Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport in Scotland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Project created

So... let's talk about this WikiProject! Canæn 02:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, this is new, should this be part of WikiProject Scotland? Simply south 10:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 23:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Pre-grouping company colours

Talking about the Historical railway boxes on Pyrotec's and my own talk page has made me think that perhaps for distinctiveness each Historical company should have its own colour (right now all Historical lines are generally yellow). This would allow for better standing out of different eras with different companies. I'd suggest different colours for each of the following.

• Glasgow and South Western Railway (and all owned/leased/managed lines)
• Caledonian Railway (and all related lines)
• Joint lines of the above two companies
• London, Midland and Scottish Railway (which I don't think has appeared anywhere... yet)
• British Rail
• Anything else anyone feels should be added
• any other misc line not under the above

I realise this is an extremely minor thing in the grand scales of things, but I think it would make things clearer. Any suggestions for colours? Did any of the companies have any brand colours that could be used? --Dreamer84 17:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Caledonian Railway was famous for its use of Caledonian Blue (which apparently changed slightly over the years) for painting locos, etc. L.M.S., I think, had scarlet or crimson carriages. (G.W.R., OK not in Scotland: Chocolate and cream carriages). B.R. had black locos.

We also need North British Railway; joint Caledonian & N.B.R.: Dumbarton and Balloch joint line & Kilsyth and Bonnybridge Joint Line; presumably L.N.E.R. and Highland Railway. Pyrotec 20:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

G&SWR Locos had unpainted boilers and light olive green tanks, cabs and bunkers. Also: Great North of Scotland Railway.Pyrotec 21:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There is also the Highland Railway and GNSR - where I have been putting together some pages of late. Stewart 21:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses guys. So taking all that into account, how about...

Preceding station	Historical railways			Following station
Station		Glasgow and South Western Railway  Line Name		Station
Station		Caledonian Railway  Line Name		Station
Station		Caledonian and Glasgow & South Western Railways  Line Name		Station
Station		British Rail  Line Name		Station
Station		London, Midland and Scottish Railway  Line Name		Station
Station		London and North Eastern Railway  Line Name		Station
Station		North British Railway  Line Name		Station
Station		Caledonian and North British Railways  Line Name		Station

• G&SWR: A light olive green (colour code #66ba5a)
• Caledonian: 'Caledonian Blue' (colour code #496799 is a very close match)
• Joint Caley and G&SWR: an aqua colour as a result of mixing the two above colours together (colour code #517a6a)
• British Rail: Black (#000000)
• LMS: Crimson (#DC143C)
• LNER: It's article says apple green on passenger locos (colour code #99cc67)
• North British: 'French mustard' locos (colour code #8f691e)
• NBR and Caley: Mixture (colour code #556920)

That's all I can dig out for now, will have a look for more colours soon.

Also, regarding the 'Line open; station closed' etc under station names, should they be italic or normal text? Should there be a 'Line and station open' or just a blank if its open? Again a minor thing, but just so we are all writing from the same page. That way maybe an example could go on the main page to show anyone else who wants to join in. :) --Dreamer84 23:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful - I will put a colour column onto my listing page - User:Pencefn/Historical Scottish Railways. The other place to put the colours is the banner in the station listing box for each railway. Stewart 06:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy to accept it, but John Thomas, Regional History, Vol 6, successfully ignores the big 4 and BR for the lowlands & Borders (which ignores the Highland Railway and GNSR). He uses red for G&SWR, blue for Caledonian, Green for North British, thick solid black for Cal/GWR Joint, two thin black lines for Cal/NBR joint and thin black for Others. The main point being do we need the LMS, LNER and BR colours?Pyrotec 09:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Re station boxes, see scope of Historical railways, below.Pyrotec 14:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Separate articles for each Operator

I am not convinced that separate articles are needed for each operators.

What I have difficulty with at present is for some stations details of the current train service are provided, which are updated every time the timetable is changed. I do not think this is very encyclopedic.

On the other hand an outline of service patterns through the ages is probably pertinent (and probably a mini-project of its own). In the first instance I would put this against the current lines, etc. not individual stations.

Stewart 17:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Scope of Historical railways

In respect of what goes in station boxes (see Pre-grouping company colours, above), for Stations I'm more concerned to show, that for example, Glasgow to Gourock & Glasgow to Wemyss Bay and Glasgow to Greenock Princes Pier (or Glasgow to Ardrossan: both G&SWR and Cal) were effectively two pairs of (deadly) rival routes with express trains and local services; and goods services. In my view its unhelpful to have Gilmour Street, Bridge of Weir, etc, as terminal stations in G&SWR and Caledonian days through to almost the modern post privatisation names of Inverclyde Line and AyrLine. Glasgow Central, Wemyss Bay, Gourock, for example, are terminal stations, i.e. they have buffers at the end of the platforms.

