the absolute minimum is to have inch precision. de WP and hu WP use millimeter and all other WPs will likely too since the native speakers there are used to metric values. This is also an issue for interwiki linking, but that is a technical problem. From a content point of view, non-metric en WP categories may have a disadvantage in precision if not using quarter inches. Those gauges that are defined in imperial units are mostly only distinguished by a quarter of an inch, so that would be precise enough. TrackConversion (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

1 International inch = 25.4 millimeter. Quarter of an international inch = 6.35 millimeter. So even with quarters the precision is lower than with millimeters, but that should be no problem, and should be precise enough. In fact the one defined in imperial units, may have been always defined to the full quarter. TrackConversion (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts are that imperial categories should not be too precise, but generally cover roughly a 3" range, except for gauges under 18". Metric categories should be exact. A possibility is merging 750 and 760 mm gauge railways into a single, dual named category - Category:750 and 760 mm gauge railways. Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Creation of new categories

Until we get to a consensus, can we call a halt to the creation of new categories. So far today the following categories have been created:

--Stewart (talk | edits) 16:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I did ask TC not to create any more metric categories while the issue is being discussed. As that apparently fell on deaf ears, I've issued a uw-4. Now, where's the polishing cloth for my banhammer... Mjroots (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
It did not fell on deaf ears. You are hostile with saying so or you did not look into the matter. I started already reverting the categorization to metric equivalents. TrackConversion (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
TC, you were asked to stop whilst the above discussion is taking place. This does not mean that you can change tack and start on imperial categories. You also continued after I issued that warning. Therefore I've raised the issue at WP:AIV, as I feel I am too involved to be blocking you (I can block you, but my doing so may not be an appropriate use of the banhammer as it may be percieved that I'm blocking you to get my way in a dispute). Mjroots (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Where did I change a category for an article from imperial to metric after you asked me not to do? Where did I create a new mm category after your bogus uw-4? Your are very hostile, you should be blocked. TrackConversion (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hostile? I think not. You started out creating metric categories. This is fine in the spirit of WP:BOLD as your intention was the improvement of categorization of articles. There is a cycle known as Bold, revert, discuss. In this case, an issue was raised, and the R bit got missed out and D was invoked. We are discussing the issue at WikiProject level. Once your editing was called into question, you should have stopped creating any more categories and joined in the discussion. Having joined the discussiong does not mean that you can carry on, or change tack slightly while the discussion is unresolved. This process can take a week or more, there is WP:NORUSH to reach a quick decision. Nowhere in my comments have I been hostile to you personally. It is your editing that is being commented upon. My comments have been, and remain, WP:CIVIL. You may have actually done the project a favour by forcing this discussion with the outcome of better organisation of categories within this WP. Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you please relax, the 1100 mm track gauge category with one article does no harm. ASAICS a 1435 mm equivalent did not exist. I stopped re-categorizing articles from imperial to metric. I already starting reverting my edits. I created two tracking categories. I worked on List of rail gauges. Yes, I hoped to help to bring the stuff to better organization. Calling my edits vandalism or reporting as vandalism as you did on AIV /is/ hostile. Relax. Can we please go and resolve the content dispute? TrackConversion (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I am relaxed. Continuing to do something after being asked nicely to cease doing it whilst an issue is discussed is disruptive. You're lucky that it's me here, as there are admins that will block first and ask questions later. Personally, I don't like to see any editor blocked if it can be avoided, but I will block any editor if doing so is in the interest of the project as a whole. In cases where I'm involved, I reserve the right to block first and then ask for confirmation that the block was valid at ANI. As you are aware by now, another admin declined to block you as a result of my report at ANI. As you are apparently willing to discuss these categories, I'm happy for you to retain your editing privileges. For now, I'm off to expand a ship article, now that I have been granted increased access to a source by that website's webmaster. Mjroots (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply

TrackConversion (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Category hierarchy

It think dispute is only related to content inside Category:Track gauge by size. TrackConversion (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  • You've missed Category:Standard gauge railways (which would be a head category, with all SG railways categorized by country). Possibly another category for named track gauges if we go down that route. Mjroots (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed for creation of SG category. Will think about "named", might be good. Will create SG now. I also added a table at Category:Track gauge by size that explains the category structure a little bit. TrackConversion (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • You claim that there's no dispute known over re-naming "rail gauge" to "track gauge". Here's a heads-up, I oppose this change. I suspect I'm not alone.
I oppose it on several grounds:
  • I don't believe it's a good change. Rail gauge is better.
  • I see no consensus for making this change. There was some past discussion at making this change over at Talk:Track gauge back in September. However:
    • That debate was in relation to one page, not a whole hierarchy of many, many pages & categories.
    • The debate was also poorly attended (more people have commented to this thread), it wasn't raised on the project pages, so few people saw it, and thus I don't believe that it represents adequate consensus for a change to the whole category tree, as you're making here. It may be the right decision, but it's not yet a clear enough decision to support a change of this magnitude.
I'm also still concerned that you are continuing to make changes within the scope of this broad dispute, despite being asked to stop while the debate proceeds. Making the change before reaching agreement is never a good idea, as it makes the current situation hard to follow and also is likely to generate a need for future re-work. It's also something I see as a disruptive action that is disrespectful of community and collegiate editing practice. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Relax, you are again hostile, without adding to content or content organization
  • I did stop the re-categorization to metric, I even started the reversal.
  • If you think the move to track gauge is wrong, go and ask for reverse move. "Rail gauge is better" is no objective argument. To say "I like it" w/o disclosing reasons is not a good way to discuss with other people that don't know you.
  • The new categories can be easily renamed to "rail gauge" instead of "track gauge". Relax.
  • "I see no consensus" - well, you bow interpretation of consensus a lot. Several support, no oppose in the debate. TrackConversion (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


RfC: Category talk:Track gauge

RFC now at Category talk:Track gauge by size Mjroots (talk)
I started an RfC at Category talk:Track gauge. The proposal above is introducing inaccuracy. This makes WP less usable. TrackConversion (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC) At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Track gauge categories it is proposed

  1. to throw together articles with track gauges differing by up to 50 mm
    • Four foot six inch to contain 1372 mm and 1422 mm
  2. to force articles related to rail track defined in non-imperial units into imperial unit categories
    • 1600 mm from Brazil into 63
    • 1676 mm from India into 66
    • 1519 mm or 1520 mm from Russia into 60 !! Wrong size !!
    • 1093 mm from Sweden into 42 !! Wrong size !!
    • 1067 mm from Japan into 42
    • 891 mm from Sweden into 36 !! Wrong size !!
    • 381 from Germany into 15

This is inaccurate. TrackConversion (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2011 (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.


