Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2010, 3

Original source of the term "gandy dancer"?

There are a number of theories about the original source of the term gandy dancer, some fanciful, some straightforward. As far as the Wikipedia article is concerned, as well as speculation on countless websites, none of these theories have been satisfactorily nailed down. It would be great if some knowledgeable folks could weigh in on the gandy dancer talk page in an effort to find the real story from a reliable source. thanks, Richard Myers (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional info about existing knowledge regarding the term gandy dancer: Many of us who have explored the issue believe that the idea of "Gandy" tools coming from a "Gandy Manufacturing Company" (based in Chicago) could be sort of an urban legend that seems so universal, it is accepted without question. We put this together with other comments/observations that no such company (by that name) ever existed in Chicago, and we are left wondering whether even the books that report this are suspect. What we need to look for in such sources is a reference to some original document that verifies the existence of this company (or explicates some other source). Alternatively, discovering a railroad worker's tool in a museum somewhere that is actually stamped with the GANDY logo would help to set our doubts to rest. Public domain photo of same sought for the gandy dancer article, thanks, Richard Myers (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've tried searching through various archives (including Bartleby, ISI, Bentham, CivilENGINEERINGnetBASE, Literature Online, Ebsco, Credo, Emerald &c &c) and found very little. Across the Atlantic, there's nothing in the UK national archives, nor in UK newspapers & periodicals between 1700 and 1900.

The earliest mention I can find is "Gandy-dancer: one working with an extra gang of men on railroads", in "Hobo Lingo" published 1929 in American Speech - no more detail on the etymology; in the same year, "The Vocabulary of Bums" (same source) had it as "A section hand or track laborer". By 1934 this definition mutated to mean "Section Man" in "Railroad Lingo" from the same source. A 1929 letter in American Speech (quoting a letter to the New York Sun) mentions ties to the wobblies and "a dance which imitated shoveling", and an earlier phrase "Gander Dancing" which is not connected to railways.

Merriam-Webster traces it to 1929 as having 2 meanings; "a laborer in a railroad section gang" and "an itinerant or seasonal laborer" but they didn't know the source.

Gandy-dancing, a rather unenlightening 2-verse poem published in 1969, might broaden the article a little.

Intriguingly, there's an article titled "The gandy viaduct" in Engineering, v 119, n 3102, p 729-730, June 12, 1925. It's about a viaduct across Tampa bay.

By 1940 it had appeared in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles which I haven't read yet - perhaps there's something useful there?

Search results are somewhat polluted by the 1930s cartoon character "Gandy Goose", a H.L. Gandy who wrote a couple of papers about coal mining in engineering journals in the 1920s, a Mr Gandy who wrote to the Admiralty about submarines in World War 2, and a Reverend Gandy mentioned in some Wesley family letters. I have seen no mention of a Gandy Manufacturing Company before the internet era - Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable mentions that etymology in 2009 but gives no source. Others have tried to find the company and failed.

bobrayner (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that Gandy bridge was named after George Gandy, who had previously led some railroad ventures around Philadelphia. Lacking an explicit source, tying "Gandy Dancer" to him would be original research, but I consider that a lot more plausible than the "Gandy Manufacturing Company" if only because I'm sure that he existed.

Be very wary of folk-etymology... bobrayner (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

OR aside, that does sound much more plausible. The sort of track maintenance shown in the film -- synchronized realigning of track in time to a work song -- could well be thought of as 'dancing', and if the high-profile promoter of the railroad was called Gandy... Unfortunately, such conjecture doesn't get us closer to an answer! -- EdJogg (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent feedback, i look forward to exploring some of these links. Unfortunately, it appears that we still don't have anything concrete.

I happen to have been a friend of Bruce (Utah) Phillips, whose gandy dancer narrative should not be missed:

Phillips, Bruce. "Moose Turd Pie" (audio). Retrieved 2010-11-13.

Phillips, Bruce. "Moose Turd Pie" (lyrics). Retrieved 2010-11-13.

This is a well-known mention of the Gandy Manufacturing Company (Actually in this version, the Gandy Shovel Company), presented in a tall tale to boot (how fitting). It seems possible that he is the original source of the mythical company (which now appears as historically accepted in several history books). Unfortunately, Bruce died recently, and it is no longer possible to inquire. And Gandy may be a fairly common surname; i had a friend and co-worker with last name Gandy, but he's no longer with us either.

But also please note the discussion here, which perhaps offers the tantalizing possibility that Bruce actually had a factual basis for the alleged Chicago (area) manufacturer. Richard Myers (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to a tip, i'm exploring whether the term "gandy" comes from the Gaelic (Irish) word "cinnte", which can be translated as "certain". In other words, (Irish) track workers were certain to be on the job repairing the tracks, whether rain, shine, flood, or sickness. Richard Myers (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's what i've discovered so far about existing knowledge of Gandy Manufacturing Company.

Many attribute the first published source as the Freeman H. Hubbard 1945 book, Railroad avenue. This book appears to copy information from Railroad Magazine, 1940, some of it word for word. Railroad Magazine 1940 points to Gandy Manufacturing Company advertisements in Roadmaster and Foreman, a railroad publisher and journal established in Chicago in 1886. Roadmaster and Foreman had a circulation of just 6000 in 1899. Roadmaster and Foreman was bought by Engineering and Contracting in January, 1906. Copies of Roadmaster and Foreman appear to be quite rare. But it appears that perusing a copy might finally answer the questions about the source for the term gandy dancer. Richard Myers (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kirkby Branch Line

The article Kirkby Branch Line has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no published (gBooks) references for this article. Fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Where is the discussion for this? Because I can't find it, and I don't think it should be deleted. ----DanTD (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no discussion per se; if you can address the problem (ie. by citing one or two sources which discuss the line) then go ahead, fix it, and remove the problem from the top of the article. If, for example, somebody removed the template without really fixing the problem then it's likely that the article would subsequently be sent to AfD where there would be debate. bobrayner (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No discussion is required for a WP:PROD. If the notice remains on the article for 7 days, the article is deleted as uncontested; but if the notice is removed within that time, it counts as a contested PROD, and since a non-BLP article may not be re-PRODded, subsequent options (for any party) are (a) improve the article; (b) ignore, leave as is; (c) take it to WP:AFD. Since the notice has now been removed, the PROD is contested: and I note that the editor removing the notice has taken the most sensible option, ie (a). This may not prevent a subsequent AFD nomination, but the chances of an AFD closing as "delete" will be reduced by every improvement given to the article. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a perfectly valid subject for an article, and should not have been the subject of a PROD; however, it had been marked as unreferenced since October 2006, which should have been plenty of time for someone from this or the UK-RAIL projects to find some references to support it, and the editor was quite within policy to PROD it. It was polite of them to notify the project. The PROD had the necessary effect of galvanising someone into action to fix it, so now the article is safe!

There is an ongoing push to address unreferenced articles, so expect more PRODs in the future. It might be appropriate for project members to start tackling the inevitable backlog of unref'd articles to prevent them being threatened with deletion.

EdJogg (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if there's a way to add refernces in order to save the article, I'm a little more relieved. ----DanTD (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

If you would like to save (and improve) some more unreferenced rail articles, there are over ten thousand; fill your boots! :-) bobrayner (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:RandstadRail

35 articles transclude this missing template. It looks to me as if someone was planning to create a navbox to link all the RandstadRail articles together, but never quite completed the process. Is there an expert here who can finish the job? - TB (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with RandstadRail, apart from the fact that it is Dutch. Navboxes are easy enough though. I've put in the bare skeleton of a navbox below this reply, which can be used as the basis for the above mentioned template. Further info at WP:NAV Mjroots (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'd never even heard of RandstadRail myself until this missing template came to my attention while processing an unrelated task - I'm afraid I've no idea what might be appropriate to put in such a navbox. Really what's needed is someone with trains-expertise rather than wiki-expertise. - TB (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There are three lines in operation now: line E from The Hague central station to Rotterdam central station (to be extended further south), and lines 3 and 4 from The Hague to Zoetermeer. AFAIK the lists of stops given in the RandstadRail article are correct. So the navbox should contain three groups/sections, one for each line, with the station articles in sequence. Markussep ^Talk 10:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Individual items of rolling stock

We have a few articles on individual items of rolling stock that are not locomotives. Category:Individual locomotives covers locomotives, but do we need a Category:Individual items of rolling stock to cover articles such as Cavell Van and Peacekeeper Rail Garrison Car etc. Mjroots (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Renaming VIA Rail Canada lines

Back in 2009, VIA Rail Canada stripped names from all its trains except for the Canadian and Ocean. The articles haven't yet been moved. I've done one, but would like to see consensus before continuing.

Hudson Bay (train) has been moved to Winnipeg–Churchill train. What do you think? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Going ahead with moves if no comments in 2 weeks. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ugh! I don't know if that's depressing, disgraceful, or both! ----DanTD (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's what Via uses, so that's what we'll use. If you object to it, what do you think we should do?— Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 12:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I wish I knew. By comparison, SEPTA's removal of "R-Numbers" from their Regional Rail system was tolerable. The bigger problem would be if two separate VIA lines shared the same destinations. ----DanTD (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles generally go by the common name, not necessarily the official or "formal" name where there is such a thing. That's why Calvin Cordozar Broadus is merely a redirect to Snoop Dogg. If the subject of an article has "officially" had its name changed but other sources still use the old name, I might oppose a rename. There's room to use some common sense, too. What do sources say? bobrayner (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, no VIA rail lines share common endpoints. As for the common name part of it, here is Via spokesperson Ali Macreag, quoted in the Oct 2009 Trains Magazine:

"We attempted to simplify designations along with the relaunch of our Web site because research showed that our customers were not only confused by all the different branding, but they couldn't remember the name of the train they were on or the class of service they traveled."

Therefore, I assume that the new name is intended to be used as the public name and that travelers refer to it that way. As for sources, travel reports tend not to mention the name of the train.— Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Going ahead. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Railroad-specific dab template

Earlier today, I created a dab-page for Berwyn Station, and after checking out the massive number of dab tags, I noticed there were others that specific categories, So how about a {{disambig railroad station}} tag? ----DanTD (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm just a little wary of the extra complexity (ie. having to remember yet another template :-)

What would the benefits be? bobrayner (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

How about the fact that there are 130,271 general dab pages as of this writing, and a railroad-specific one will narrow it down? ----DanTD (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that you should also seek the opinion of WP:WPDAB, and bear in mind a recent multiple TfD. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Color bars in infoboxes

User:Secondarywaltz and/or at least one other anonymous IP has been removing color bars from station infoboxes, because he/they finds them redundant. Can this be settled without an edit war? ----DanTD (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We are talking only about Infobox station here. The lines and colors are included in s-rail/s-line templates. If those templates are entered under {{{services}}} the simplified information under {{{lines}}} is redundant. We have many overstuffed infoboxes which would benefit from this reduction. What purpose does the duplication serve? Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, as there are certain stations that serve multiple lines, but to save space, don't show everything in the s-line. Jamaica (LIRR station) comes to mind. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The situation at Jamaica Station is not what we are talking about here. That is a mess. Let me restate the case. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• In Infobox station there are two parameters for the entry of information about service to the station. According to the documentation {{{lines}}} is for a "List of services that serve the station" while {{{services}}} "Allows inclusion of the s-rail/s-line boxes". What I have advocated is that when both sets are exactly the same, then {{{lines}}} is redundant, and can be removed, because the succession boxes in {{{services}}} include that same basic information within a more detailed format. Look at Union Station (Washington, D.C.) for an example of a larger station where the infobox is overloaded with duplicated sets of lines. Amtrak: 10 lines, same 10 services. MARC: 3 lines, same 3 services. VRE: 2 lines, same 2 services. The Metro succession box there does not even belong under services, because the subway does not operate from that facility. There will be many cases where this does not apply, but where it does we can greatly reduce the clutter and make the infobox more readable. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

They serve different purposes. The {{{lines}}} section is, as you say, simply a list of the services that stop at the station. The {{{services}}} section, despite its name, serves to list the next and previous stations. Now, naturally, that includes listing the services, but listing the services is not the reason the section is included. In short, its purpose is to list the adjacent stations and allow direct navigation to their articles, and therefore has a separate reason and purpose than the {{{lines}}} section. There may be some redundancy, but it's not too bad.