The question of italics, is in some respect a problem of changes in time. The two Hillingdon (East & West) railway stations, for example, having opened in BR days are intermediate stations so I made use of them in the G&P Joint Line article and I talk about electrification as well. So I'm treating a historical line from pre-grouping into Big 4 and BR days. Drearmer84 does not want them in. So what is the solution? Inverclyde and Ayrline articles for post-privatisation services, G&P Joint, G,P,G&A (G&SWR) and G,P&G (Cal) articles for pre-grouping, and Gourock and Wemyss Bay Services and Ayrshire Coast services articles for BR days. Rather pointless to have three sets of articles for the same lines.Pyrotec 09:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Same problems with Paisley Canal Line, Bridge of Weir Railway and Greenock and Ayrshire Railway. Originally Paisley Canal line had a north western terminus, at the old North Johnstone station, as did did the Bridge of Weir Railway at Bridge of Weir. However very soon these termini disappeared. Paisley canal line became a through route to supplement the capacity of the quadruple-track Glasgow & Paisley Joint line. The Bridge of Weir railway and the Greenock & Ayrshire railway together enabled the G&SWR to challenge the Cal. with Glasgow-Greenock integrated rail & steamer services. In BR days the Paisley Canal line passenger services were Glasgow to Kilmacolm (and, it has been stated Johnstone), later Glasgow to Paisley canal station; and now, due to SPTE efforts, Glasgow to a new Paisley Canal station.

One view point appears to indicate that these articles should stop at possibly the 1921 grouping. Do we need to produce yet another set of articles for LMS days and BR Scottish region; as well as the present day Paisley Canal route as run by FirstScotRail(?), do we need yet another article for the lot who ran it before First? Pyrotec 14:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No hijacking intended. I was exploring the possibility of extending your idea into other areas. Stewart 17:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A lot to think about here. Originally, pages like the Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway were created (or expanded from stubs) because the Ayrshire Coast Line and its station diagram had become too bloated featuring every station ever to exist on the line. So the GPK&AR page was expanded to feature a station list that shows the stations that were open before the GPKAR was merged into the Glasgow and South Western Railway. Its just luck really that all the stations on the line were opened before the merger with the G&SWR. Though actually even this isn't true since Gailes railway station was opened by the GSWR and so technically shouldn't be on the page. This problem is more apparent on the Glasgow and Paisley Joint Railway so obviously a rethink is needed since I wasn't thinking outside the box enough at the time to consider other lines. The GPKAR page is however missing Prestwick Int. Airport station, which I don't think would be appropriate at all to feature. Likewise Ardrossan Railway is missing Ardrossan South Beach railway station, which was opened by the GSWR around 50 years after the original stations.

How about instead of a whole separate article, an additional section is added to each historical railway article, documenting any changes under British Rail or whoever? A second station sidebar could also be present to show the reflected changes (if any). This however might need drastic restructuring of most articles and could take some time.

My question is, do we really need every single configuration of lines highlighted in the "Historical Rail" box at the bottom of each article? Right now most stations have just the original configuration and the present configuration, is so much additional detail really needed when its already mentioned in the main body of the article? The current box on Paisley Canal railway station literally has me scratching my head trying to figure out what it all means!

Gah, feel like I'm rambling. I'm going to implement a few Caley colours here and there while I think about this some more. :) --Dreamer84 21:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Stepping back a bit. We have articles for each of the modern marketing names of lines: e.g. Inverclyde Line, etc. We have umbrella articles on the pre-grouping parents: Caley., G&SWR, etc, and we have articles on the original companies, e.g. Bridge of Weir railway, with start dates, and for each of these we have individual station articles with a link to prior and next stations. Many of these are nuts and bolts, or should that be bricks and morter, articles on passenger train services.

None of them total answer why, say, between Glasgow and Paisley we have the 4-track joint line, the 2-track G&SWR Canal line and the 2-track Glasgow & Renfrew Joint line linked to the Paisley and Renfrew G&SWR line; and we have almost the same number of tracks between Paisley and Kilwinning. And that only takes us to to 1921. Its then down hill away the way until electrification and SPTE start reopening stations.

I would like to add more pre-grouping social history for example direct London to Stranraer boat trains and Glasgow - Stranraer boat trains. Glasgow - Ardrossan (G&SWR & Caley.) boat trains and Anglo-Scottish: Glasgow - Greenock/Gourock/Wemyss (G&SWR & Caley.) boat trains. Why Glasgow supported (and financed) the lines to Ardrossan and why Greenock supported the Greenock-Glasgow lines? But at the moment the last 85 years (1921 - 2006) get in the way; and it could be getting near an edit-war (but not yet). P.S. I have a 2,000 word Masters article on Crisis and Disaster to do instead of this tonight. P.S.S. Don't worry about Paisley Canal Railway station, it is a rather sly edit-war on where Paisley Canal line ends over the last 100 years (old North Johnstone, Elderslie junction, Kilmacolm, new Paisley canal station).Pyrotec 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't say I particularly disagree with anything you've said there: I'm all for information than answers 'why?' as well as 'what?'. As you say, the majority of the framework is in place for a lot of lines. Its now a matter of it needing to make sense, be historically accurate, but be easy to understand. I'm still no further forward with a solution, think I'll scurry back to Ayrshire for a while and fill in some of the gaps I've been meaning to do there for a while. Think I'll have to brush up on my research for the Paisley area, since as you may have noticed I've reverted a few of my edits over the last couple of days when I've realised that I've been wrong! If anyone wants to implement any ideas I'll just be watching for now and I'll post any comments here. Good luck with the Master article. :) --Dreamer84 23:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius deletion proposals