Continued changes by TrackConversion

TrackConversion continues to press ahead changing railway articles as if his changes were agreed by this community when he knows they are not. I have yet to see a more blatant disregard of the need for consensus on Wikipedia. Can we reconsider a temporary ban whilst we discuss the way ahead? Otherwise we are just being steamrollered. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Raise this issue at ANI, linked to the above discussion. Mjroots (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Done. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you please say what changes you refer to? I stopped all re-categorization to metric equivalents and started reversal. TrackConversion (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
You should have just stopped, 'period' (to quote our American friends!) instead of making further changes to muddy the waters.
BTW -- ANI discussion here -- EdJogg (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • So what happens next? We have 900+ changes to deal with. Is there any script-based method that can bulk rollback? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It turns out that TC was another sock of a banned user. Therefore his edits may be reverted on sight. For this reason, I would suggest that we don't need to go via WP:CFD to create, delete or move categories in relation to the above discussion. There have been some good suggestions above about categorization of gauges, and these should continue to be looked at., see new section below. Mjroots (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Track gauge - WP:UNIT

Units should use space per WP:UNIT. Also it reads:

International scope: Wikipedia is not country-specific; apart from some regional or historical topics, use the units in most widespread use worldwide for the type of measurement in question.

Apply these guidelines when choosing the units for the measurements that come first:

  • Put first the units that are in the most widespread use in the world for that kind of measurement. Usually, these are International System of Units (SI) units and non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI; but there are various exceptions for some measurements, such as years for long periods of time or the use of feet in describing the altitude of aircraft.
    • For topics strongly associated with a given place, put the most appropriate units first. For example:
      • US articles generally put United States customary units first.
      • UK articles more often put metric units first, but imperial units may be put first in some contexts. These include:
        • Miles for distances, miles per hour for road speeds and miles per imperial gallon for fuel economy
        • Feet/inches and stones/pounds for personal height and weight measurements
        • Imperial pints for draught beer/cider and bottled milk
        • See also Metrication in the United Kingdom and the style guides of British publications such as that of the Times Online (under "Metric").
      • Articles concerning Commonwealth countries in Africa, Asia and Australasia generally put metric units first.

TellSI (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Note, TellSI is a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user. Da.squirrels (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You chose to add, then remove this:
If a quantity is defined in a given set of units and is therefore exact in them, put those units first.
This, I would suggest, trumps the other arguments. Examples such as "2 foot gauge" or "15 inch gauge" are as much the common names for these gauges as the exact measurement. If a reader does not understand what "15 inch" means, he will need to look this up; that is no different from someone encountering the phrase "Russian gauge", "Iberian gauge" or even "standard gauge". 4ft 8½" may not be 'exact', but it is the original defined value.
Also I would suggest that (as described above) the imperial origins of the track gauge measurements count them as a 'historical topic', and therefore permissible as an exception. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree, the historical origins of most track gauges were imperial units. Due acknowledgement is given to metric gauges where it is clear that they have origins in metric units. Named gauges are proposed where these name are clearly of geographic origin or in general use. Mjroots (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Following the User:Mjroots logic all should be in imperial since the first track gauge ever defined was in imperial. Either are all in imperial, because there is some history link to the UK all the time, or MOS is respected. The article about the current city is named Gdansk not Danzig. This is fringe group nomenclature what you propose. @EdJogg - Modern Russian gauge is 1520 mm and is defined so. TellSI (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Note, TellSI is a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user. Da.squirrels (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Alert to admins. TellSI (talk · contribs) is a newly-created account. User-name and MO seem related to TC above and created for the purpose of pursuing an identical agenda. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed. Will keep eye on this one. Mjroots (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Note, TellSI is a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user. Da.squirrels (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

New Haven RR Electric Locomotive identification

I asked this on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation, but nobody has been able or willing to answer me; Can anybody identify the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad locmotive shown here at Port Chester Station from the 1950's? It looks like an E7 diesel with drivers compartments at both ends. ----DanTD (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a New Haven EP5. See images here. GFOLEY FOUR— 01:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Most definitely NOT an EP5, (which had a C-C wheel arrangement, unlike the photo) my research shows #156 to be an EF3a, built by GE in 1942, wheel arrangement matches photo as 2-C+C-2. Da.squirrels (talk) 03:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Rail diagrams in infoboxes

Has anyone else noticed that someone is shoehorning diagrams into infoboxes, resulting in them breaking up? I think people are creating separate RDT's and not watching whether they display properly in the articles. Any suggestions as to how we stop this happening? Britmax (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed that some have been put into various infoboxes, which has been causing readability issues. When I see then I have been attempting to sort them out. --Stewart (talk | edits) 17:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I've also notice this. For some reason, putting the diagram in the inofbox restricts its width, thus leading to breaking for the wider diagrams. If the diagram fits in the infobox without breaking, then fine. Otherwise either the infobox needs to be made wide enough to accommodate a BS9 diagram, or we handle these on a case-by-case basis. Mjroots (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I fixed the Midland Main Line by setting the infobox parameter "box_width = auto" (apparently undocumented, but used for the West Coast Main Line). G-13114 (talk · contribs) is aware of this, so I'm not sure if they have forgotten, or if someone else is doing it too. Tim PF (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I have a widescreen laptop which is showing Midland Main Line with a reasonable layout whilst the RDT is hidden, however when the RDT is revealed, the combined infobox/RDT is around 50% of the width of the screen since the RDT is a BS*-2 type. This does not have the same effect with West Coast Main Line as the associated RDT is single-sided. Thoughts??? --Stewart (talk | edits) 21:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Toronto 4 foot 10-7/8 inch gauge

Although by size it falls into Category:Russian gauge railways, I've included the Toronto rapid transit and streetcar lines into Category:4ft 10in gauge railways for two reasons:

i) not located in Russia;
ii) it's never been considered a 5-foot broad gauge system.