Also, there's the issue of s-line templates being transcluded. That makes them more prone to breakage, so having some redundancy helps keep the article usable if and when the s-line portion is incapacitated. It's a positive redundancy.oknazevad (talk) 13:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a classic case of where we just have to agree to differ. I will not touch any of the station articles that some of you are so touchy about. I just can't see why you would need to keep completely redundant information in an overloaded infobox. What purpose does it serve? So in the spirit of the season, Merry Christmas and Happy Rails to you. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to go with Secondarywaltz on this one. I can see using one or the other of these sections, but not both, because the {{{services}}} section necessarily includes the {{{lines}}} information. Mangoe (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sacramento RT Station Naming Conventions

I see something seriously wrong with the way a lot of Sacramento Light Rail stations are named. Back in May 2009, some user renamed stations like Roseville Road (Sacramento RT) to Roseville Road. If I looked up "Roseville Road," I'd think that was a link to an actual road or street. I might even think it's the name of part or all of a state or US highway. Why should Sacramento get all their system names removed from their articles? ----DanTD (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

They shouldn't. The user was acting against project naming conventions, and should be reverted, with a pointer to the project for potential discussion (if they're still around; its been a while.)oknazevad (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I went ahead and renamed everything but the split stations. ----DanTD (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Good houskeeping! How about names like Beaverton Creek, Hatfield Government Center, Hawthorn Farm, Gresham City Hall, North Prescott Street, etc? Check out the Category:MAX stations where most of the stations are similarly named. The whole naming convention is a mess, They do not even follow the official map, which for example uses SE instead of Southeast, leading to long cumbersome article names. Well, anyway, I'm not going near that one. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That will be time consuming, but I can give it a shot. Right now, though, I'm going to go out and pick up some pizzas. ----DanTD (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: Wow, Secondarywaltz! No wonder you got all worked up about the MAX stations. I actually had to redirect one of them, and judging by your description, I think I'm going to have to rename a lot of them AGAIN! While I think it's foolish to have the abbreviations for NW, NE, SW, and SE, instead of Northwest, Northeast, Southwest, and Southeast, if that's the way they do it, I fear I may not have a choice. But not now, though. I'd like to go to sleep. ----DanTD (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Just as a thought, some may object to the use of the abbreviations for intermediate directions, based on the idea of spelling out abbreviations in article names (unless the abbreviation is commonly used in most every source). That said, if the official, proper noun names use the abbreviations, such objections are, in my opinion, moot.oknazevad (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If you look at photos attached to some articles you will see that the official signage also uses abbreviations (as well as the maps). Since the convention of naming in full already exists here, I wouldn't change all that now anyway. The point was just a comment on the poorly conceived process. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Montrain

The article Montrain has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no WP:RS for the content of this article. Fails WP:V and WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I just threw a link into the article. If that doesn't work, perhaps it should be merged into AMT. ----DanTD (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD notice

American Steam Railroad has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

2007 Painesville, Ohio train derailment has also been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Past railroads at Dallas and other Union Stations

I've been trying to ask editors that I thought would be in the know, but they haven't answered me. Does anybody know exactly which railroads used Union Station (Dallas) before Amtrak took over passenger service in the United States in 1971? I have a few suspicions, bur I want to be able to confirm them. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of Union Station articles that don't cover the railroads they had originally served. ----DanTD (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The Museum of the American Railroad in Dallas is one good source for that kind of thing. Railroads merged and changed names as decades went by, but a quick answer, true circa 1950, would be:

Santa Fe

Fort Worth and Denver Railway (Burlington Route subsidiary)

Rock Island

Burlington-Rock Island (jointly owned by the last two)

Cotton Belt

Frisco

Katy

Southern Pacific

T&P

The Union Terminal Company, owned by seven railroads, owned the station and trackage there. See the Handbook of Texas, a reliable source, for historical info on these lines in Texas and the station itself. You may also try googling up old Texas railroad maps to get a visual sense of how these railroads all converged on Dallas and Fort Worth as well, making this area a major rail hub, which it still is today. Pity nobody thought, fifty years ago, of developing an extensive commuter rail system on this network, which is only just now becoming a viable thing, at enormous cost. Textorus (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. Perhaps I should try the Handbook of Texas for Union Depot (El Paso) as well. ----DanTD (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Eurotunnel Class 0001

Request for images at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Image_request_Eurotunnel_Class_0001 - someone living near the channel tunnel with a camera etc.. Please respond there, and a belated happy new year.Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hainan Eastern Ring Railway

Could someone please have a quick look at the infobox. I'm quite lost when it comes to gauges and radii. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The curve radius and gradient looked very wrong to me (I've changed one to a more plausible value, and removed the other, til we can get a realistic number from some source or other). What source did you use? Maybe something got twisted in translation; chinese whispers, perhaps. bobrayner (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I just pinched it from here, which actually says m and mm. I accidentally put both as mm. I will try to dig up a source. Thanks for your help in fixing it up. (hoooo hooooooooo ling ling ling ling) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah. The gradient in that article is 12‰ not 12%. That's an easy one to overlook (and % is more familiar to most lay readers) so I've converted it to 1.2% in your article. However, none of the refs on that http://zh.wikipedia.org article appear to mention the gradient. Finding a chinese-language source may be an uphill struggle. bobrayner (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw that ‰ and thought it was a translation mistake. I'm sure facts will come along. The railway doesn't even have a website yet. Thanks again for your help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

% is per cent, or parts per hundred, ‰ is per mil, or parts per thousand. Mjroots (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the first time I ever saw that in my life. Cool. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There's now an article in Railway Gazette which is more accessible to anglophones. Some of the numbers differ from what's in the article - that's a problem. bobrayner (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Taipei Metro EMU C371

I can't find any sources on Google. Help? Thanks. Perseus, Son of Zeus 23:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The table on Taipei Rapid Transit System gives similar names to rolling stock from different vendors. So, I'm guessing that "C371" is a label handed out by somebody in Taipei, not somebody in a rolling-stock factory.

Here's what the manufacturer says - http://www.khi.co.jp/english/rs/product/detail/pro_taipei.html - there's also a press-release on Kawasaki's site about a recent sale of almost-identical rolling stock, but the table on the TRTS article gives it a different code.

Very little on RG, just passing mentions here and here (search results may get polluted by some other rolling stock of a much more eyecatching nature which Kawasaki has sold to Taiwan). bobrayner (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Citing another wikipedia article is probably a Bad Idea. Why start writing an article before you've found any real sources?

I found nothing on IRJ. According to this the main difference from other kawasaki-built rolling stock is some minor changes in seat layout. The pages on zh.wikipedia.org are a bit sparsely referenced too, but they do reveal bits & pieces like this. bobrayner (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a point that I wanted to make earlier, and fumbled. :-) The point is that we don't necessarily have to draw article boundaries along the same lines that another wikipedia has, or along the boundaries drawn by one external organisation if they're not a particularly good boundary. Maybe it would be logical to group otherwise-similar vehicles into the same article even if the end-user gives them different slightly different badges, cf British Rail Class 350. With that aggregation, it might be easier to get sources & establish notability. But that's just a suggestion... bobrayner (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Citing another Wikipedia article is not just a Bad Idea, it's prohibited, see WP:CIRCULAR. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, but can't didn't find any other web refs. I can only say by experience, now. Perseus, Son of Zeus 16:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Then don't say it. If you can't find sufficient information on the topic for a standalone article, perhaps a better solution would be to have it as a section of another article, and make Taipei Metro EMU C371 a redirect to that page. C628 (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

+1

I'm going to boldly assert that if you want to create articles, start from sources. Most weak articles are weak for lack of sources, and most AfDs appear to hinge on notability - you're halfway to overcoming both of those if you start from a good source which discusses some subject in depth and you think "Hey, I could write an article about that subject". Above all, content in wikipedia should be verifiable. I used gentler words earlier because I didn't want to put off somebody who is somewhat new to article creation and who came here to get help with the very problem that we're complaining about.

Perseus McZeus: I'm sure you've had the point made to you enough times by now; but apart from the sourcing problem - a very serious problem to be sure - the article looks nice otherwise. If there's anything else we can do to help, just holler... bobrayner (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be glad if a Chinese speaker could help me translate properly [1] this section. Thanks! Perseus, Son of Zeus 21:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sameboat (talk · contribs) springs to mind; see also Category:User zh-N. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak (talk · contribs) (who commented on this page a few days ago) seems to have created some Chinese articles recently, including some on rail-related subjects; they might be able to help. bobrayner (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested translation from Sameboat (talk · contribs). Perseus, Son of Zeus 15:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just spotted this disucssion. Unfortunately to say, the inline citations for 371 section of zh:台北捷運列車 are both unreliable, one being from knowledge.yahoo which is usually answered by amateur/random netizen. However unless the subject itself is very serious or controversial, lacking few citation is actually tolerated in Wikipedia. This is not what the founder of WP, Jimmy Wales, had hoped, but that's the reality. Citation from reliable source allows the reader to judge if the information is trustable or should be dealt with caution. If you feel inappropriate to publicized it, you can always remove it by yourself for lacking citation. But adding the {{Citation needed}} or {{unsourced}} templates after writing an unsourced information is strongly discouraged. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Naming of some high-speed trains

I want to move the Taiwan High Speed 700T train article name to a better name. However, I am not sure what version would fit the project guidelines most, and looking at articles on other high-speed trains, I found usage somewhat inconsequential.

The Taiwanese train was derived from the 700 Series Shinkansen, a type with multiple manufacturers that is operated by two companies (JR Central and JR West) on Japan's Shinkansen network (as far as I know, Shinkansen literally refers to the infrastructure), hence I see that the lack of manufacturer or operator designation for the 700 series is justified. The Taiwanese train has multiple manufacturers too, but is operated solely by the Taiwan High Speed Rail Consortium (THSRC), so "THSRC 700T Series" is one possibility. But, like in Japan, Taiwan's high-speed rail has a different gauge than the normal rail network, and the network name, "Taiwan High Speed Rail", or its acronym, "THSR" is used as often as, and interchangeably with, the company name. In fact the company's website writes: "the Taiwan High Speed Rail 700T trainsets". By Google hits, "THSR 700T" is way more common than "THSRC 700T". So "THSR 700T Series" would fit common usage, even though, if I am reading it right, not the WikiProject Trains style guide.