User:Ohconfucius has nominated a large number of Scottish Railway stations for deletion. Many of these are being developed as part of WP:TIS. I have removed the {{prod}}. However reading the user page he may contest this. Any Thoughts? We need a plan to ensure that the railway station articles that link into the lines we are working on are improved. Stewart 19:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Affluence (KCR) to see what's behind this. As far as I'm concerned, all those {{prod}}s will have to go, and it does say "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." Signalhead 20:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It mat also be linked to User talk:Mangoe/Railroad line and station articles and User talk:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable. Simply south 20:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who is annoyed at the deletionists, it seems these people exist only to take out stuff they find of no interest. Douglasnicol 20:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

We have a lot of work to do, and setting the framework (including these articles) helps us move forward. Batch deletions do nothing to help us developing the history, adding pictures (old and new), and link to other relvant information. If this had gone forward, we would ended up with a large number of red links which would have attracted attention in their own right. As it is there is quite a bit of work to do to fill the gaps we have at present. I am steadily working through removing the {{prod}} using Onconfucius User contributions as my guide. Assistance greatfully received. Stewart 20:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message with the user concerned to see if he would be amenable to letting us improve the articles rather than deleting them. I did say though that I can see his point; is it really necessary to have an article on every station of a suburban train network? Let's see what we think; it may be possible to merge the information elsewhere, or you may feel that the articles can be improved (in a reasonable timescale). I think these are the only two possibilities as the articles as they stand (the ones I looked at anyway) really aren't worth keeping, in my opinion. --Guinnog 20:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that we should allow the project time to improve the articles. If in due course they are not worthy of keeping then the project should develop a strategy to ensure that relevant encyclopedic information is not lost. There is a lot of work to be done out there. Stewart 20:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the content may at present be a bit thin but the work currently being done on the railway lines should naturally lead on to the improvement of the station articles themselves. I am certainly against wholesale deletion just for the sake of deletion, the big picture has to be taken into account. Fraslet 20:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A big benefit of having an article for every station is the ability to link to those of the adjacent stations. We'd lose that if the less notable station articles were deleted. Given the time and effort, I'm sure that something meaningful could be written about every station. Signalhead 20:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a mention

Although nowhere near complete as i have only just started, i have decided to create an infobox on SPT stations. This is to include the Glasgow Subway. Any tips? Simply south 22:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Simply South,

I'm not sure what you intended to do with, or put in, a SPT station info box, so my immediate question is what is its purpose? Taking, for example, some of the SPT railway stations I know well, Bishopton, Paisley St James, Paisley Gilmour Street, Glasgow Central, they have a UK stations info box, which I presume could equally be applied to the subway stations. Am I missing something? Pyrotec 23:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I just thought i would create an infobox, maybe similar to the London one showing the SPT area. Are there any zones in Glasgow? A user, Ashtastic, has found some figures for the Glasgow Subway and they are from the SPT, not the Rail Regulator. I thought that if there was an infobox for one area, there could be one for another. If you think this is a bad idea, i will cease. Simply south 00:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an SPT Zone Card. When buying one you select the zones that you travel through for your journey. The areas are NOT concentric like London, but small geographic areas. The SPT website may give the info. Stewart 06:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I was obviously thinking along different lines to you (sorry about the pun). I had a look at wikipeida's Portal: London transport, if that is the type of info that you are thinking about, that it could be useful. As long ago as 1979, in the days of Trans-Clyde, there was a London Underground style rail route map for what was to become the SPTE area. Here is the link to the latest version [1]. Pyrotec 21:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an article about the SPT ZoneCard. It provides a link to the map. Stewart 21:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I've started work on it today and it is nearly complete. Simply south 16:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Make that, i have VERY nearly finished. It is just missing cats which i will momentarily add, a couple of links and i have not started on the syntax. If you notice any similarities with another one, it is a heavily modified version of the London one. To see the template, go to Template:Infobox SPT stations.

I am now wondering if, from looking at the map, the zones were such a good idea. Simply south 17:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of infoboxes

There are three infoboxes that are being used for the railway stations in Scotland at present:-

• Template:UK stations
• Template:Infobox Scotland disused station
• Template:Infobox SPT station

Following my conversion of the the infobox for Rutherglen railway station to the SPT version this evening, another user (not previously seen on railway station articles) has decided to delete the infobox.

Not all stations have infoboxes.