(The historic reason given for this gauge was to prevent freight trains from running on city streets.) Useddenim (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it would fit into Category:5ft gauge railways. The Russian gauge category is limited geographically and Toronto falls outside its catchment area. Being in excess of 4' 8½" (1,435 mm), it is by definition a broad gauge railway. Mjroots (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I don't disagree that it's a broad gauge (albeit only by 2 38 inches (60 mm)). But beside reason ii above (maybe I should have emphasized "5-foot"), I also don't see any reason to start populating an otherwise-empty category. Useddenim (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The category is there to be used, per the scope set out, which is per the discussions above. It is not an empty category, as it has subcategories. All rail line and tram/streetcar systems articles need to have the relevant gauge categories added if the don't already have them. Mjroots (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Category redefinition

I would suggest that the break between Category:5ft gauge railways and Category:4ft 10in gauge railways be changed from 4' 10½" to 4' 11". I doesn't make any sense to me personally that the 4ft 10in category excludes a track gauge of 4' 10+fractional", and still won't exclude any Russian gauges that belong in the 5ft gauge category. Useddenim (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Track gauge categories, part 2

OK, we've had some good suggestions above. Splitting the cats into 3 (Broad, standard and narrow) I'm suggesting the following Categories and scope (note that my preference for numerical categories does not mean that we cannot use the worded categories if that is what the consensus is):-

  • Category:Broad gauge railways
    • Category:7ft gauge railways - All railways of 7' 0¼".
    • Category:6ft gauge railrays - All railways above 5' 10½" and under 6' 1½" gauge
    • Category:5ft 6in gauge railways - All railways above 5' 4½" and under 5' 7½" gauge
      • Category:Iberian Gauge railways - All railways nominally of 5' 6" gauge in Spain and Portugal
    • Category:5ft 3in gauge railways - all railways above 5' 4½" and under 5' 1½" gauge
      • Category:Irish gauge railways - all 5' 3" gauge railways on the island of Ireland
    • Category:5ft gauge railways - All railways above 4' 10½" and under 5' 1½" gauge
      • Category:Russian gauge railways - All railways nominally of 5' gauge in Russia, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania etc.
    • Category:4ft 10in gauge railways - all railways above Standard gauge but below 4' 10½" gauge
  • Category:Standard gauge railways
    • Category:Standard gauge railways in Europe
      • Sub-categories by country thereunder
    • Category:Standard gauge railways in Africa
      • Sub-categories by country thereunder
    • Category:Standard gauge railways in Asia
      • Sub-Categories by country thereunder
    • Category:Standard gauge railways in North America
      • Sub-categories by country thereunder
    • Category:Standard gauge railways in South America
      • Sub-categories by country thereunder
    • Category:Standard gauge railways in Australasia
      • Sub-categories by country thereund
  • Category:Narrow gauge railways
    • Category:4ft 6in gauge railways - All railways above 4' 4½" gauge and under standard gauge
    • Category:4ft 3in gauge railways - All railways above 4' 1½" gauge and under 4' 4½" gauge
    • Category:4ft gauge railways - all railways above 3' 10½" and below 4' 1½" gauge
    • Category:3ft 9in gauge railways - all railways above 3' 7½ in gauge and below 3' 10½" gauge
    • Category:3ft 6in gauge railways - all railways above 3' 4½" and below 3' 7½" gauge.
      • Category:Cape gauge railways - all 3' 6" gauge railways in southern Africa
      • Category:Japanese gauge railways - all 3' 6" gauge railways in Japan
      • Category:1100mm gauge railways - all railways of 1100mm gauge
    • Category:3ft 3in gauge railways - all railways above 3' 1½" gauge and below 3' 4½" gauge
    • Category:Metre gauge railways - all railways of Metre gauge
      • Category:Metre gauge railways in Europe
        • sub-cats by country thereunder if at least 10 entries can be found.
    • Category:3ft gauge railways - all railways above 2' 10½" and below 3' 1½"
      • Category:950mm gauge railways
      • Category:900mm gauge railways
    • Category:2ft 9in gauge railways - all railways above 2' 7½" and below 2' 10½" gauge
      • Category:800mm gauge railways
    • Category:2ft 6in gauge railways - all railways above 2' 4½" gauge and below 2' 7½" gauge
      • Category:750 and 760mm gauge railways - all railways of 750mm or 760mm gauge (these may be split if desired)
    • Category:2 ft 3in gauge railways - all railways above 2' 1½" and below 2' 4½ gauge.
      • Category:700mm gauge railways
    • Category:2ft gauge railways - all railways abov 1'10½" gauge and below 2' 1½" gauge
      • Category:600mm gauge railways

There are few variations once we get below 18" gauge, therfore I propose

    • Category:18in gauge railways
      • Category:500mm gauge railways
    • Category:15in gauge railways
      • Category:400mm gauge railways
    • Category:12in gauge railways
    • Category:10½in gauge railways
    • Category:7¼in gauge railways
    • Category:5in gauge railways
    • Category:3½in gauge railways - which should be the lowest we go. It may be that subcats by country will be needed, but that can be tackled later.

There may be a few I've missed out, but the proposed structure above should make it clear where these would fall. Mjroots (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

All other metric gauge categories created by TC to be deleted, with articles recategorized to imperial gauges. Mjroots (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Specifics

It looks like a consensus is emerging for numerical categories. Down to specifics then.