As for other high-speed trains:

• ICE 3 has multiple makers and is operated both by Deutsche Bahn and Nederlandse Spoorwegen, so I can see why an operator designation like in SNCF TGV Duplex is out of place. However, ICE 1 and ICE 2 are operated by DB only, so should they not be "DBAG ICE 1" and "DBAG ICE 2"?
• Same for (FS) ETR 500 and (Korail) KTX-I, KTX-II.
• The E1 Series Shinkansen, E2 Series Shinkansen, E3 Series Shinkansen, E4 Series Shinkansen, E5 Series Shinkansen and E6 Series Shinkansen are all types operated by JR East only. It's logical if "Shinkasen" is enough as specifier, but is that okay with the style guide?

--Rontombontom (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There are five good criteria for choosing an article name here.

Some inconsistency between the titles of different articles is inevitable, because there is so much variation in manufacturers, users, and popular coverage of the subject. Inter-article consistency would be nice, but I think other factors are more important. bobrayner (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:RDT Rollbahn

Template:RDT Rollbahn is orphaned and unused. Is it still wanted? If not, it can probably be deleted. It seems to be something to do with this, but I can't make head or tail of it. Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be more related to the article on the Wanne-Eickel–Hamburg railway, which contains the same section of line in reverse, although it doesn't call the template. I have alerted the template's creator. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sacramento RT Station Naming Revisited

The person who misnamed those Sacramento RT light rail stations is threatening to undo my renaming of those articles. Somebody stop him. ----DanTD (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Misnamed? You added unnecessary disambiguation to them, contrary to the article naming conventions (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)), despite claims you made that the naming conventions supported your move. You can always try WP:RM to find general consensus for your guideline-violating and unnecessary moves of course, instead of running to a project for support. Projects (and editors) don't own articles and can't just ignore general guidelines. Fram (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The basic standard is to have the name of the station, and the company or agency that serves the station in parentheses. The moves I made were not unecessary, and in fact the moves you made are. ----DanTD (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't find any mentioning of applying parentheses OUTSIDE of WP:DISAMBIG, so I suppose it is better to avoid it altogether. Actually "(Sacramento RT)" is not helpful for the reader to understand the nature of the subject, WP:DISAMBIG suggests avoiding proper noun in the parentheses, so if you must make the title intuitive, adding "station" or "stop" after the station name is FAR BETTER than applying "(Sacramento RT)". But I'm perfectly fine without these supplementary notations as long as they're not ambiguous with other namesake. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The way Fram wants it, too many of the stations would have the names of streets, Interstate Highways, sections of the city and buildings in the city. Somebody looking for stations might not know to look there, and somebody looking for those streets, buildings, and what not would end up with articles on the stations. This is why the use of the "(Sacramento RT)" in the name is important. ----DanTD (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Only when ambiguity happens WITHIN Wikipedia requires disambiguation. For example, if Canada and Amercia both have a "Samantha station" but only the article for the Canadian one exists in Wikipedia, there's no need to title it "Samantha station (Canada)". It can remain as simply as "Samantha station" until someone has written the article of the Amercian station. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It still creates confusion for readers outside the area, including myself. If there's only one Samantha Station, fine. But if I want to look up Samantha Street I don't want to wind up in an article on the railroad station at Samantha Street, or if I want ot look up Samantha Park, I don't want to wind up looking at a light rail station at Samantha Park, and so on, and so forth.

You say that these naming conventions are only requited when there's ambiguity. Fine; I disambiguate one. And if I have to, I'll do more. ----DanTD (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

When there's ambiguity within Wikipedia, not otherwise. Fram (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• NOTE - There's only one article related to Merillon Avenue on Wikipedia, and it's Merillon Avenue (LIRR station). Are you going to get the "(LIRR station)" part of the name removed because of that? ----DanTD (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this as disrupting Wikipedia at all. ----DanTD (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the (LIRR station) part should be removed. I'll not start looking for all places where such incorrect disambiguations are used, but when I do come across them, I move them to the proper title. Fram (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

And I reverted your WP:POINT disruption at Roseville Road. Please calm down and stop this. Fram (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have filed an edit warring report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:DanTD_reported_by_User:Fram_.28Result:_.29. Fram (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Whilst it is unfortunate that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations) never got approved as a guideline, we in the UK have produced our own Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations). Every rail station has the word "station" in the article title, no matter what type of system it's on, nor whether it's name is itself unique. The only exceptions are combined rail/bus stations, which get the word "Interchange" instead, and stops on tram (streetcar) lines.
So, we have Didcot Parkway railway station, even though there is no other Didcot station in the entire UK; and, AFAIK, nowhere else in the world is there a place/street/whatever named "Didcot Parkway" (there isn't even a street in Didcot named "Parkway" - we have Park Road, and also Broadway). Put simply, it's the name on the station signs ("Didcot Parkway"), plus the word "railway" (because there's only the national heavy-rail system there) plus the mandatory word "station".
Perhaps the UK guideline could be borrowed (and adjusted where necessary to suit different circumstances). --Redrose64 (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Any reason why stations can't just follow the general guideline when nothing more is needed, and only have a guideline for what kind of disambiguation is used in those cases where one is really needed? Most other projects use this system, where the guideline only states that in the case of disambiguation, we add e.g. (artist) or (comics) or (railway station) to the article title. Article titles (before the disambiguation part) should always reflect either the most common or the official name (e.g. the Latin name of plants) of subjects, not some Wikipedia-only version of it. Fram (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. However:

1. I think that the disambiguating text should itself be clear - RT is not a very informative acronym to some readers. Also, bearing in mind WP:COMMON I would also prefer to see a disambiguated title which at least looks vaguely like what might be mentioned in sources. Bearing those two in mind, we might even be able to unbracket the disambiguating term - I think "Arbitraryville station" far preferable to "Arbitraryville (RandomRail Station)". I consider it more important to have accurate readable names than to have the same string at the top of many different articles.
2. If there are already many articles with titles which aren't too bad to start with, mass moves (ie. renaming every station in a network) are likely to be controversial. Probably a good idea to seek wider community input.
3. Editwarring is bad. If in doubt, step back and discuss, even if you're sure that you have the Truth (and sometimes you do), even if the other editor "started" it. bobrayner (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Gobbledygook! How much more ambiguous can you get than a station article named "Park", "Road", "Inn", etc. How about Historic Folsom, where you might expect to find the Fulsom Historic District as at historicfolsom.org - it's a frickin' Sacramento light rail station article. We're not talking about disambiguity or station naming conventions here - this is about common sense names matching the subject of the article. Many station article names do use the system name as a suffix, which was the naming convention when those articles were created. If you want to call them all "station", that is good, but then you have to change them all, including matching the related Templates and Navboxes. If you have never dealt with this series of station articles before - just leave it to the people who are happy to keep them in good shape. What you have done otherwise is, parachuted in to town, thrown a couple of hand granades and left the mess for somebody else to cleanup. Oy vey! Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • That's what I was trying to tell Fram and Sameboat. In the case of Roseville Road the article isn't about the road. It's about the station. In the case of Marconi Arcade, it's about the station as well. If I didn't know any better, I'd think it was for some old obscure video arcade in a mini-mall during the 1980's. ----DanTD (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Looking at the five main points on article naming, I see that Roseville Road fails the first (recognizability) badly, the second (naturalness – "a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English") absolutely, and the third (precision) as badly as the first. It should be baldly obvious that either Roseville Road station or Roseville Road (Sacramento RT) is better, though one can certainly criticize the latter (and by extension the city or state transportation department) for being a bit cryptic. We can revisit the naming convention, but I will continue to insist that names that give no indication that this article isn't about a street are absolutely unacceptable. Valuing consistency over the other points is WP:POINTy to extremes; it's more important that the title of the article say what the article is about. Mangoe (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Recognizability; what is the station called in reliable sources, and in general? If it is generally called "Roseville Road", then that is the recognisable name. If it is generally called "Roseville Road Station", then that should be the article name. It is definitely not generally called "Roseville Road (Sacramento RT)" though... It doesn't fail the second point absolutely, the DanTD disambiguated title does though.
  • I have no objection to moving this (and similar) articles to "Roseville Road Station", since it looks to me as if the added "Station" or "station" is generally used when referencing it, so this may well be described as the most common name. It is recognisable, follows our guideline, and is hopefully acceptable for everyone. I have no problems with a discussion to reach an informed conclusion, I just oppose the "my way or the highway" approach DanTD used here, and the claim that some unneeded disambiguation was supported by actual accepted guidelines. Fram (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • This isn't simply a "my way or the highway approach," and it's not just me suggesting this. ----DanTD (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • You two can argue about who is being the WP:POINTiest editor at leisure; personally I think both of you need to back down a bit. Be that as it may, could I suggest taking the approach of the Washington Metro station articles and name it Roseville Road (Sacramento RT station)? Mangoe (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Wahy not just Roseville Road station, which seems to be the most commnly used name? Fram (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Woohoo! Yes - why not? If anybody thinks that there are possibe conflicts you could use "LRT station" to eliminate those and yet provide clarity and consistency throughout the system. Note that "metro station" is often used, to distinguish from the regular "railway station". Is there really a need for the "extended mix" version? Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Roseville Road station is fine with me. Clear, unambiguous, descriptive, and it seems to be used by external sources too. bobrayner (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

So is this "new agreement" going to be for all stations on the Sacramento RT and MAX or just Roseville Road? ('cause that would be a bad idea) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 21:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Roseville Road station and alike is a better choice than Roseville Road (Sacramento RT) or Roseville Road (Sacramento RT station), the latter being unnecessarily cumbersome. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you know that Sacramento County has a "transfer station" and "recovery station" on Roseville Road? Well now boys and girls. How many kinds of station can you think of? OK, just relax. Where is DanTD on this? Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As long as there're no articles for the transfer station and recovery station, this isn't really a problem. The definition of "station" is primarily related to railway structure, the others being secondary and usually used in the form of phrase. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC) - I said "OK, just relax" - and you didn't. Go to your room! Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 04:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I was in bed, Secondarywaltz. I've got to get some sleep sometime. As for the subject of other sites getting the name "station," I've been trying to rename an image File:Amagansett-station.jpg to File:Amagansett CG Station.jpg, because the name could also apply to Amagansett (LIRR station) even though the image is for a United States Coast Guard life saving station. ----DanTD (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(deindent) Gfoley4 said "So is this "new agreement" going to be for all stations on the Sacramento RT and MAX or just Roseville Road? ('cause that would be a bad idea)". My proposal would be to have station articles, in those cases where they are often referred to X station (like Roseville Road), at the Rosseville Road station and similar, and in those cases where there are different stations with the same name, a real disambiguator can be added (if there were other Roseville Road stations with an article, this could be Roseville Road station (Sacramento RT) or Roseville Road station (Sacramento) or whatever is preferred. The same goes for MAX and any other system. It's straightforward, makes clear that they are stations, and allows for disambiguation where needed, as is the general rule on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a good idea. They're all Sacramento RT stations, and Metropolitan Area Express stations. They deserve those suffixes. The same goes for every other station. ----DanTD (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles don't deserve suffixes in their titles, they get them when it is necessary. Fram (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Station articles get suffixes, because they're stations, and are linked to specific railroads. ----DanTD (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't use edit summaries to attack other editors. bobrayner (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Station building article

Meant to ask this days ago. This article was recently created, using the Polish version as a basis, as there apparently was no interwiki link from the Polish article. But I noticed that there's already an article for head house covering the same thing (the buildings at stations themselves, which are suitable for an article from an architectural as well as a rail operations standpoint).
Obviously, there needs to be a merge, as having both is redundant. But what titleshould the merged article have? "Station building" sounds too generic and is used more as a description than as an actual noun. "Head house" I've heard used even for stations such as Reading Terminal, but may be too obscure. I wanted others thoughts on the matter. oknazevad (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As a railway fan, I've never heard of the term "head house" and I can't find it in my usual reference docs. "Station building" on the other hand is pretty common and is not generic, but refers to the main building at a passenger station with ticket offices, waiting rooms, shops, etc, as distinct from the separate goods sheds, loco sheds, signal boxes and other outbuildings. Nevertheless, it would be useful to track down some authoritative references first to ascertain if they are exactly the same thing and whether usage is regional so we can make an informed decision. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The term "head house" is normally affiliated with the New York City Subway and stations like Bowling Green. I have to admit, I've never heard the term outside of the NYCS. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 18:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me to be an Americanism. I know that in New York, it's a subway term. (I live in New Jersey.) So it seems that the merged article should be at station building for commonality purposes. But we may want to keep the separate article for the subway usage. oknazevad (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon the control house article also. 3 articles for roughly the same subject. Something is got to give. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 03:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Head house and control house (whose merge has already been suggested) would appear to be very specific kinds of station buildings. 'Control house' is also a relatively new article (Dec 2010), 'Head house' less so (May 2008, but only about 11 edits since first created) and both seem specific to New York subways, so it might be best to link to these from 'station building'. ('Head house' makes some sense when the rest of the station is underground, but surely it's not a term used for surface railroads? Also, as a UK enthusiast, I've never heard the term used.)