Please consider if we are going the right way on this topic and the infobox should be reinstated, or the way proposed by the other editor is more appropriate. ==Stewart 21:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Simply south

My general feeling on this is that mainline stations should use the UK station infobox. Only stations such as London Underground or Glasgow Subway should have specialised boxes. This allows for a common standard to be maintained across railway station articles which makes it easier for both the reader and the editor. I would suggest that including the 1997 and 2004 dates about the operators are perhaps not appropriate for an article about an individual station. Regarding the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport info which is the main difference between the SPT infobox and the standard UK station infobox, I think this would be better as a template at the bottom of the page like template, West Yorkshire railway stations. Whilst believing that User:Doc glasgow shouldn't have made such a drastic change; from an SPT infobox, to the UK station infobox, to no infobox. I do think that Stewart is wise to discuss this before reinstating anything. Maybe this discussion would be better continued out on the page, Template talk:Infobox SPT station Adambro 21:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm in complete favour of having infoboxes as they are a good way of presenting common data in a consistent and easy to find fashion. However, there may be a case for limiting the "History" entries to say three or four items. Signalhead 21:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm also in favour of the infoboxes, if the article is reverted again then we would need to argue the case for seeing things as part of a larger project.Fraslet 21:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Doc glasgow by Stewart 21:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Infoboxes do not normally replace the practice of putting information into articles - it seems a strange thing for people to do.--Doc^g 21:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have put a query on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport in Scotland#Use of infoboxes to determine a concencus on the way forward. I know some people prefer prose, and other prefer tabular details. I must admit I am a tabular person, however am not adverse to writing appropriate prose when circumstance dictate. ==Stewart 21:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox or not, if the info is relevant is must be in the article - not everyone reads silly boxes.--Doc^g 21:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree with Adambro's comments above, particularly about the 'History' section of the infobox. Especially in the case of Rutherglen, there is perhaps too much information in there, and almost none of it is featured in the main body of the article at the moment. Also agree the stuff about Scotrail etc isn't really appropriate for a station article. In my opinion, the History section of the infobox should be a brief summary of the history section of the main article (if there is one), available for anyone looking for a particular notable date at a glance. There shouldn't be any entries of any great length, and I think that if the <small> tag is having to be used then there is too much information in there. So for example, the information on the new 1974 island platform and its location would be moved to the main body of the article, and the History box could merely say "New island platform opened", assuming it needs to be in the box at all (I don't think its really necessary). I also think having information like the various alternate names of Scotrail within the History infobox however is unnecessary as well. --Dreamer84 23:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Following the previous comments I have put some section headings in Rutherglen railway station including a history section. I have also trimmed some of the detail from the infobox. Does this work? --Stewart 19:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There is still far too much information in the infobox, most of it pretty crufty. The history of the station, and pdf links certainly don't belong there. Nothing should be in a prominent infobox that isn't of interest to the general reader.--Doc^g 19:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

A bit more trimming to Rutherglen railway station and reverted it back to the UK stations template. All the information is still in the article. It should be note that there is not a picture in the infobox at present. For a comparison see Newton Abbot railway station with respect to pdf links and a typical bos with picture ==Stewart 20:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I prefer the original UK stations template over the SPT one. The SPT one seems to be too... congested with things. The one thing that confuses me is why every box has a link to a list of the Glasgow subway stations? And Doc glasgow, a large majority of UK railway station articles have the infobox complete with PDF links, history etc. Any disagreements with that is probably best brought up on a project with bigger scope than this one, perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways? --Dreamer84 11:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should try to maintain a consistent approach for all UK station articles. Having an SPT station infobox complicates things, makes it harder to maintain, and harder for readers to understand as info is presented in a different format. Ideally, I would like to see all UK stations using the UK station infobox. Infoboxes present useful information (some of which would be hard to intergrate into the text) and allow readers to get a quick idea of the importance or nature of a station. I think the history data should be limited to just dates of opening/reopening, with more detail in the article itself. The differences between the SPT station infobox and the UK one seem pretty limited. Most areas tend to use the standard UK infobox with a template in the page footer for specific info, see Huddersfield railway station as an example which uses the West Yorkshire railway stations. I think this is a better approach. I would suggest using something like an expanded version of Template:Glasgow stations for all SPT stations, and the standard UK infobox for railway stations. It might be appropriate to make an Glasgow Subway infobox to present the non-standard info such as the usage figures which need a different disclaimer. Adambro 23:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going back to say that it was based on the London station infobox. Many of the railway stations in London e.g. Brimsdown railway station, or an interchange Stratford station, use the London infobox. If the current infobox is too complicated, i may remove. Simply south 00:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Further to my earlier comments on this issue, I have drafted some new templates. As I proposed previously, Template:Infobox UK station should be used where possible to maintain consistency, rather than the Template:Infobox SPT station. The main difference between the two seems the inclusion of links to SPT info and some Glasgow Subway specific info which is only used on the few subway station articles.