  • Do we want a combined 750 and 760mm gauge category or two separate categories.
  • Is there broad consensus not to use a space between the number and measurement as proposed above - e.g. 2ft 6in instead of 2 ft 6 in?

Any other thoughts? Mjroots (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Category names gives no guidance, although a space is implied for dates ("220 BC"). In this instance it does not specify that a non-breaking space must be used, (as it does at WP:UNIT). This is problematic, since including a space between number and unit leads to the real likelihood of the category name being split across lines between the number and the unit which looks cheap and is much harder to understand.
This is a problem throughout WP articles. Many editors add the spaces (per the MOS guidance), but few make them non-breaking. I have no idea why the MOS states that spaces be used in an environment where line breaks are added automatically by the browser according to the viewable area. It would be far better if the mediawiki software added a non-breaking-space itself when the screen is parsed.
So, yes, I am against having the spaces in the names. -- EdJogg (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
As I understand it, MOS applies to articles, not categories. Even if it did apply to categories, WP:IAR is invokable. My preference is also to omit the spaces. Mjroots (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Categories based on dimensions are relatively rare, although I did find Category:Artillery by calibre in which all sub-cats include a space before 'mm'. (The majority of the article names are also metric, which is why that convention was chosen.) For us I think WP:IAR should prevail! -- EdJogg (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I had meant to reply to previous comments by TC about accuracy, where he had seemed to object to "1519 mm or 1520 mm from Russia into 5 ft (1,524 mm)". As far as I know, these are mere redefinitions of the original 60, and that 5mm difference or more may not be a problem. Both Brunel and Stephenson widened their gauges by ¼ of an inch and ½ an inch respectively. I'm sure I've read recently that there were some US railways of 57 or 58 which had through running onto standard gauge, although not without a few accidents.
If Portuguese 1664 gauge trains could run on 66 track (or vice-versa), then they should definitely use the same category. That goes the same for 750 and 760 Bosnian gauge. So, does anyone know what tolerances are used, particularly with respect to nominally different gauges? Tim PF (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


<<sockpuppet comments moved out of the way to allow constructive discussion to continue (EdJogg (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)) >>

Respect WP:MOS and use the space between quantity and unit as defined in WP:UNIT. TellSI (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Note, TellSI is a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user. Da.squirrels (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Why use "railways"? Then the category:Standard gauge railways can not include the article Standard gauge, since a track gauge is not a railway. Also, does that include trams? TellSI (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Note, TellSI is a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user. Da.squirrels (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll on format of categories

A quick straw poll to see if there is preference for numerical or word gauge categories - i.e "Category:7¼ inch gauge railways" or "Category:Seven and a quarter inch gauge railways" Please state your preference. Mjroots (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If there is no clear consensus for change, we will stick with the existing word categories. Mjroots (talk) 09:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Definitely "7¼ inch" for the "model engineering" gauges up to 10¼ inch, as this is how they're referred to within that field. For those around two foot gauge, I have no opinion. I don't know what common practice was for these gauges and I don't see that we need to enforce an arbitrary consistency between the narrow gauge railways and the model engineering gauges. COMMONNAME should trump consistency. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Good point, which could probably be applied to all below the 2' gauge cat. Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Where there is a common name for a gauge, that should be used (so that would allow both "7¼ inch" and "metre gauge"). Where there isn't I generally prefer numerical naming, but I Don't want to stand in the way of consensus either way. Additionally, COMMONNAME should be applied to groups of similar gauges if most have a common format but one in the middle doesn't then it should be named the same way as the similar gauges. We should create template:rail gauge categories that lists all the gauges in both imperial, metric and names (ideally sortably) (similar to the one up the page) linking to articles and categories. This should be shown in full on at least the highest level category and included, possibly collapsed by default, on the sub categories. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Numerical -- I suspect that 'all' references will describe them numerically, so it would be a Wiki-neologisi-whatsit to use text-based cats. Use common names (such as metre gauge) where appropriate, as proposed. You'd only use the term "four foot eight-and-a-half inches gauge" if you wanted to bulk out your word count! -- EdJogg (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Numerical with the exception of "metre gauge railways". I'm also okay with whole numbers being spelt out "two foot gauge railways". --Bermicourt (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Numerical. Da.squirrels (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Numerical with the exception of a few special cases, including "Two foot gauge". --Stewart (talk | edits) 17:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Not Word Gauge. I think, like others above, that Numerical is best for many categories, but I think that some, such as standard gauge and metre gauge needs their common names. If two foot gauge is its common name, then use that rather than 2ft gauge (but I don't really see much of a difference). Tim PF (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Numerical, but I'm happy with "metre gauge" (rather than 1 metre or 1.0 metre). Pyrotec (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I find descriptions such as "610 mm", "1000 mm", "1435 mm", or "1520 mm" most convenient, compact, uniform, and easy to understand. Admittedly, I am just a "member of the general public" with some interest in transportation, rather than a railfan or a railway professional. -- Vmenkov (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Can I ask why that is? If it's because consistent metrication gives easy sorting by size, then that's an obvious benefit. However this glitches a little at 1m and a size-based sorting is best done through a hand-worked table in a list article, not just relying on auto-categorization. The purpose of categorization is really grouping, and this doesn't require a single unit of measurement. The great advantage of "two foot" instead of "610mm" is that it indicates the heritage of the gauge, and who chose it. Mainland European operators would naturally choose the round number of 600mm rather than 610mm, as there's no practical difference between them. If 610 was chosen, it's either in the UK, or it's a European line that has followed UK practice for some deliberate reason. Highlighting these links is, IMHO, much more important for category names than having them auto-sortable. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I am just used to thinking of any "engineering" sizes as "naturally" expressed in millimeters, rather than in cm, inches, or cubits, even if originally they were set in feet or in some other units (as the 2'=610 mm gauge). I can understand English feet or old Chinese chi, of course, but it always takes a bit of a conscious mental effort when reading. Especially so when comparing sizes is needed: it's easy to see at a glance how different 1600 mm and 1435 mm gauges are, but when reading about 5'3" vs. 4'8.5", I have to stop and think for few seconds to visualize the sizes involved. I do realize that for many US readers, or even for some older Canadians and Brits it may be the other way around. -- Vmenkov (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Vmenkov, we are discussing categories here, not articles. All categories will have a note stating what gauge span the category covers. Conversions in mm can be added to the note, so those who are used to mm will have an easy understanding of the gauges being covered. Articles should always have imperial and metric measurements displayed in them. Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Mjroots, why forcing UK/US imperial units system on rail gauges worldwide? And why not using the space between quantity and unit, as is defined in WP:UNIT. TellSI (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Note, TellSI is a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user. Da.squirrels (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
It looks rather to me that someone was trying to force metric units on rail gauges originally defined in feet and inches. I could see some aspects of those arguments if it wasn't for the fact that WP:MOSCONVERSIONS requires both units on English Wikipedia articles, and that feet and inches are possibly used far more in metric countries than is often admitted (bicycle tyres are often given as 26 pouces in France). I do think that it is a minor problem, however, that we cannot still categorise by Castilian, Portuguese or Swedish feet, which end up with odd metric values instead. Tim PF (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Mjroots - yes, of course, categories. Considering that categories exist to make it easy for people to navigate, and that different measures are intuitive for different people, I think that the proposal someone else has made earlier was quite wise: the creation of "parallel" (duplicate) categories, e.g. both Category:2 feet railways (or whatever is the best way to say it in Imperial measure) and Category:610 mm railways. In this case the former can be a subcat of Category:Railways by gauge in feet and inches, the latter, a subcat of Category:Railways by gauge in millimeters. This should create an easy-to-read-at-a-glance directory tree for readers of both persuasions, and obviate (I hope) the incentive for "holy wars". I don't know if we actually have the category redirect facility on en.wiki as they do on Commons; but that would be a useful tool for the purpose. -- Vmenkov (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Numerical. Also I agree with Vmenkov that descriptions like "610 mm" and "1520 mm" are most compact. And they are most convenient for the general non-UK/US readership that is not rail gauge expert. Modern Russian gauge is defined from the beginning in mm, so using ft or so ignoring reality. TellSI (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Russian gauge was originally defined in feet, because it was built by a Western engineer. Thus the unusual gauge of 1524mm. When this was rounded off to 1520mm for convenience (1960s?) it then makes sense to describe it in mm.
I also wonder why I'm replying to someone who is such an obvious sockpuppet with no respect for Wikipedia whatsoever. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Finally. /Modern/ Russian gauge is and always was defined in mm. No respect for WP? It's Mjroots who lacks respect for WP:UNIT, pushing a MOS violating style. TellSI (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Note, TellSI is a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user. Da.squirrels (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Making a start