Station building is clearly an overlooked subject. Suspect it will need some work once translated from Polish -- lots of world view differences! -- EdJogg (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I am the creator of the station building article, and I agree with Bermicourt. As an Australian, I am very conscious of the many differences between British English and American English. But I'd never previously heard of the expression "head house", nor of the expression "control house", even though I've been a rail fan for some 40 years, and have travelled coast to coast on Amtrak. If "head house" really is an NYC-specific expression, then there's no reason why it can't be a standalone article, suitably modified to note that it's NYC-specific. But I doubt that any Australian looking for an article about the main buildings at railway stations would use the expression "head house" to search for it. Before starting the article "station building", I actually did more than one en.wiki search for articles using that expression, and the searches brought up lots of articles about railway stations in which that expression is used. However, I've just done an en.wiki search, and also a google search, for "head house", and they didn't produce anything like a similar result. What I suggest is that when I expand the station building article by adding the translation of (most of) the Polish article (which I intend to start doing in the next week or so), I will incorporate a reference and link to "head house"/"control house", and we can take it from there. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good to me, though I will note that "head house" is not an NYC-specific term. As noted , it's used for the former Reading Terminal in Philadelphia, which was also a mainline railroad station. It may be that it specific to terminal stations though, as the "head" could be referring to the rail head. Now that I think about it, that may be the actual etymology. I think we have a good course of action here, though, as a specific usage, the NYC Subway specific material at head house should likely go to an article called head house (New York City Subway), while the existing head house article becomes a redirect to station building, reflecting its wider use. oknazevad (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Funny thing - I'd never heard of the term "head house" before, but have certainly encountered "control house" many times, specifically when reading about the history of the New York system, which led me to create the control house stub article. If consensus is that head house is preferable to control house, then so be it, but to my mind "station building" sounds rather generic. I'd love to do some more detailed searching to come up with sources for control house references, but frankly don't have the time this week. Just throwing in my two cents. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'd have just one article, with a paragraph each for the two less-widely used terms. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a finely organized article of similar terms is better than a bunch of stubs. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You're all forgetting one other non-NYC related headhouse article; South Station Headhouse, which is currently tagged for merging with South Station. ----DanTD (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Three comments. Firstly, the articles have been merged. Secondly, the name "South Station Headhouse" is apparently the official name on the National Register of Historic Places, indicating the term is known in the US for other than subway stations. And, thirdly, as a terminal it seems that my idea of the etymology of the term may be right. oknazevad (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, when I posted my message on the subjet, it wasn't merged. Now I see that it is. In the meantime, I'd say the NRHP-related infobox needs to be improved... maybe even merged. ----DanTD (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Shay engine

The Shay engine area does not mention the Shay engine (on static display) at the Royal Gorge Route station. They say it was being used on the Georgetown Loop Railway before they received it. I saw this engine the week after Christmas 2010. I have pictures, but can't copy and paste here.

Warren Nilsson 22:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.204.30 (talk)

Opposition to the Guangzhou-Hong Kong Express Rail Link

Opposition to the Guangzhou-Hong Kong Express Rail Link has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.13.210 (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Korean rail stubs‎/Template:Korea-rail-stub

Feel free to discuss the splitting of this stub type at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/January/19. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

templates being deleted

A bunch of rail templates have recently come up for deletion at WP:TFD. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The WP:TFD of {{West Midlands railway stations (disused)}} was inconclusive, and it has been relisted. Your comments are invited there. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Irish gauge or Victorian broad gauge

In the {{Railgauge}} template, the alternate name given for 1600 gauge is Victorian broad gauge, which redirects onto Rail gauge in Australia. There is an Irish gauge article, which gives due prominence to its use in Victoria (Australia) and Brazil. Curiously, the Rail Gauges in Australia article fairly consistently refers to it as Irish gauge, and redirects back to Irish gauge.

I posted this to the Template talk:RailGauge to ask if the alternate name could be changed to Irish gauge, and the reply was that it could, but to seek agreement from others first. If the concensus was to retain it as Victorian broad gauge, the Irish gauge article should be renamed as such. Tim PF (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As an Australian, I disagree with the present alternate name, but for different reasons. The 1,600mm gauge is not exclusive to Victoria. It has also been used extensively in South Australia, and, less extensively, in New South Wales (in the latter case, on Victorian operated lines north of the Murray River) and (for a short time) in Tasmania. However, the fact that 1,600 mm is an Irish gauge is fairly well known in Australia. If there is going to continue to be an Australian alternate name, then it should be Australian broad gauge, but 'Irish gauge' would probably be a better alternative. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Irish Gauge is the common name for 5'3" gauge. Mjroots (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

year xxxx in in rail transport

I am not a member of this project, so I am seeking guidance here before making any drastic changes to a group of pages that don't seem to meet WP quality standards. I first came across 1604 in rail transport which has no lead and two empty sections. Ditto 1427 in rail transport and I expect to find similar in Category:Rail transport timelines for the early years of railway history. These seem to list just one event in each year.

My proposal is to remove the Events, Births and Deaths sub headings so that the single 'event' described becomes the whole article. I will add a suitable stub flag and add this project banner to the Talk page.

I can see how the original authors have tried to maintain consistency amongst a group of related articles, but where this leads to empty or unnecessary subheads, I think it is not the right thing to do.

I also question the usefulness of the births and deaths sections. For example, 1737 in rail transport. Is the birth of Charles Carroll of Carrollton really significant in railway history? Would the railway have been built anyway without his help? My point here is that we could end up with an awful lot more of these articles if the birth of everyone associated with a railway is deemed noteworthy.Derek Andrews (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at those articles, I'd say that before 1820, the articles should be "(decade) in rail transport", going back further, the articles shoud be "(century) in rail transport)" Not sure if 1800 should be the cut-off point or 1700 should be. Those articles are very stubby and of little use as they are. No doubt there are others too. Mjroots (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a book

• James, Leslie (1983). A Chronology of the Construction of Britain's Railways 1778-1855. Shepperton: Ian Allan. ISBN 0 7110 1277 6. BE/1183. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

which is broken down by year. The first entry is for 1778, the second for 1794. After that, the following years are omitted: 1797, 1801, 1807-1809 inclusive, 1815, 1817, 1818, 1821. I would say that 1790 would be a sensible century/decade cutoff (is a 90-year century sensible?). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say stick to the century to start with, if the 1790s gets large enough, then it could be split from the century article. The only slight problem with a century/decade split at 1800 is that there would be duplication of info from 1800, being the last year of the C18th and first year of the 1800s. Mjroots (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Identification, etc. would be welcome

Skagit Railway train in snow

Really nice photo I just found (released by Seattle Municipal Archive) and uploaded to Commons. We don't have an article on this railway (and probably should). Also, someone more knowledgeable than I can probably add a bunch of relevant categories about that locomotive. - Jmabel | Talk 06:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Descendant of WikiProject Civil engineering?

Could this project be classified as a descendant? --trevj (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not? →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 15:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, railways are just as much mechanical as civil engineering, so if we're to become a sub-project of the civils, we must also become a sub-project of the mechanicals. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

My only apprehension would be screwing up our various conventions if the Civil Engineering project's are too different. But I don't know about the CivEng project's conventions to really object. oknazevad (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not involved in WP:CEng but work in civil engineering and believe that trains are no less relevant than highways, etc. Is there a WikiProject Mechanical Engineering? There's always WP:ENGR anyway. --trevj (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of any hierarchy to WikiProjects, except perhaps where there is an obvious country-specific sub-project (eg UK railways). WP:CEng consider 'WP:Transport' as a child project, but surely only WP:Transport-Infrastructure would be appropriate, similarly WP:Railway-Infrastructure? A parent-child hierarchy implies some kind of authority/control relationship between the two projects, which is clearly absent (and unnecessary). -- EdJogg (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

BART S-line templates

User:Gfoley4 has been trying to fix the S-line templates for Bay Area Rapid Transit stations, but none of his fixes have worked. I tried to use some Chicago 'L' S-Lines as an example of what could be done, but that hasn't worked either. Can somebody else fix what he has been trying to do? While you're at it, send him a message to invite him to the discussion. ----DanTD (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Diagram looks fine. I would suggest moving it out of the lede and into the "History" section so that it does not interact with the TOC. Mjroots (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not the problem. The Richmond–Millbrae line splits, and he wanted to make the template reflect this. I tried to help, but it didn't work. ----DanTD (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Our problem is, we don't know which templates you are having trouble with. You mention both Bay Area Rapid Transit and Richmond–Millbrae line, but neither has been edited by User:Gfoley4, and both contain several templates. Which are the specific ones with difficulties? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

So I'm trying to make the s-line right terminus be "Millbrae or Daly City" (because the Richmond-Millbrae Line ends at Daly City during nights and Saturdays). But, as you can see at Richmond Station (California), it shows as Millbrae or Daly City (BART station). I have created an entry at {{BART stations}} but that didn't seem to work. FYI, the template that controls the terminus is here. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 16:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If you didn't know, the {{s-line}} template is the template that says which stations are next. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 16:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Anybody home? →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 18:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm home. I'm just ignoring this thread, because now that I know that you mean the {{s-line}} group, and its usage in Richmond Station (California), I really don't want to investigate it in any detail, and was hoping that others would. That template group is far too complicated for its own good, what with all the subtemplates. You've got one system, for which you seem to need four templates: {{BART color}}; {{BART lines}}; {{BART stations}}; and {{BART style}}, of which I see one is a redlink and therefore missing. You also have two lines, requiring {{S-line/BART right/Orange}} and {{S-line/BART right/Red}} in Richmond Station (California) (the pairs being completed by {{S-line/BART left/Orange}} and {{S-line/BART left/Red}} - and since there are three other lines, you could need {{S-line/BART left/Green}}; {{S-line/BART left/Yellow}}; {{S-line/BART left/Blue}}; {{S-line/BART right/Green}}; {{S-line/BART right/Yellow}}; and {{S-line/BART right/Blue}} also). Whether these fourteen are set up properly or not I don't know; why all of these are necessary I also don't know.