I have drafted a template, User:Adambro/SPT stations, for use at the foot of every SPT station article (except SPT stations within Glasgow for which a more appropriate template exists) which includes the routes and links to the SPT article. I've also added all the SPT stations to the category Category:SPT railway stations which involved making about 160 edits. I was unsure about whether a few stations are SPT. I used the SPT network map, but a few stations appear slightly differently (e.g. Ardlui).

My original intention was to include this list in the template but it would make it too big. I've changed it to only listing major stations but would like suggestions as to what other stations there are in SPT control that should be classed as major.

I've also created a draft Glasgow Subway infobox, User:Adambro/Infobox Glasgow Subway station, to be used in the subway station articles. I note Patrick station is both a NR station and a subway station, in this case it might be appropriate to include the UK station infobox at the top, and the Glasgow Subway infobox in that section of the article.

I look forward to hearing the opinions of other editors on my proposal. If anyone has any suggestions for changes to the draft templates, please let me know. Adambro 19:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the whole SPT infobox/UK infobox/Glasgow Subway infobox thing. I've had a change of thought on this and my proposal is as follows:

I think a better approach would be to have only one infobox used on all UK stations, this being the current Infobox UK station, or at least a slightly modified version of it. By adapting this template it could be used on UK subway stations, railway stations, and railway stations with subway stations. I'll copy it into my user space and make the modifications. I would eventually like to see London stations move over to the UK station template, and whilst understanding this would be quite a task, will be trying to allow for this future work in my mods to the template. This is all part of what seems to have become my personal project of trying to ensure consistent UK station articles. My thought that area specific info like links to SPT etc are better in a footer template (like the Adambro/SPT stations) stands. Adambro 18:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Project banners

I've added the parameter Scotland to {{TrainsWikiProject}} as an optional method of applying project banners to talk pages. For rail articles, this can reduce the number of banners on a page by one if you choose to use it. Typing {{WikiProject Trains|Scotland=yes}} will display the TWP banner with a notice that the article is maintained by WPTIS. It will add articles to Category:WikiProject Transport in Scotland like {{WPTIS}} does. Slambo (Speak) 15:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Project userbox

I have just joined this project and thought I might start off by proposing that the current project usebox needs a bit of sprucing up. Therefore I have taken it upon myself to knock something up, your thoughts would be appreciated. It is a vector image originally, so any changes are more than easy to apply. I even used the correct pantone for the saltire :)

Emoscopes ^Talk 16:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC) This would produce;

This user is a member of WikiProject Transport in Scotland

It's colour full. I like it.Pyrotec 20:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks better than mine. Sould i swap them? Simply south 22:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If you like it, then by all means, I would be honoured :) Emoscopes ^Talk 22:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Simply south 23:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, now to start contributing! Emoscopes ^Talk 01:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I feel i should come out of this lul and improve the project more. In what ways could you suggest we could assess all related articles? What would be the best way to judge which articles are of top importance and which are the least? Simply south 13:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would necessarily agree that we are in a lull, but accepting for the moment your assertion that we are; do we need to assess the articles and put an assessment mark on them? Some articles are good and that is immediately obvious when you look at them. I'm happy for Start, B+ or other appropriate label to be put on them, as a Quality Mark.

Others are not so good, perhaps they are little more than stubs, perhaps they lack references or pictures, or info boxes, or maps, have typos or poor grammar, or all of these. Does it really help to put some kind of improve flag on them and move onto the next article? I would suggest it is more useful to spend the time improving these poor articles; or creating the ones that don't exist (red line articles).

Possibly I'm slightly worried that if we are in a lull, then putting assessment marks on everything will certainly create work, and things will be seen to be done; but it is only a substitute for improving the project.Pyrotec 19:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I was actually referring to me personally in that i feeel recently that me myself have not been contributing to the project. I would not say the project was in a lul as i can see numerous historical articls etc etc and would say this is quite an active project. Simply south 19:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. Well some of the things that need to be done, I mention in my second paragraph above. In addition, as this is transport project, so it covers canals, railways, roads, etc, and everything has a life. Many lines are thriving and are electrified and new stations are opening/have opened; others are dead or dying, and Beeching was only one reason for death. Perhaps, as we look at an article we should ask: why and how did it come into being, did it thrive and grow, did it shrink and die; the what, why, how, when? If the article does not answer all of these questions, it may be deficient. If these are missing they could be flagged up on the talk page; also some talk pages show existing articles as needed, so talk pages are not always up to date.Pyrotec 20:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I am just trying to construct assessment right now. Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport in Scotland/Assessment. Personal user sub-page for template. Simply south 19:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, assessment basics are up and running. Simply south 20:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Project

I am starting to think this is in a lul now. Simply south 15:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There have been some minor cleanups in the existing station boxes, citing references for example which Wiki seems to be getting a bit OTT with. Douglasnicol 15:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing a lot of minor work over the last 24 hours, see below. --Dreamer84 15:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Train schedule information