I think that enough has been said and a start should be made on creating the category trees. The least contentious is the Standard gauge railways category, which just needs splitting down by continent and then by country. Once that has been done, categories will need to be populated. You can help! Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've also made a start on spliting Category:Metre gauge railways by country, as that is also an established category. Mjroots (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
It looks like the legitimate (i.e. those not created by a banned editor) mm gauge categories have a space between the unit and mm. Therefore, I intend to continue using this format for mm gauge categories. Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I've created all the numbered imperial gauge categories. {{Category redirect}} has been applied to all categories that need articles moving. I've zapped a few empty mm cats created by the sock. The others can be zapped once emptied. Tag them with {{db-g6|rationale=Created by sock of banned [[User:Tobias Conradi]]}}. Mjroots (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
So what does this mean when I want to fill in the gauges of various railroad and trolley lines in New York City, Long Island, and elsewhere? Are we now required to write down exact numbers or names, or what not? ----DanTD (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
@Mjroots You can tag with {{db-g5}} instead, G5 exists just for this purpose. GFOLEY FOUR— 21:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
@DanTD - basically, cats above 2ft gauge are +/- 1½" from the 0in, 3in, 6in and 9in mark, with a slight adjustment for the Category:4ft 6in gauge railways and the category immediately above Category:Standard gauge railways is not Category:4ft 9in gauge railways, but Category:4ft 10in gauge railways. All cats have their scope outlined, with mm conversions for those who work in metric. You should be able to work out where each line goes. Mjroots (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I am migrating the articles to the redirected categories: I renamed Iberian Gauge... to Iberian gauge... Note that List of track gauges by size has two columns that may be relevant, (imperial and metric) but should not link to categories, especially deleted or redirected categories. Note also that there is generally value in leaving plausible category redirects - although their own categorisation and other etceteras should probably be removed. Rich Farmbrough, 23:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC).

Iberian gauge (and RENFE) still has a link to Category:Iberian Gauge railways, not Category:Iberian gauge railways. Does that mean you renamed the category without changing the article links? Tim PF (talk)
I (possibly) disagree about the relevance of the "imperial" and "metric" (and "other unit") columns at List of track gauges by size.
A certain banned user was under the impression that 66, 63, 60, 4 ft 8 12 in (1,435 mm), 54, 42, 891 and 15) gauges have two different definitions, usually Imperial and metric (except 891 mm / 3 Swedish feet). As far as I can make out, all those gauges were originally defined in terms of feet (Imperial or Swedish), but are now used in countries which are totally metric, and so have been renamed (but not redefined) in millimetres.
I think the solution is that the first column ("Gauge") needs to be consistently either metric first or imperial first (probably the former), and the next 3 columns should be merged into a single "Original definition" column, which should list the actual original definition, e.g. "5 ft 6 in", "950 mm", "3 Swedish feet".
I'm quite happy to tackle this myself, but I wasn't sure if you were thinking along somewhat different lines. Tim PF (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Tim, I am not even close to being an expert on rail gauges, so whatever the rail experts decide on these sorts of issues is fine. Mjroots suggests (with support form MoS) that imperial should probably be first - since these are the definitions, simpler and probably more commonly used terms. As to the Iberian [Gg]auge, I am working through all the cat redirects and will of course do those ones too. Rich Farmbrough, 02:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC).
I may have made a typo with the Iberian gauge category, nothing that can't be easily sorted. If Category:891mm gauge railways is held to be a legitimate metric unit, then that category can be created, with an explanation the it covers all railways of 891 mm gauge (three Swedish feet), and added to Category:3ft gauge railways. I've had another zapping session, only a couple left that are still populated. Good work overnight in recategorizing articles. Mjroots (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
If any railways have been built to use "891 mm" gauge, then yes, Category:891 mm gauge railways should be created. If, however, only railways of 3 Swedish Feet (891) have been built or extended, even if the railways concerned refer to them now as "891 mm", then there will be no railways to populate such a category, and ... Okay, this is a side issue for me, as I really want to fix the mess left at List of track gauges by size, with the three columns linking to categories. It's far too late to start on that tonight, but I'll try to tackle it as suggested above in the next day or so unless I get some negative feedback here. Tim PF (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I have now changed the table. Tim PF (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Train/metro station infoboxes