I much prefer routeboxes like this where there are no hidden subtemplates to worry about. This example has three rail companies, each of which has one template which is specific to that company. These templates are specified right there in the edit box ({{XC colour}}, {{FGW colour}} and {{SWT colour}}), and there's no mucking around with subtemplates. As their names suggest, they're used to obtain the colour values, but the routebox would work perfectly well using six-character colour values instead of templates. Much easier to set up. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Another unidentified location

Does that say "Glen Falls?"

User:Jmabel asked about the location of one image, now I'm asking about another. I'm not sure about the location, but when I zoomed in on it, I could barely make out the word "Glen Falls," and the only word I'm most certain of is the word "Glen." Can anybody else figure out where this could be? ----DanTD (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, I can make out "Glen" and a "F" for the first letter of the second word. I can figure out anything besides that. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 15:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Could it be Glens Falls, New York? The Delaware and Hudson Railway used to go through there, and this site [2] suggests that they had a variety of depots there over the years. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The thought had crossed my mind, but there's the issue of the word "Glen" without an "s," and the history of the stations in Glens Falls at the link you've showed us. Plus, there's something about this old nearby D&H station which is a little more elaborate than the one shown here. ----DanTD (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's an actual waterfall called GLEN Falls in Williamsville, NY (near Buffalo), and some quick googling suggests that there may have been a depot there named Glen Falls at some time, but nothing conclusive. Echoedmyron (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The location is Glen Ellyn, IL, see here or here. Also see this photo shot from the opposite direction. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. And I found it here too. ----DanTD (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A question on scope of an article

I'm looking to expand the article on the Virginia and Truckee Railroad. Right now the article is almost exclusively focused on the current incarnation of the V&T as a Heritage Railroad. Would fleshing it out with the full history of the original line be appropriate scope for this article, or would it be better in a separate one? Especially considering that the original V&T used the term Railway for its name, whereas the modern uses Railroad. I just want to make sure that whatever I do makes sense. Rails (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it would make sense to put them both in the same article - it's not overly long. Maybe you could get a nice historical flow. As long as the railway variant of the name redirects to the railroad variant (and it does), I'm happy.

If, in future, the article got really long & confusing - especially if there turns out to be little commonality apart from the name and location - then it might be a good idea to split them apart, but for now I think a split would be confusing.

Good luck, and have fun writing! bobrayner (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Rail car

The rail car article is currently a straight redirect to "railcar", but it appears that quite a few referencing articles mean "railroad car". I've already altered the railcars redirect page to add a "railroad car" option, and edited many of the referencing pages to hit the correct page, but there were not very many. Changing "rail car" to be a disambiguation page pointing to both "railcar" and "railroad car" might be useful, but I guess that quite a lot of articles erroneously link direct to "railcar" by mistake. Any suggestions? Tim PF (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I may be wrong but I wonder if the problem here is that editors are using "rail car" to avoid saying "railroad car" so it sounds internationally acceptable. However in doing so they fall into the trap of creating a term that doesn't exist and causing confusion with "railcar" which does and has a different meaning as you rightly point out. I will do some further research and see if there's a way round this. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What about turning Rail car into a dab page? Mjroots (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The linguistic issue is that American English uses "rail" and "railroad" more or less interchangeably, rarely preferring one to the exclusion to the other. So there's nothing wrong with "rail car" as a term. Anyway, I've gone through the relatively few cases using "rail car" and straightened most of them out, though there are a few left where the intent was unclear. teh bigger problem is probably railcar itself, which has a lot more references than make sense at first glance. I think it needs to hatnote back to "railroad car". Mangoe (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with making it a dab page (as previously written), and I had thought about a hatnote in railcar, but I've not done many of those yet. Well over 100 links are from Template:Rail vehicles of New Zealand (including a redirect from Template:NZR Locomotives; would it help to see the trees from the forest if the link in that template was temporarily suppressed? Tim PF (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. (It would be a nice feature if you could hide links from templates.)

I would go further and remove three of the four links from Template:Rail vehicles of New Zealand, permanently. I think it unlikely that many users will get to the bottom line of the template at the bottom of a page before thinking 'I wonder what a railcar is?'. The NZ-specific link is fine, though.

Remember that the list of links may take some time (hours->days) to reflect the changes and reduce in size. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I've commented out those last three pesky links (sleep), converted rail car to a {{disambiguation}} page, and had a shot at adding a hatnote to railcar. Tim PF (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Template is much neater -- you don't miss those links. Have also: tweaked the text on rail car and adjusted the format (nearer standard DAB -- think it's still OK); added link to railcar in the lede of railroad car; pruned the hatnote on railcar, as I couldn't see the purpose of the second link to the same page. Feel free to adjust further as you see fit. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I presume you mean Template:Rail vehicles of New Zealand, and not the other three I also adjusted yesterday (Template:Bavarian locomotives, Template:DRG locomotives and Template:Prussian locomotives), as opposed to the few more that I considered, but didn't do. I agree with your earlier comment that it would be much nicer if there was a fourth option on the "What links here" page to hide those also.

I've no problems with your change to rail car, or the removal of the third option of railcar's hatnote (which I had cribbed from the 3 option one I wrote a week or so ago for Bathroom, and just left the American catch all in); we both left in the 2nd link at the end of the lead, so that should be fine.

I forgot to consider changes to railroad car itself, and your change was definitely required, thankyou. But I wonder if it also needs something like "in the US, it is often referred to more simply as a rail car or railcar, but this should not be confused with the self-propelled railcar". Especially as it has links to Rail car mover and Rail car tracking device. Tim PF (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added your comment to railroad car as a footnote, as it won't fit comfortably within the lede. -- EdJogg (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A pity, but a footnote looks ok, and at least it's there, thanks. I suppose I was thinking along the lines of the third paragraph in Bathroom, which has been there a long time, and is one of the few paragraphs I haven't touched, although it was my inspiration for the hatnote. Tim PF (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, it is quite clearly written, although it might give undue prominence to the American usage over other aspects of bathrooms -- it's possible that that paragraph should be in the regional variations section instead. Needing to mention that Americans use the terms 'railroad car', 'rail car', and 'railcar' interchangeably is, I suggest, less significant than the different meaning of 'bathroom'. -- EdJogg (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. But I don't think it is undue prominence that the other US uses of the term, which have other articles, are firmly booted into the long grass, but also explains to non-Americans that it is used as a euphamism. 'Railcar' is similar in that non-Americans may be confused by the US usage for both powered and non-powered vehicles (I was the other day), but Americans will end up at railcar or a dab page. There may be a few cases where non-americans follow a link that links to railcar when it is not meant, but I think we've made good progress to lessen those possibilities, especially once we can see past those templates. Tim PF (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Rename of Template:Infobox station

{{Infobox station}} has been proposed for renaming; see Template talk:Infobox station#Rename proposal. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Fréjus/Mont Cenis Railway

Despite the line having been projected as Chambéry-Modane-Turin in what was initially a single country, there are two different articles for the French and Italian part of the line. Furthermore the first article makes confusion between the Chambéry-Modane-Turin and the Mont Cenis Pass Railway, giving wrong links (the interwiki link on the left leads to the Mont Cenis Pass Railway fr.wiki article, the link called "Mont Cenis Pass Railway" in the main text leads to the Fréjus tunnel article). I think both articles should be merged, as they describe what was historically a single railway. Finally a clear dinstinction should be made between the "Mont Cenis" and "Fréjus" names, they are two different mountain passes: the confusion is created because the Chambéry-Modane-Turin cross the Alps under the Fréjus pass, but is often called "Mont Cenis railway" because it replaced the Mont Cenis railway and road, which is some dozen of kilometres away from the Fréjus pass. I hope this is clear...any comment? Coccodrillo (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Fréjus railway article appears to have begun life as a translation of its it.wiki equivalent, and the Mont Cenis Railway as a brand new article. The former describes the section of the overall railway that is now in Italy, and the latter describes what is now in France. I would suggest that they be left as two separate articles. However, I agree that there should be some co-ordination of them. At the very least, each should have a "See also" section with a link to the other article. It would also be desirable for the text of each to state clearly that the relevant article describes only a section of a single overall railway.

Finally, I agree that there are several problems with the Mont Cenis Railway article. One problem is that the article is wrongly named. It should be named "Maurienne railway" (or similar) and interwikilinked with fr:Ligne de la Maurienne. A second problem is that the fr:Chemin de Fer du Mont-Cenis article has no en.wiki equivalent, and therefore should not be interwikilinked to en.wiki at all. A solution to both of these problems would be to create a new article named "Maurienne railway" (or similar) as a translation of the fr.wiki article about that railway, and then rewrite the Mont Cenis Railway article as a translation of the fr.wiki Chemin de Fer du Mont-Cenis article. I would be happy to do both of these jobs, but I can't start immediately, because I'm presently working on another project. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If we decide to keep the two articles separate we will have to choose entirely new names (as Mont Cenis and Fréjus are, in the case of the railway, quite synonyms), and decide where to split the line, like "Maurienne railway". But where should we split the line? At the border station of Modane or in the middle of the Fréjus tunnel? But I still think we should consider it a single line, just like the Brenner railway (plus an article for the Mont Cenis Pass railway). Coccodrillo (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the logic of what you are suggesting. However, the problem is that it.wiki already has an article about the Italian part of the line, and fr.wiki already has an article about the French part of the line. If we were to continue with two articles in en.wiki, we could interwikilink one of them with the it.wiki article and the other one with the fr.wiki article. So I think it would be sensible to continue with two articles. From what I can gather, the place where the voltage changes from Italian 3,000 V to French 1,500 V is Modane. I therefore also think that Modane should be the place where each article should end. How about naming one article "Turin–Modane railway" and the other one "Culoz–Modane railway"? That would mean that both articles would have unambiguous names that conform with standard practices for naming en.wiki articles about railway lines. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Calling the two articles "Turin-Modane" and "Culoz-Modane" is as you suggest is accettable, but then where should we redirect "Fréjus railway" and "Mont Cenis Railway"? Make a redirect only to one half of the line would still be incorrect. As I speak French and Italian, I could ask on the other Wiki what to do. After merging the two halves of the lines on the three fr-it-en.wiki I could then translate the missing parts on each wiki (Turin-Modane oin fr.wiki, Culoz-Modane on it.wiki). The merged article should be named "Fréjus Railway", plus the article about the Mont Cenis Pass Line. Coccodrillo (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If we have two articles "Turin-Modane" and "Culoz-Modane", then "Fréjus railway" and "Mont Cenis Railway" could both be disambiguation pages linking to both "Turin-Modane" and "Culoz-Modane", and, in the latter case, also to "Mont Cenis Pass Railway". But a more satisfactory solution would be for there to be one article about the whole line on each of the three wikis (en.wiki, fr.wiki and it.wiki), plus an article about the Mont Cenis Pass Railway, as you have suggested. I look forward to hearing from you about the responses to your enquiries on the other wikis. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

On it.wiki the two replies I received are for keeping them separated, as they consider the line as two projects built separately and then linked. On the other hand the two books and one article about the railway I have found consider them as a single line. Coccodrillo (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Five articles? French line, Italian line, Fell railway, tunnel, and overall railway. But what do your books call the single line? If "Mont Cenis Railway", then you could use that name to cover the historical bits, ie the Fell Railway, and the overall project, including the (mostly Italian) diversion to the tunnel (or was it the mostly French diversion to the Pass?). Each article should start with links to the others (probably). Tim PF (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have renamed Mont Cenis Railway as Culoz–Modane railway, and at least temporarily made the Mont Cenis Railway page a redirect to Mont Cenis Pass Railway, which I have transformed from a redirect page (to Fréjus Rail Tunnel) into a new stub article. I have also renamed Fréjus railway as Turin–Modane railway, and at least temporarily made the Fréjus railway page a redirect to "Fréjus Rail Tunnel". I have corrected the interwiki links for the two articles I have renamed, and will shortly be correcting the links from the "what links here" pages. In the near future, I will also transform the Mont Cenis Pass Railway stub article into what might be described as a blended translation of fr:Chemin de Fer du Mont-Cenis and it:Ferrovia del Moncenisio. When I've completed that task (I'll do it some time between now and the end of February), we'll have articles 1, 2, 3 and 4. In the meantime, we can discuss what should be the name and content of article 5 ... Bahnfrend (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, except: Should it be Mont Cenis Pass Railway or Mont Cenis Pass railway? If the latter, then at least the link from Turin–Modane railway will work, but I think we need either an additional redirect or a move (with auto-redirect). Tim PF (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the part concerning the Mont Cenis Pass Railway from Culoz–Modane railway, but adding a link to it. Coccodrillo (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sixth article? The "Modane train disaster" is listed at List of accidents and disasters by death toll‎ and in all this renaming was pointing to "Fréjus Rail Tunnel#1917 accident" which is now of course "Turin–Modane railway#1917 accident", and there was no such link, anchor or even information. But the accident was at Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne as nicely detailed on the French version at fr:Accident ferroviaire de Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne, and so is on the Culoz–Modane railway.