While going through all the Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway stations adding co-ordinates, updating references and the like, I've come across a few pages in the Glasgow area that list how often trains run through a station: things like "there are X trains per hour to Glasgow Central, except on Sundays where there is only X" and stuff like that. Is this really encyclopaedic? Suppose it comes down to the old 'Wikipedia is not a timetable' arguement. Thoughts anyone? Or is there any previous discussion on this anywhere? --Dreamer84 15:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm slightly hesitant about criticising this, as there were a few stations I was going to do; and I was intending to make comments like three trains per week. I think I am guilty of the 3 trains per hour, 2 per hour after 23:00, comment on one or two stations. I would suggest that this is (slightly) more encyclopedic than, say trains leave at xx:09, xx:29 and xx:59, between 06:00 and 23:00. I would be more likely to criticise that example. Pyrotec 17:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts are that typical service patterns over the years are encyclopedic, detailed timetable information is not. look at Langside railway station where I have put in sub-section headings to the service patterns for the years when this information is available. I guess we could look as a Bradshaws for 1923 (for example) and put in the service pattern for the now closed L&AR stations. --Stewart 17:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support including service frequencies because I believe it gives a good idea of the signifiance of the station. I would however agree that departure times are not acceptable. Adambro 20:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You've both convinced me, gets my support. :) --Dreamer84 00:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Cal-Mac and Steamer services

Should Caledonian MacBrayne, the Caledonian Steam Packet Company and other such organisations be included in this project? Douglasnicol 20:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I could be persuaded as such especially consider the combined piers and stations at Ardrossan, Fairlie, Wemyss Bay, Gourock, Craigendoran, etc. just to mention a few open and closed examples. --Stewart 20:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think they should as this is meant to cover more than just rail. It will probably include air, sea transport, road transport etc. I will remove the part where it says public. Simply south 21:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Importance assessment

How exactly should importance to the project be assessed for articles?

Here is a suggestion from Pyrotec

": The wide picture of transport in Scotland, must include land transport, e.g. roads, plateways, railways, trams, etc; water, e.g. rivers, canals, lochs, ferries, and sea going vessels; and air, e.g. airships, aircraft, etc; and things like bridges.

Within this wider picture, there are common features, and importance could be given to things like:

• the first,
• the notorious, the famous.
• the biggest / longest /widest / most passengers, etc, and/or smallest / shortest / thinnest, etc,
• the revolutionary / evolutionary, e.g. how the relative importance of different modes of travel changed over time,
• the iconic.

  We also need to try and be aware of 20th / 21st century bias, e.g. we could say that the WCML is an important railway line and possibly the Glasgow South Western Line was less important; but from a historical view point, the Caledonian Railway and the Glasgow and South Western Railway were deadly rivals for Glasgow - Carlisle traffic and they could be regarded as equally important. In past times, water transport was of primary importance; it was then eclipsed by railways for both local and long distance transport; but now we may give preference to driving and flying over long distance railway travel.

  Here are a few of my (biased) examples (I'm using my own naming - not necessarily what is in Wikipedia), it is far from complete -

• Glasgow Central station - large no. of users; but on a historical basis we could say that Glasgow Central, St Enoch, Waverley and Edinburgh Caledonian were all city termini & principle stations of their various railway companies.

• The two bridges at Queensferry - iconic railway and road bridges across the Firth of Forth. Then arguably for road, perhaps we should include the Skye bridge, Erskine bridge, the one to the Black Isle. All are (were) well used toll bridges. Then we aught to include the ferries that preceded them. The Kingston bridge - infamous for its holdups, but it was lifted a few centimetres so it may have a technical claim to fame.

• General Wade's roads in the Highlands; so what about the A74 / A74(M) / M74; the Road to the Isles; the M8, even the A8 which preceded the M8?

• The long distance ferries: Cal Mac, Caledonian Steam Packet Company, P&O's Shetland ferries and North Sea ferries; Stranrar, and the Irish boats; Glasgow and Greenock and the boats taking emigrants to the USA,

• The puffers; Para Handy if we are allowed iconic fictional characters; the Crinan Canal, the Caledonian Canal, the Forth and Clyde Canal, the Falkirk wheel.

• Glasgow trams, the Clockwork Orange.

• Granton and South Queensferry which provided integrated railway - sea links before the railway bridge was built.

• The airports at Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Inverness, on number of passengers; but what about the beach landing strip on Barra - iconic and short, or Prestwick, which was the north American gateway before Glasgow eclipsed it.

• The Linwood car factory, Leyland (Albion as it was)

• Inchinnan and airships; the Clyde and shipbuilding; the Locomotive works; Bennie's railplane."