I've been doing some recategorizing of geography and transportation infoboxes, and so far I have found nearly 40 different train station infoboxes apart from the standard Template:Infobox station - see Category:Railway station infobox templates. I don't know much about trains, but I do know there are a lot of people who feel really passionate about them, so I don't really want to wade in and attempt to merge these all to one standard template myself. It seems as though Template:Infobox station could be used as a wrapper to make daughter templates where certain things should be standardized across a line - but it's crazy to have 40 different templates when there shouldn't be so much variation between these infoboxes! Hope you guys are interested in sorting this out! Best, Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I am the creator of some of these infobox templates. Infobox station appears to have been devised originally for North American stations. Most of the others are specific to either a particular country or a particular system. Although it might be possible to consolidate these a little, each country or system has its own individual quirks, and that's why it makes some sense for them to have their own infoboxes. Also, the appearance of the infoboxes varies a lot, and some of them are tailor made to tie in with the logos, etc, of the individual country or system to which the infobox applies. I would suggest that they just be left as they are, at least for the time being. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Bahnfrend, although I appreciate all the work that you have done in bringing station articles over from other languages, your custom station infoboxes are perfect examples of what could be easily converted to a standard infobox, with the addition of a couple of parameters. You have also probably not referred to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). The station infoboxes you have created are all just clones of each other. I think that if you had known how it could be done you would have created one infobox, with parameter adjustments to suit those different European countries. Please be a little bit more open minded about this, because much more complex infoboxes like "Infobox road" and "Infobox settlement" have been expanded to accommodate worldwide usage. Thank you again for all you have done. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Medium gauge railways

I have noticed an inconsistency in the definition of "Medium gauge railways" as used in the Narrow gauge railway and List of rail gauges articles.

  • Narrow gauge railway: Railways built on gauges between 900 and 4 ft 8 12 in (1,435 mm) are sometimes referred to as "medium-gauge" railways.[citation needed] In those parts of the world where the railways were built to British standards, this meant most commonly a gauge of 42 or the "Cape gauge", while those built to American standards were normally 36. Railways built to European metric standards were most commonly of 1,000 mm (3 ft 3 38 in) or "metre gauge" and 900 mm (2 ft 11 716 in) gauge. These larger narrow gauges are capable of hauling most traffic with little difficulty and are thus suitable for large-scale "common carrier" applications, although their ultimate speed and load limits are lower than for standard gauge. In many countries, gauges in this range are the local standard.
  • List of rail gauges: Narrow gauge railway with a gauge above 1,000 mm and below Standard Gauge. Although technically narrow gauge these railways are often built to substantial standards, allowing high train speeds and capacity.

The former used to read Railways built on gauges between slightly under a metre and 4 ft 8 12 in (1,435 mm), but still included 36 and 900.

So, this begs the question on whether or not medium gauge is a made-up name, and if it does exist, is there an industry definition? If the broad definitions of common carrier and high train speeds and capacity are taken as valid, then might it refer to a combination of rail gauge and loading gauge, perhaps with reference to being able to carry Intermodal containers? I note that several three-foot gauge railways appear to be able to transport containers, but I doubt if two-foot gauge railways could.

I note that this is probably original research, but I don't think the current article definitions are much better, and if it cannot be referenced after almost a year, both articles should be changed to eliminate that grouping. Tim PF (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

From google books results:
  • The term is currently used for 3'6" railways in Australia, and sometimes the same gauge in South Africa ("Cape Gauge")
  • Historically in Britain (especially in the 1840s-1870s) it meant a gauge between 4'8½" (then called "narrow gage") and Brunel's 7'0¼" broad gauge, typically 5'6" or 6'0" but occasionally 5'3" or 6'2" that was widely proposed to be the legislated standard replacing both extant gauges. We ought to have at least a section of an article on this possibility.
  • Historically, in relation to Ireland, it means 5'6"
  • Historically in North America it means 5'6" (also called "Canada Gauge" in the USA) used in Canada and Maine and possibly elsewhere.
  • Historically in relation to Russia, it seems to mean 4'8½"
It was also used quite extensively in reference to Argentina, but I haven't been able to find what this gauge actually is or was. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 
The preceding suggest to me:
medium gauge: 900 to less than Standard Gauge;
historical medium gauge: Standard Gauge to 74. Useddenim (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm really looking at the present, but I realise that even then, that definition misses the "3 Swedish feet" (891), and nor does it answer if the next notable smaller gauge(s) (30 and 760) belong in medium gauge or two-foot gauge.
As for historical (that is roughly 1835–1892), I can quite understand that it could mean anything between standard gauge (narrow gauge) and Brunel gauge (broad gauge) (although with perhaps substantially larger tolerances than we would expect today), but it rather begs the question as to what gauges narrower than standard gauge were then called. These details really ought to go into a Gauge war article, if and when one gets written. Tim PF (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Seven-foot gauge railways

A new sub-section about the seven-foot gauge harbour railway at Ponta Delgada (Azores) has recently been added by Axpde (talk · contribs), who may have been selectively referencing web articles which quote the actual gauge as exactly 7 feet (2,134 mm), even though they may also quote it as Brunel gauge. I have added an additional citation which states 7 ft (2,134 mm), and to avoid an edit war, have left the article reading that the actual gauge is unclear.