Should we have a sixth article called Modane train disaster or Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne rail accident or Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne rail crash (1917), or do we just move the existing details from the Italian to the French line articles? We could leave it alone. We could also work out if the French deliberatly underestimate the number of dead (entre 425 et 700 morts), or if the English version exagerates (only 425 of the 800-1000 troops killed could be identified).

In the meantime, I've put an {{anchor}} tag in Culoz–Modane railway with a see also back to "Turin–Modane railway#1917 accident", and changed the original link so that it hits the anchor (on a good day). Tim PF (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The accident details should be written in the French part. I tried also to explain in each of the two half-articles the history of the various names of the railway (Fréjus, Mont Cenis, Maurienne). Coccodrillo (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I'd agree that it belongs to the French line, not the Italian line, I also note that most of the other high death toll rail crashes have their own, if stubby, articles, the French version of this is about as long as the longest of our existing four, plus it would be easier to create the interwiki link. My French isn't good enough for a translation (although I do follow most of the article), so I'm not going to create one anytime soon.

There are already several redirect pages with names like Fréjus railway accident, Fréjus rail accident, Frejus rail accident. I'm adopting Fréjus railway accident as a redirect page for the moment, pointing to Turin–Modane railway#1917 accident for now with a comment that This is liable to change to Culoz–Modane railway#1917 accident or a separate article. I'll try to sort out the redirects to all use this page. Tim PF (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no objections creating a separate article for this accident, if you think it is worth it. We will then put a link on the French half-article. Coccodrillo (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a separate article about the 1917 accident. The most appropriate name for the separate article would appear to be Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne derailment - see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Train_wreck. The existing redirect pages could just be amended to redirect to an article bearing that name. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed your comment at the time. I'd be quite happy to go with Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne derailment, but the naming convention might also allow "disaster", and appears to be worse than the near contemporary Quintinshill rail disaster; that would make it the Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne rail disaster (with one redirecting to the other).

I've already done some consolidation of redirects, but didn't want to do too much until a final name was agreed upon. I'd keep the Fréjus railway accident as plain redirect, and then try to get rid of all the others, including going back to the articles that use weird names like "Modane train disaster". Tim PF (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I grasped the nettle and created Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne derailment from the "1917 accident" section of this version of "Turin–Modane railway". I decided not to use the title Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne rail disaster at the moment, as the French version was renamed last July from fr:Catastrophe ferroviaire de Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne to fr:Accident ferroviaire de Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne as catastrophe n'apporte rien par rapport à accident, which my French isn't good enough to fully understand. It still carries the redirect, but I'll do the English one later if someone doesn't do it first. Tim PF (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Rail lines in Utah

Category:Rail lines in Utah has been nominated for deletion; please see the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge Train Engine with Locomotive

Railfans, I request your help. There is a very old merge tag on the page Train engine, suggesting a merge to Locomotive. Please comment at Talk:Train engine D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This was done (without much discussion) by bobrayner (talk), and I tidied it up so that it has its own sub-section. Tim PF (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it'd been tagged for three years; four different editors wanted the article shifted; and there was no sign of dissent. So, I doubt there would have been much to gain from sitting around and talking about it a bit longer Be bold, and all that. Thanks for the extra cleanup. bobrayner (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair comment. I did consider reverting your edits, and that could still be done after my tidy up should someone dissent. Tim PF (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for not reverting. If you also felt that shifting the article would be an improvement, then reverting could have been a bit counterproductive. If anybody actually appears who thinks it should be a separate article, we can start a fresh discussion then, and none of us need hold three years of silence against them. bobrayner (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Lehigh Division

The Lehigh Division article has ten red links. I don't know how to tag it, so I am mentioning it here. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Red links are not a problem per se, they typically indicate a need for an article, so there is no cleanup template. See WP:REDDEAL. However, it's worth checking if any are spelling errors, or if articles already exist with alternate capitalisations; in such cases you have the choice of either amending the redlink, or creating a redirect. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Garrison train crash AfD

The Garrison train crash article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

And the article was saved. ----DanTD (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Former railway stations in the United States

Category:Former railway stations in the United States, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Scott Alter (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we have ONE English in International articles?

The High-speed rail article has a huge mix of UK and US English. For example Level crossings are being called both Level Crossings and Grade crossings and Railways are being called both Railroads and Railways. In other articles 'Points' and 'Switches' are being used in the same paragraph! I think it should go by the most common International name, but that's not whats being shown. There needs to be a standardised use of English in all International Railway articles. (When I say International I mean articles which involve more than one country's railway). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Likelife (talk • contribs) 15:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Per MOS:ENGVAR English should be standardised on a per article basis. I think that's the simplest way to go. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, ENGVAR governs here; the question is which variety to use. The standard practice is to follow the "first major contributor" rule, where we look at the page history and see which one was distinguishably used first.

But... I have some concerns with that. Firstly, that, due to the dramatic differences in UK and US rail terms, we'd have to pit a ton of parentheticals all over the article to ensure comprehensibility for users of the other variety, and that technical and legal definitions written using one set of terms should not be changed to the other set, as that would render them inaccurate. I wonder if using US terms in the US sections and UK terms in the others might be the best solution. It wouldn't be fully ENGVAR compliant, but this might be judicious use of WP:IAR. oknazevad (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be inappropriate to look to the "first contributor" since this is a field that's grown a lot over time and various people will have made big contributions in their own area. Plus, I'm very fond of the idea of wikipedians being faceless toilers who merely describe what's happening in the outside world rather than putting their fingerprint on it . In the case of High-speed rail I think a little push towards standardisation on one language could make a big difference - and if terms are ambiguous, we can put more emphasis on wikilinks & redirects than on lengthy parentheses... bobrayner (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

We're explicitly called not to rely on links in that fashion, on accessibility grounds, and as the reader can be reading from a printed hard copy. It's stated as such in WP:MOSLINK, which I might not agree with completely, at least in terms of WP:OVERLINK, but is on solid grounds here. As such, I don't think that is a good solution to the ENGVAR gap. oknazevad (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I stand (or sit) corrected. bobrayner (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

We're never going to have a perfect solution here - as has been pointed out, the differences between US and UK/Commonwealth usage are significant - but we could probably improve the present situation in some areas e.g.

Use the terminology used by the country in which the article is e.g. US terms for articles on rail transport in the USA, Canada and other countries that use US terminology. Likewise British language for articles on rail transport in the UK and other countries that use British terminology.

Use EU terminology within Europe (based on UIC terminology I think).

Use UIC terminology in the UIC's member countries.

Some general articles can be split because US and European practice and standards are quite different. Hence there is an article on gondola (rail) which is about US practice and one on goods wagons based on European/UIC practice, with both referring to each other. Not ideal, but gets round the utter confusion caused by different terms!

What we should avoid is creating new Wikipedia terminology ("rail track"?) which is not used by the industry and reliable sources --Bermicourt (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a slightly unusual situation. We are dealing with a worldwide topic where there is a great difference in terminology for the similar things. My solution would be a hatnote at the top of the article stating the the appropriate regional language is used in each section, say, British English in Europe, American English for North and South America, Australian English for Australasia. That just leaves Asia and Africa. I've not looked at the article, but if it is clear that a particular version of English is established there, then that is what should be used. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

High-speed rail is a difficult one. A solution might be to use the international UIC terminology except for country-specific sections. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this is a problem. I think the English of that nation should be used on aritcles or paragraphs on about that country, is the best way to go, but most of Europe and Asia are part of the UIC including the UK so do we ignore that the UK is part of it and just use the British terminology here? I think Africa, Asia and Australasia mainly uses Commonwealth English, simply because they are directly connected to the European network or are Commonwealth nations, but It makes sense to use UIC for HSR Likelife (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There are two other factors which make the High-speed rail article more problematic than most:

• The US uses a different definition (110 mph (177 km/h) versus 200 km/h (124 mph) for Europe and some other parts of the world.
• There has been recent talk that the History section is too focused on the United States, although I think that rather depends.

The English speaking countries are all rather late to the game, although both the UK and the US had significant contributions along the way. Tim PF (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Level crossings are sufficiently different between US & UK that the article will need two or more large sections, to give separate coverage per continent. Within each section it would then make sense to use the regional term (i.e. inconsistency across the whole article) for terms like "grade crossing" / "level crossing". However MOS would still apply to color/colour, which shoudl be article-consistent. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we don't get any of our information directly from the rails, but rather from industry sources (such as Railway Gazette) and occasionally from mainstream publications. Off the top of my head, I think RG leans slightly towards British English usage but not entirely so. Should we look at the language that sources are using, and try to base a compromise on that? bobrayner (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be concerned with that. Sure Railway Gazette may lean toward BrEng, but other sources, such as Trains magazine would use AmEng. Those uses of a set of terms reflects the nationality of the source, not the subject, and are therefore a poor guide. oknazevad (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, RG was just an example :-)

In principle, wikipedia is supposed to reflect what sources say. I still think it would be a good idea to review some of the most commonly cited sources and see what terms they use. It might not give an easy answer on every point but at least it could help clean up confusion over a few terms. bobrayner (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hot articles subscription request

Hello, just saw your HotArticlesBot subscription request. Unfortunately, we are currently only accepting subscription requests for projects with 2500 or fewer articles during the trial period (due to the expensive database queries involved). Very sorry for this inconvenience. I'll be sure to let you know once we are accepting requests from larger projects. Thanks for your interest though! Kaldari (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We'll never get this project below 2500 articles... there must be that number of open railway stations in the UK alone, each with its own article. Then there are the closed stations, stations in other countries, rail lines and companies, locomotives... there are currently 61192 transclusions of Template:WikiProject Trains, and I happen to know that there are a lot of relevant articles which don't have the project banner (quite a few French railway stations), so I suppose we'll need a threshold of 250,000 not 2,500. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sub-project

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject High-speed rail. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused on what's happening to this now -- could you update here please? Tim PF (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone commented that this should really be a task force under this project. I concur. oknazevad (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussions about whether it should be a full project or just a task force should take place on the linked page, not here. The linked page is listed at WP:COUNCIL/P. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hazelhead railway station

I was updating infoboxes on the Woodhead Line and rediscovered what Keith D had commented on three years ago - is it Hazelhead or Hazlehead? Most references I have found call the settlement Hazlehead, but as the station was first opened in 1845 when the settlement may have been one slightly confused dog it is quite possible that it was opened as Hazelhead and renamed later. Would someone with a copy of Butt like to proffer an opinion? Scillystuff (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Jowett's gives the name as Hazlehead Bridge! Mjroots (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Butt (p.116) has the station as opened as Hazlehead 1 May 1846; closed 1 Nov 1847; reopened as Hazlehead Bridge 1 Nov 1850; closed 6 Mar 1950.