Any other suggestions? Discussion? Improvements? Simply south 20:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

New WikiProject: buses

I have created WikiProject buses to manage articles about buses and bus routes, including their history as streetcar lines. --NE2 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Penmanshiel Tunnel

Hi everyone. On 10 July I created an article on the collapse of the Penmanshiel Tunnel. It has since been added to and improved by a number of other editors, and has moved from start class to B class. The tags on the talk page indicate that the page is within the scope of this project, so I was wondering if any contributors had anything they wished to add to the article to improve it - a particular need that springs to mind is images. Currently there is one picture of the memorial to the workers killed, but none of the tunnel itself. I have done quite a bit of searching online for images and can't really find anything useful - can anyone here help?ColourSarge 18:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject UK Trams

I think that a Wikiproject UK Trams might be in order at the present time. There are already several Wikiprojects that cover trams, but all seem to be rather blank in the UK area. There are hardly any articles on trams, and those that there are, are either stubs, lacking factual references, or are complete so that they only need to be edited to add specialist information. i have almost single handedly revamped the National Tramway Museum Page, and it would be hard to belive that a couple of months ago, it was a stub. Please rally your support or oposal on the Wikiproject Council Page. The project would cover all trams, both modern and heritage, proposed and forgotten, built and demolished. The page will be started in due course here. - Bluegoblin7 10:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The page is now live at WP:UK Trams! Please register your support, and help clean up Wikipedia's UK Tram Articles today!

ScotRail Route Diagrams

This evening I have completed the migration of ScotRail route diagrams coded within the various articles to separate templates referenced in the articles. This should make is easier to edit the articles and route diagrams in the future. I have a simple crib sheet to the lines and their templates at User:Pencefn/Scotrail. I am still working on the Historic lines, which will probably take a few more weeks (months?). --Stewart 19:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

{{TrainsWikiProject}} banner updated

I've just slid live changes to the {{TrainsWikiProject}} banner to add a new parameter for you. The new parameter is Scotland-importance, and it is used to indicate an article's importance within WPTIS. I also noticed when reviewing the various WPTIS categories the presence of Category:Unreferenced Scotland Transport articles and Category:Mapneed Scotland Transport articles, so if unref=yes or mapneeded=yes are set in conjunction with Scotland=yes, articles will appear in these categories as well. Slambo (Speak) 13:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this project a child project of Transport?

Hi. Can I ask if this wikiproject is a child project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport as I am trying to establish which projects are, so that the list on the main page can be sorted out. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 21:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, here is our list of articles (well the talk pages): Category:WikiProject Transport in Scotland articles. However, we also are a child of Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains, in so far as a simple majority of our articles are railway orientated; and we sometimes share assessments with them.Pyrotec 18:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added on that page and i will create a section on this page. Simply south 21:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 21:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Simply south 22:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Clyde Fastlink

I have just discovered (and created) a new bus system in Glasgow. Does anyone know anything about it? Simply south 22:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Roads in the United Kingdom

I have created the above article today. It lacks history on Scottish roads, particularly trunk roads. I would appreciate any help or pointers to good sources. Regan123 (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A good article - I've rated it B-class. Roads in Scotland tended to be built for the same reasons as in England and Wales. However, in parts transport was by sea, loch, or river and the road was just the final linking bit. So some roads were Drove roads, to move cattle to market. General Wade built military roads to subdue the highland risings. I ordered this book from Amazon.co.uk in September 2007 [[2]], but they've now quoted a March 2008, estimated, delivery date. There's Brian Hiddle's book: Hindle, Brian Paul (1993).Know the Landscape: Roads, Tracks and their interpretation. London: B.T. Batsford. ISBN 0-7134-6598-0. If I think of more sources, I'll added them.Pyrotec (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try and integrate the links you've provided in and more will be appreciated. I'm going for GA as soon as I can on this. Regan123 (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There's also geography, e.g. Category:Mountain passes of Scotland and the roads through the valleys of the lowland valleys, see for instance Telford's coach roads in Caledonian Railway#Early history. I will be happy to help with the GA after the New Year, but can't do it before then. Pyrotec (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have access to a university library, and they have a complete set, then: The Third Statistical Account of Scotland, published by Collins in the 1950s. There's a volume for every county (some are combined) and some cities, such as Glasgow, have their own volume - 30 volumes in total. Each parish has an article written by the local parish priest, and many mention roads, employment etc. The Second account, is similar but a hundred years earlier.Pyrotec (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Edinburgh congestion charge

Hi all. This is an article I have expanded quite a bit from a short one on the road tolls referendum in 2005. I would appreciate others looking at it for accuracy and bias as I am not local and have found a wide range of sources more difficult to come by. Also, I think it could do with a map of the proposed cordons. Many thanks, Regan123 03:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A new wiki especially for Trains... (And trams and other stuff like that...)

Hello readers of WP:TIS!

Firstly, this is not an advert or a recruitment drive. It is a friendly one user to another suggestion.

A new wiki, named Train Spotting World is now online, and we need help to get it going! It allows many things WP doesnt, such as rosters, spotting reports, maps and videos. It's designed to work as a companion to WP.

Please feel free to ask me if you need to know more, either here or there.