Axpde stated in one edit summary that Azores used 2134 mm ... and I doubt that Isambard Kingdom Brunel used "7 ft ¼ in"!. After I pointed out that Brunel originally specified exactly 7 feet (2,134 mm), but found that it had to be slightly widened by ¼ inch (6 mm), he replied that On German WP there are lot of talks conc. this topic. The problem is: Some users want to have one width per gauge, negating that sometimes a gauge changes slightly ... So Brunel Gauge is actually both 2134 mm and 2140 mm!.

Brunel's GWR broad gauge is usually referred to as "seven-foot", but quoted as "7 feet 0¼ inches", but it is unclear if these harbour railways actually used Brunel gauge, or an exact "7-foot" gauge. I certainly haven't found anything on the web that says that they used ex-GWR (or similar) locomotives, or anything that really speaks with authority one way or the other.

Whilst I'm on the subject, the Brunel gauge article was recently created by TC, has no references, and does not refer to Brunel's original intention of an exact "7-foot" gauge. Tim PF (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I've zapped the article. No objection to someone no banned writing an article on the subject, as long as it is correctly referenced to reliable sources.
The harbour railway in the Azores was 7' 0¼" gauge, have seen this mentioned in various railway magazines over the years. Mjroots (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia and the National Railway Museum - Volunteers required

Wikimedia UK have been approached by the National Railway Museum in York. The museum would like to collaborate in the creation of articles to support their new railway related art gallery. They have some skills, but they would appreciate the support of some volunteers. Ideally two of these would be in commutable distance of the museum. Others could assist on line. If you have an article that shows you can handle most wiki markup and you have some appreciation of how to load an image to commons (or can teach yourself before we ask!) then please sign below. The level of commitment would be by agreement to suit you and reasonable travel expenses are likely. Victuallers (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC) (Chair of Wikimedia UK)

If this is to write articles about paintings of railways, as opposed to articles about locomotives and stations, you're probably better off contacting the people who write about Victorian artwork over at WikiProject Visual arts rather than (or at least as well as) the people who write about engineering. People reading articles about British railway artwork are more likely to be interested in how they fit into the British cult of technology-as-power and how styles and themes changed over time, than in detailed descriptions of the specifications of the rolling stock and stations pictured. – iridescent 17:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip - I was hoping there might be someone with a dual interest. We really need a lead wikipedian to lead our work with the NRM and although an arts interest might work initially its likely that a train interest is going to work better long term. If anyone decides they would like to be this person then please contact my talk page direct. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional track gauge categories

I've created the following additional track gauge categories as there didn't seem to be any existing categories. Feel free to add them to the master list (is it still the one on this page?) or adjust the categories to fit, or whatever. It seems like there are quite a few sui generis track gauges used by funicular railways - and I've only done the ones in the UK and those named "Castle Hill" so far. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The last one should probably be 2 metre gauge railways. Useddenim (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Category:5ft 8in gauge railways should really be renamed to Category:5ft 9in gauge railways, fitting in nicely with other categories. Category:2000 mm gauge railways should be a subcat of Category:6ft 6in gauge railways (will sort this). It could possibly be renamed Category:Two metre gauge railways, but its current name isn't out of kilter with other metric categories. Mjroots (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
...except for Category:metre gauge railways Useddenim (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Because that's the common name for it. The same isn't true of the 2000 mm gauge, of all the so-far categorised systems only the Cairngorm Mountain Railway uses it, so it may not have a common name. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

And some more:

Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Railway lines in Jamaica - article naming

The five extant articles about railway lines in Jamaica (see Category:Railway lines in Jamaica) are all currently named in the format "Railways of Jamaica: X to Y", e.g. Railways of Jamaica: Bog Walk to Port Antonio.

This is an unusual naming scheme that looks more like a sub-article convention than is the standard on Wikipedia. I would suggest moving them to a more typical format "X to Y line" or "X to Y line (Jamaica)" if disambiguation is needed, although I don't think it will be in any of these five cases.

Please leave any comments you have at talk:Railways of Jamaica: Bog Walk to Port Antonio. Thryduulf (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Track gauge categories at CfD

Several of the new track gauge categories have been nominated for deletion or merging at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 11, please leave your comments there. Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RFCs have been opened on the use of flagicons in lists and in infoboxes. Mjroots (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Richard Steinheimer died, article needs work

Train photographer Richard Steinheimer died, there's a good obit in the LATimes. (probably in other places too). The article needs a makeover- I suspected the railfans would have already done it- guess not! tedder (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

List of locomotive builders

I think List of locomotive builders is in a difficult position. It probably needs a lot of work (and is almost certainly rather incomplete). Should it be fixed up, or should it redirect? Any thoughts from the sages of WikiProject Trains? Can anyone assist? bobrayner (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

List of railway stations

The List of railway stations is in a very poor state, so following no objections in nearly 6 months work will shortly start on converting it to a List of lists of railway stations. Discussion of practical matters relating to this are just starting on the talk page. Please come and help! Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Railway stations by country