• Dow, George (1959). Great Central, Volume One: The Progenitors, 1813-1863. Shepperton: Ian Allan. ISBN 0 7110 1468 X.

states Hazlehead Bridge on p.51 and Hazlehead on pp.56,82,118, whilst on p.127 we find that the reopening was at the beginning of August 1850, with the renaming to Hazlehead Bridge was November 1850; apparently Bradshaw used both forms for some months. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done article amended, reffed and moved. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Naming for railway lines

Hi, I'm having a little discussion with User:Oldboltonian about how to name articles about railway lines, specifically those in France. Most of them are currently at "A–B railway", A and B being the termini of the line. Oldboltonian claims that 'railway' is usually used to refer to a railway company (which is not meant in these articles), and proposes "A–B line". My main objection is that 'line' may refer to anything linear, e.g. airline, shipping line, bus line, and I do think that 'railway' is used for a railroad connection. Thoughts? Markussep ^Talk 18:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that either would be reasonable (and I doubt that many readers would be presented a link to the article without sufficient context to make it clear).

What names do sources use? Consistent naming between different articles is commendable but it's not a good enough reason for mass moves, I think. bobrayner (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

My one source (Ransome-Wallis' Preserved Steam Engines of Western Europe) confirms the use of "A–B Railway" and "Foo Railway" (with a capital "R" for "Railway") for railway companies, e.g. "Paris-Orléans Railway", "Paris-Lyon-Mediterranean Railway", "Eastern Railway" and "Midi Railway". He tends to refer to actual railways as the "line between X and Y" or similar e.g. "railway from Pithiviers to Orme", "line between Paris and Boulogne", which is not much help here. For German articles I have a similar problem and, to date, have usually distinguished between companies and lines by using capital and lower case for "railway" e.g. "A–B Railway" is the company running the "A–B railway". I suggest this is a good compromise at this stage. "Line" is not a great choice because it can refer to other things, whereas "railway" is clear. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Somebody fix these Amtrak Template Categories!

For years I've been begging somebody to help me move certain templates in Category:Amtrak railway line navbox templates and have had no replies whatsoever. The following Amtrak templates are out of alphabetical order:

• Template:Amtrak Black Hawk
• Template:Amtrak Carolinian
• Template:Amtrak Gulf Breeze
• Template:Amtrak Hiawatha
• Template:Amtrak Lincoln Service
• Template:Amtrak Lone Star
• Template:Amtrak Shuttle
• Template:Amtrak VIA Maple Leaf

No matter what I do, I can't get these damn things to alphabetize. The normal ways of alphabetizing them doesn't work. And I known this because I was able to move those. I even tried a method of doing so that I was doing with categories in Category:Trolleybus systems by city, and that didn't work either. Why the hell won't anybody either fix them, or tell me how to do it myself?! ----DanTD (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The cause is this template: {{Amtrak-railway-routemap}}, which contains this line [[Category:Amtrak railway line navbox templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]. I removed it, so the category should sort correctly now. Markussep ^Talk 14:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to wait a while for the category to re-sort, because of the job queue nonsense. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That's right, you can see the results when you save the article (even without making a change), because then the templates are reloaded. Markussep ^Talk 15:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I replaced the "PAGENAME" templates with the actual names, and it still didn't work. ----DanTD (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If the same category is placed on a page more than once, but with different sort keys, all are ignored except the last one. So on Template:Amtrak Black Hawk you have

[[Category:Amtrak railway line navbox templates|Black Hawk]] {{Amtrak-railway-routemap}}

so if {{Amtrak-railway-routemap}} has a Category:Amtrak railway line navbox templates, that overrides the first one. On Template:Amtrak Black Hawk I would (1) exchange these two items and (2) put each on a separate line. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hooray! It worked. Thanks a lot. ----DanTD (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I needed to amend Template:Amtrak Black Hawk, because you'd moved some of the documentation outside the <noinclude>...</noinclude>, which meant that it was appearing on pages transcluding this template (ie on Black Hawk (Amtrak train)). Here's how the template now ends:

|}<noinclude>
{{Amtrak-railway-routemap}}
Based on [http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=43331 this].
[[Category:Amtrak railway line navbox templates|Black Hawk]]
</noinclude>

• Each different item is on a separate line - this is mainly for clarity, but I have come across instances where categories placed mid-line don't work as expected
• The <noinclude> goes first, and is butted up to the last item of "real" template code - the close-table marker |}
• The {{Amtrak-railway-routemap}} goes after the <noinclude>, because it's general documentation
• The external link to your source is specific to this template, so it goes next
• The category goes last, because that's the normal convention for categories (unless there are interlanguage links too). Putting it later on than the {{Amtrak-railway-routemap}} also allows its sort key to override any sort key set in {{Amtrak-railway-routemap}}
• Finally, the </noinclude> finishes the enclosure of the documentation. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

To see what I mean about not placing documentation outside the <noinclude>...</noinclude>, see the very bottom of the infobox in Carolinian (train). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but doing it the way you're telling me to didn't make any difference with Template:Amtrak Lone Star. How can I believe it'll work for all of them? ----DanTD (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Except that you didn't - you merely moved the {{Amtrak-railway-routemap}} after the </noinclude> which caused it to appear on Lone Star (Amtrak train). Here's my fix; and Template:Amtrak Shuttle exhibited the same problem, so I've fixed that too.

I've checked Template:Amtrak Carolinian, Template:Amtrak Lincoln Service and these are OK as they presently stand; Template:Amtrak VIA Maple Leaf is OK in principle although the documentation does appear first - conventionally it would be last before the categories.

You don't seem to have touched Template:Amtrak Gulf Breeze, Template:Amtrak Hiawatha so I've fixed those up too. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't see any problems with the Gulf Breeze and Hiawatha, so I left them alone. I was in the process of fixing the Lone Star one, but I found it to be such a wasted effort. I didn't see this with the New Haven-Springfield Shuttle, though. ----DanTD (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami

I've added the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami to the List of rail accidents (2010–2019) as four trains were reported to have been swept away by the tsunami. I think the article should be added to {{2011 railway accidents}} but before that is done, the earthquake article needs to be expanded - possibly by adding a "Transportation" subsection to the "Aftermath" section. Rail could then possibly be a subsection of that. Once that is done, then the template can be added to the earthquake article, with a targeted link to the section. Opening for discussion, will inform WP:EARTHQUAKES. Mjroots (talk) 05:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do I have a feeling the quake has done more than just sweep four trains away in the tsunami? I'll bet quite a few stations(to say the least) were destroyed as well. ----DanTD (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It's probably hard to get good sources at the moment, since the news media understandably have other things to concentrate on; but if you can find any other sources it would be a good idea to update the article to reflect what they say... bobrayner (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

High speed tilting train and Tilting train templates

High speed tilting train is a stub, has no references, and is only linked to from high-speed rail -- not even from tilting train. I think that its topic is useful, but I cannot really see that it justifies more than a section (or sub-section) in either or both of high-speed rail and tilting train. That said, I think the table may have a use, but as a template which may be used by both articles. An alternative for the table might be to merge it into the existing Template:High-speed rail, either by flagging the tilting trains in the latter, or by splitting the trains into "non-tilting" and "tilting" columns.

The "Tilting trains around the world" section of Tilting trains is a long bulleted list that is only likely to get longer, which I seem to think is deprecated. I think it should be used to start a Template:Tilting trains, rather in the manner of Template:High-speed rail, possibly also incorporating speed ranges in the manner of the table at High speed tilting train (and Template:High-speed rail).

If you have any thoughts on this, please contribute to the discussions I have started at Talk:High speed tilting train and Talk:Tilting train#Tilting trains around the world respectively. Tim PF (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE on Indonesian locomotives?

See Special:Contributions/114.79.22.126. How important were Indonesia's locomotives on an international level? Does their use of heavy, fast trains over a narrow gauge line increase the significance of this for the pacifics & hudsons? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe those sections are much more detailed than the other content on those pages, but they weren't really detailed enough to start with, and I don't think that problem is half as worrying as sourcing. As far as I can tell, none of that content is sourced. I don't want to bite a new user - have given them a {{WelcomeSimple}} template and a handwritten hint about sourcing. bobrayner (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Chennai – Trivandrum Superfast Express

Hi guys/gals, I just came across Chennai – Trivandrum Superfast Express which was created a few days ago. Now I know that Wikipedia articles should not have the actual train schedule in the article and that those parts of the article need to be removed, but is this train line actually notable? I'm vaguely under the impression that all, or at least most, train lines are notable, so I thought that instead of sending it to AfD, it would be better to ask here first about what should be done with the article. Any help/suggestions would be appreciated. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the schedule, as you're certainly right that that doesn't belong here per WP:NOT. What's left is a stub, and should be marked as such (I never get those right). But I don't know anything about this line to expand it. oknazevad (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be more of a named train service rather than a line (ie. there seem to be other trains between Chennai and Trivandrum - please correct me if I'm wrong). I believe the "superfast" label is reserved for services with average speeds higher than 55 km/h; there are many such services in India - cf the Superfast Mail/Express article.

I think it's very unhelpful to talk in terms of all lines (or other broad groups of things) being notable although wikiprojects sometimes try it. We're better off judging notability on a case-by-case basis. In this case, I'm skeptical that it passes the notability threshold: There are lots of google hits but all seem to be pretty routine coverage - a passing mention in a travel guide &c. I haven't seen any in-depth coverage by independent sources. It isn't even mentioned in Railway Gazette's archives. If this were at AfD, I'd say delete. bobrayner (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You mark it as a stub by picking the most suitable sub-category of Category:Rail stubs, and then find the most suitable stub template in that category. These are usually listed first, before pages beginning "A". In this case, {{India-rail-stub}} is probably best, so I've added that. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the article and applying the correct stub tag and cat. As for the notability, I've had a look through google, gnews, etc. and I couldn't find any significant coverage (but searching for information on train services is definitely not my area of expertise). At the moment only Bob has commented on the notability and he thinks it is non-notable. So I'll let this sit here for a day or so and if no-one has any objections, I'll send it to AfD. Thanks for the help, Jenks24 (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There are a large number of named trains in India, see List of named passenger trains of India and the category I've just added. Some trains have been running for over 100 years and therefore are likely to be notable. This one has been running for barely five. Perhaps a redirect to its entry in the list would be appropriate? Edgepedia (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You cannot do that, leastways not without adding it into the list first. I also note that the Trivandrum Mail article (also created by Bijuts (talk · contribs)) has no entry in the list also (the Alleppey Express article was created by someone else, but has the same problem). It looks like someone needs to draw Bijuts attention to this problem once there's some concensus here.