I was looking at Category:Railway stations by country, and I noticed that most of the subcategories have mainly subcategories and few articles. For instance, Category:Railway stations in France has 28 subcategories and no articles and Category:Railway stations in Norway has 55 subcategories and no articles. So, I was surprised to see that Category:Railway stations in Germany has 20 subcategories and 180 articles. Of these 180, five, namely Railway stations in Germany, German railway station categories (nothing to do with Wikipedia categories), List of Intercity-Express railway stations, Railway station types of Germany, and Template:German railway stations, cannot be included in any of the Category:Railway stations in Bundesland categories, and presumably therefore belong in this category. The other 175 are probably both in a Category:Railway stations in Bundesland category and in Category:Railway stations in Germany. To keep the categorisation consistent, the category Railway stations in Germany should therefore be removed from these articles. If nobody disagrees with this, I will go through these 175 articles and make that edit and any other necessary edits which I may notice when I read them. Coyets (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I randomly sampled four stations from Category:Railway stations in Germany and each of them was also in a regional category. bobrayner (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I certainly agree with removing this cat. The only trouble is, I can't decide which province to start on first. ----DanTD (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Coyets. I also think you'll find that most, if not all, of the 175 problematical articles were created by the same editor (User:Chris0693), who probably needs a little friendly tuition in the art of categorising new articles. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I just started removing a few, but there are a lot of parameters missing from these station articles(infoboxes, routeboxes, histories, etc.), so I put this effort on hold. Maybe someone else would like a crack at these. ----DanTD (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
If I understand the discussion, the plan is not to remove "Category:Railway stations in Germany" itself, but just to remove links to that category from articles that are logically part of "Category:Railway stations in Bundesland". I suggest we leave the "List of railway lines in Bundesland" in. If so, happy to help. As for the state of articles, they are being worked on by the Rail Transport in Germany Task Force. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I have also started removing the links to the category "Category:Railway stations in Germany" from some of these articles, and, as DanTD has already pointed out, there is a lot missing from all of those articles. I am trying to add in some historical information as I do it, but I am glad to hear that the Rail Transport in Germany Work Force is also working on it. The more editors work on it, the quicker we will get these articles into the state they should be in. Coyets (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Holbrook, Arizona (Train station)

Is the syntax of the title correct? I'd think "Train station in Holbrook, Arizona" sounds better. Raymie (tc) 04:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

<rant mode on>It's a railway station, not a train station!<rant mode off> I'll move this one to a better title. Mjroots (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Can we please have a drive to have the unencyclopedic, dumbed down phrase "train station" removed from Wikipedia. It's a railway station, and has been since 1825. No good reason to use tabloidspeak in an encyclopedia unless part of a direct quote. Mjroots (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Somewhat ironically, the main article is located at train station, and I am certain that whenever I call a station for more than a station, I use "train" rather than "railway". There is also the issue in the US that the normal term is "railroad" rather than "railway", so avoiding both in general terms can be wise. Anyhow, the standard for station names in North America is "Place (Operatior station)", e.g. "Holbrook (Amtrak station)". As the other Holbrook is operated by Long Island Rail Road, this solves any place-disambig issues. Arsenikk (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the main article is at Train station as a compromise between railway station and railroad station. It was before my time, but I have a feeling that the dispute rattled on for quite a while and the title was imposed from the outside as being the standard term on neither side of the Atlantic. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Except that the naming convention in the UK is "X railway station" or "X station" (if the station is multi-modal). I'd prefer the format "X railroad station" for US articles but I get shot down every time I bring it up so we're stuck with parenthetical disambiguation. Since it did see Amtrak service the current location Holbrook (Amtrak station) makes sense; otherwise Holbrook (ATSF station) would do. There's no consistency, however, even with current stations. Mackensen (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm becoming doubtful that Amtrak ever served Holbrook. I'd appreciate some eyes on this article. Mackensen (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the original point: the main reason that the article is named that way is that there are several tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of articles on railroad/railway/train stations. To name them all with those two words first would mean that the user would have to enter more into the search box before the desired page appeared in the list. By putting those words last, fewer characters need to be entered for a successful search: including redirects, there are 86 pages beginning "Holbrook" (8 characters), and just three beginning "Holbrook, A" (11 characters), so the search is much more efficient than if "Train station in H" (18 characters) had been entered just to get to the Hs. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Here's the Holbrook (LIRR station) that User:Arsenikk was referring to. Clearly it needs some expansion. As for whether or not it served Amtrak, you can always try The Museum of Railway Timetables. ----DanTD (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's where I was checking. I've removed all references to Amtrak from the article. Mackensen (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I think a name like Santa Fe Depot (Holbrook, Arizona) would be sufficient. ----DanTD (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Or even just Santa Fe Depot (Holbrook), unless there are Holbrook depots in other states. Do we need a broader naming convention for disused stations? Mackensen (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, most other Santa Fe stations (that don't serve Amtrak) use <name of town> Station (most of which I created). GFOLEY FOUR— 02:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

St. Louis MetroLink former railroad lines

When I added the standard gauge category to MetroLink (St. Louis), I saw categories there claiming that MetroLink operates on former Wabash Railroad, Louisville and Nashville Railroad, and Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad lines. Which stations were along these systems? I tried to ask this on the MetroLink page, but nobody could or would answer me. ----DanTD (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Well, I've found a few links that discuss this, but nothing comprehensive. This suggests that the area around Forest Park is ex-Wabash right of way, while this says the same about the route to Shiloh-Scott. I'm not sure that's what the category is for though-it sounds like completely new track was laid in both cases. I didn't find anything about the Rock Island. Mackensen (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Found the edit: [1]. TimberWolf Railz (talk · contribs) would be the fellow to ask, but he appears to be gone. Mackensen (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

See [2] and [3]. Those two sources seem to confirm the Wabash and the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis. Mackensen (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I did see all three railroads mentioned at this link, but I also saw the Big Four Railroad mentioned at Eads Bridge, East Riverfront, and 5th & Missouri in East St. Louis, Illinois. I may have to make a printout of this one. ----DanTD (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Wow. Evidently that link also indicates that Clayton (St. Louis MetroLink) was the site of a former Rock Island Station. I suspect Forest Park Parkway was built through it at some point. ----DanTD (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
More info on the Clayton Rock Island Line station. GFOLEY FOUR— 17:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey, that's good. I wonder if we can use it in the existing station article. ----DanTD (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)