I also think that List of named passenger trains of India needs attention (eg, split table P-Z, notes (citations), and possibly a column for reporting numbers). I think this whole problem may boil down to whether it's better to have a big 'list' article (with some fairly long entries), or scores of stubs, before implementing and enforcing. Tim PF (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Why wait? Bijuts could be a good person to contribute to the discussion rather than merely being informed after the rest of us have made a decision; I have left an note on their talkpage.

I'm not sure that "named trains" is the best label for all these "superfast" services. Some prominent ones look a bit more like named trains, but most are simply called something like "BigCity - OtherTown Superfast Express", as a way of distinguishing them from other slower rail services which run between BigCity and OtherTown. They're not "named trains" in the sense of Vostok, the Flying Scotsman, or the Blue Train. bobrayner (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Veering back towards the original subject, slightly: I'm not a hardcore deletionist, and am happy to keep a lot of the articles on superfast services if we can get decent sources; but if the available sources limit us to saying routine things like "There is a slightly faster train between A and B; it departs at 08:00 and arrives at 15:00" then I have to question whether we need a separate article on it. The "parent" article on superfast trains has a lot of potential for improvement, I think, and could perhaps have a 2-sentence mention of less notable superfast trains, where sources permit. We should be wary of overlap between the superfast article and any list of named trains, bearing in mind that some superfast trains can meaningfully be called named trains, and some cannot. I think Chennai – Trivandrum Superfast Express is in the latter group. It's just a train between Chennai and Trivandrum which meets a certain (rather low) speed criterion; it's not the Orient Express. bobrayner (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Now at AfD: please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chennai – Trivandrum Superfast Express. Jenks24 (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

  I've done some looking around. There are hundreds of similar minimal-notability, minimally-sourced, cut & pasted articles on Indian rail services. Some of them may be a little bit... creative with some details. The creator of most of them is currently blocked for fiction elsewhere on wikipedia. They have multiple flaws; I've spent hours on some quick fixes to make them less ugly, but they're still short of sources & notability. What's the best approach? Anybody want to try a mass-rescue of many articles, or should there be mass deletions? bobrayner (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

  I think a mass deletion may be in order, but I'd rather see if it's possible to work out a decent umbrella article at Superfast Mail/Express, with redirection of the original stubs. I notice that it now has a {{db-a7}} tag, but I'm not myself inclined to add a {{hang on}} at the moment. I don't actually think it meets the A7 criteria, but this is largely due to its presence may prevent a lot of stubby articles or overload of List of named passenger trains of India. Tim PF (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  That sounds very reasonable. I'd oppose a CSD of that article for the same reasons. There also seems to have been a walled garden of duplicate articles on non-notable services around Indore - for instance, a train running from A to C via B would have several different articles with copy & pasted text, and titles like "A-B Express", "B-A Express", "C-B superfast", "C-A (metre gauge)", "A-C passenger", &c. Categories were a mess too - I had to create Category:Train services in India and Category:Superfast trains which now contain some of the articles that have started cleanup (pending consensus on whether to mass-delete, merge, or whatever). Some articles had images with crudely-photoshopped signboards. It's a can of worms. bobrayner (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Naming convention for Shanghai metro station articles

Hi everyone, I don't know if this is the best place to put this, but I need some advice on the naming of subway station articles, specifically relating to the Shanghai Metro. Previously, all of the Shanghai Metro articles were named in the same format: XXX (Shanghai Metro), where XXX is the name of the station, for example Shiguang Road (Shanghai Metro), Huamu Road (Shanghai Metro). However, recently, a user left a notice on talk page that he wished to rename the format and then with limited discussion, he has begun to move the article names from XXX (Shanghai Metro) to XXX Station, only using (Shanghai Metro) where there is a confusion with another system that has a station of the same name. I began a discussion with him and to this moment he has stopped with about 20 to 30 articles already moved to the new format he proposes. From looking at various metro systems around the world, I've seen different conventions used for this, for example NYC uses South Ferry – Whitehall Street (New York City Subway), aka having the systen name attached to it except when theres a disambiguation (in the NYC case, same name on different lines), so that makes sense. Similarly, Toronto has its names with TTC always attached, Don Mills (TTC), York Mills (TTC). Recently, it seems (from looking at a few articles) that all Hong Kong MTR stations had their name from XXX (MTR) moved to XXX Station, with XXX Station (MTR) where disambiguation was necessary.

I don't know how to proceed to this, the user's point is that his method of "Station" instead of XXX (Shanghai Metro) is "better" or "more favourable". There are hundreds of articles that would have to be renamed and I'm just wondering if this renaming process is necessary.

Thank you, Heights^{(Want to talk?)} 21:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Neither naming convention is wrong. But when editors have gone to the trouble of compiling a carefully crafted series of articles and then someone who has never created any input, rashly decides to move them to a different naming convention without any discussion - now that is wrong. Moving some of them and not completing the job is just frivolous, verging on vandalism. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• See also discussion about a month ago, that time about Sacramento Light Rail articles. The naming convention of XXX ([Name of system] [station]) is widely used across the United States (e.g. Jamaica (LIRR station), Clark/Lake (CTA station), Wonderland (MBTA station)) while the XXX railway station is used widely across Canada and the UK. So there really isn't a "central naming convention". —GFOLEY FOUR— 22:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in the case of Canada, there are similar naming conventions to those in the US for a lot of commuter railroad, rapid transit, light-rail systems, and what-not. Most of the VIA Rail station have the naming conventions that GFoley4 described. I recently saw some station articles in Australia and one Munich U-Bahn station renamed, and they should've been left alone. ----DanTD (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

In this case, though, "XXX (Shanghai Metro)" makes a lot more sense. ----DanTD (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"X Station" is likely to be considerably closer to what sources say - and what readers will search for - than "X (Shanghai Metro)". Mass changes to some newly-synthesised naming convention are silly if somebody had already aligned all the articles to some previously-synthesised naming convention, but I think mass changes are quite reasonable if they bring articles in line with policy. I realise some people are really keen to line up hundreds of articles so they all have exactly the same series of characters at the end of their title, but that should not be our primary concern when naming articles. bobrayner (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything stopping using a redirect from the common name to a more specific name if that is useful. The problem to avoid if possible is when one of the Shanghai Metro (or LIRR or whatever) stations has the same name as one elsewhere. Keeping "XXX (Shanghai Metro)" means that it won't happen, and that a redirect from the common name will then become a DAB page. Not doing so means that there's either a DAB page pointing to 2 differently named articles, or possible contention over the main article, along with extra hatnotes. Tim PF (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Silverliner V

 Done Are there any pictures of the Silverliner V on WP? --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Search http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Silverliner+V&l=5 on Flickr. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Uploaded Flickr image. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 23:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

On Indian train articles

Hi all,
Following on from the Chennai – Trivandrum Superfast Express thread above, I found hundreds of other articles on Indian train services which seem to be very low on notability. Most have one source - a timetable website which allows some (not all) details to be verified. Some have no source at all. They typically have content/formatting problems as well; certain typos seem to be very widespread, so I assume there's been a lot of copy & pasting.

• Typical examples might be Bhopal - Pratapgarh Express or Chennai – Trivandrum Superfast Express. These are representative of two different authors who appear to have written most of the articles; most other articles look quite like one of those examples. There are lots more articles in Category:Train services in India and subcategories. I'm currently doing some housekeeping, trying to fix minor content flaws, and looking for other examples which could be brought into a category.
• Some appeared to have more serious problems. There were duplicates (ie. one article for the A to B Express, and another article for the B to A Express, with copy & pasted content). A small number had faked images or other deceit. I think I've found & fixed most of those, but work is ongoing.

Unilaterally sending them all to AfD, individually, would be disruptive, so I'd like community input: What should we do? If many are deletion candidates, I think it would be a good idea to tie them up in a neat bundle rather than AfDing individually. Perhaps we need some kind of "triage" to quickly distinguish between the fixers and the ones which should be nominated for deletion. Any comments / suggestions? bobrayner (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I definitely think a cleanup drive is needed. I would hold off on automatically AfDing too much. Certainly these articles need more sources to better establish notability. But I'm wary of offhandedly dismissing these, lest we reinforce a systemic bias. These services aren't inherently less notable than European or American services, it's just our articles that need improvement. Certainly these services draw numerous riders, and likely have some history on record. Searches of English-language Indian newspaper sites may help there.

Some may be best served by merger with the lines they run on, as some of these are only differentiated by stops served. So that may be an avenue to explore. oknazevad (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Merging by route sounds interesting. Are there any good sources for routes rather than services? (maybe an Indian rail atlas, or something equivalent to RUS documents in the UK).

Very good point about bias. However, I'm skeptical that most individual TER or 普通旅客列车 or DB Regio services would pass the notability hurdle.

It seems increasingly likely that one of the main editors of these articles is something of a hoaxer - in which case I wouldn't trust any detail in such articles unless they're directly sourced, but if we lack resources to find additional sources (in the next week/month/whatever) then they'll be reduced to what's on the timetable website: "Train leaves station at 11:00 and arrives at 22:30". If we can't even get a meaningful name from the timetable websites, how do we even know the article title is sane? bobrayner (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

We should resiist the urge to label the editors as hoaxers and belittle their contribution.Shyamsunder (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried hard to assume good faith, but the evidence became irresistible. If you would like additional evidence, perhaps it would be possible for an admin to undelete some of the deleted images so you could see for yourself - for instance, photos of buildings in other parts of the world were copied off news websites, logos mentioning Indore were crudely photoshopped onto them, and then the photos were presented as uploader's own work - as a photo of a building in Indore. I could also present some diffs of less obvious issues, though it would take a long time to build a complete set of diffs. However, this is a side-issue; in the meantime we still have a big pile of minimally-sourced, low-notability articles on train services. bobrayner (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of them aren't notable, and should probably be taken to AfD. See also an earlier discussion here which ended without consensus. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea that project page existed! Will put a pointer there, too. Thanks. bobrayner (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

India' train network is one of largest in the world so it is natural there would be large number of trains . There are several hundred articles in wikipedia on trains of the United States. Shyamsunder (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The User bobrayner has unnecessarily created category called train services in India.There is no such category for any other country.Shyamsunder (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Then maybe there should be. In any case, WP:ALLORNOTHING is not an argument. However: have a look in Category:Named passenger trains. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Categories are useful for organising large numbers of articles. There are hundreds of articles on Indian train services alone, and bear in mind that India has thousands more notable stations, rail accidents, rail-related organisations, rolling stock &c. I created one category for specific services (and put in subcategories for defined categories of service, the equivalent of EC / IC / ICE &c in parts of mainland Europe). More will join that category as I clean up the mess. Previously, we had lots of different articles scattered in different locations; the parent Category:Indian Railways was a mess; the hierarchy was broken; and Category:Named passenger trains of India contained a hundred non-named train services. I'm not interested in categorisation for categorisation's sake, but Category:Train services in India has been very helpful for the content work that I've been doing. bobrayner (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this discussion raises a larger issue. There's a huge number of articles on en.wiki about rail topics of questionable notability. To give but one example, there is an en.wiki article about every suburban railway station here in Perth, Western Australia, including, eg, the one nearest to my home - a pair of platforms each crowned with a bus shelter. There are also lots of articles about named trains worldwide. Based on my knowledge of what you can find on en.wiki about train stations and train services, I suspect that en.wiki's original policies about what is a notable rail topic and what is not have essentially gone out the window long ago, with the consequence that any station and any named train anywhere in the world would now qualify for its own article, merely because it is a station or named train. I would therefore be reluctant to support deleting any of the Indian articles the subject of this discussion. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Omaha Railroads

Template:Omaha Railroads has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)