Thanks,

Bluegoblin7 22:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:UK light rail

I have put this up for merge with Template:Britishmetros. See Template talk:UK light rail#Merge. Simply south (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Scottish Train Operators

There is a move to have this template deleated, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 17, on the basis that there is an adequate UK TOC template already. Those who have a view may wish to contribute to that discussion. As an aside, I happen to think that this template is misnamed; looking at the history, it was renamed in January 2008 and was previously known as Template:Current Rail Operators in Scotland.Pyrotec (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually according to the history, it was its current name, just not capitalised. Simply south (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Edinburgh tram network

I have put up Edinburgh tram network for WP:RM but have listed possible alternaive names as it is had to determine which is the official name. Simply south (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Scope of project

While tagging some unassessed articles, I noticed that articles like Royal Mile, Buchanan Street and Ashton Lane are all tagged with the WPTIS template. Do these articles really fall under this project? Ashton Lane in particular is an odd one. --- Dreamer ⁸⁴ 15:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, none of them really fit in, you'd already detagged one so I've removed the other two. I'd been working my way down the unassessed-importance list but I'd not looked at these three so far.Pyrotec (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Maps

I was just looking at some of the motorway articles. Perhaps it would be good - and informative - to have maps highlighting (maybe in a bright colour) the particluar motorway in question (from one end of the motorway to the other). I don't know how easy it is to get such maps (or to produce them), but I think such additions would be good. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 09:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Like the one in M11 motorway. :) MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 09:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 768 articles are assigned to this project, of which 120, or 15.6%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|banner=WPTIS}}

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Scotland Transport

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Regent Bridge

Found this article Regent Bridge looking a bit lost - you look like the nearest responsible wikiproject to take good care of it. --VinceBowdren (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

London, Midland and Scottish Railway

I have been doing quite a lot of editing on the article for the London, Midland and Scottish Railway recently and have added a discussion to the talk page here for other editors to comment before I continue. Your contributions would be welcome. :o) ColourSarge (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Edinburgh tram network and WP:TWP

I have proposed two moves

• Edinburgh tram network ---> Edinburgh Trams. See Talk:Edinburgh tram network#Move 2.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains ---> Wikipedia:WikiProject Rail transport. See WT:TWP#trains wikiproject?

Simply south not SS, sorry 00:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Roads

The World Roads Portal is at Peer Review, if any editors know of any articles, images, news items or DYKs which could be added to the Portal, please add them directly to the portal or contact ....SriMesh | talk 19:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

CONT icons

The CONT icons are being renamed, please see User:Chrisbot for more details. In the mean time all users are asked to use the icon names that are shown at User:Chrisbot/Work status even if it seems illogical. They will change from time to time so please check every time before you use a CONT icon. It is in the good cooperation of all that this will work out. ChrisDHDR 16:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Minister for Infrastructure

Hi all - have altered the redirect that sent 'Minister for Infrastructure' directly to the page for the Scottish Minister. Now redirects to disambiguation for 'Minister of Infrastructure' which includes various global / international Infrastructure Ministers including the Scottish Minister for Infrastructure. If there are no major objections, feel free to delete this note. Otherwise, happy to discuss. Stalwart111 (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Conversion of TrainsWikiProject banner to using WPBannerMeta

Any comments on converting the TrainsWikiProject banner to use WPBannerMeta would be welcome over here. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Rapid transit assessment categories are slightly inconsistent, the quality ones have a capital R and the importance ones have a lower case r. One set will need renaming to make them consistent, so I've chosen the importance ones to be renamed. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Exit list guide discussion

I'm not sure if this project covers roads or if roads are exclusively the domain of WP:UKRD; if this project does not include roads, please disregard this message. All highway editors are requested to voice concerns that they may have with WP:ELG, the MOS exit list guide, so that it may be amended and used for exit lists in all countries. Please see WT:ELG#International changes for discussion and to propose changes. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll on ELG revision

There is now a straw poll at WT:ELG to decide on the proposed revision and renaming of WP:ELG. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Falls of Cruachan derailment

The Falls of Cruachan derailment article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Now at WP:DRV. Mjroots (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible Creation of WikiProject Tayside and Fife

Hi! I have proposed the creation of WikiProject Tayside and Fife to improve the quality of all of the articles which fall into the scope of the project. I think that some of the articles in the scope of WikiProject Transport in Scotland may fit into the scope of the proposed project. I would hope that members of this WikiProject would like to indicate their interest in the project. If you would like to join please add your name on WikiProject Council/Proposals/Tayside and Fife. If the project gets a reasonable amount of interest I will create a draft of the WikiProject (after consultation with editors who are interested) in my userspace and then will create the WikiProject. Thank you. Andrewmc123 15:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gartsherrie East Junction

The article Gartsherrie East Junction has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Gartsherrie East Junction – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Scotland Transport articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Scotland Transport articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Great North Road

Proposing a split from A1 road (Great Britain). See Talk:A1 road (Great Britain)#Great North Road (Split?). And i can't seem to keep up with projects. Simply south...... 19:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Image request

I'm attempting to get Kelvin Scottish up to GA status, and the text is nearly done. However, there's only one image available at present, and that's been tagged for deletion at Commons. Since images are a GA requirement it might be tricky to manage without some more. As they only existed for four years over two decades ago I doubt anyone reading this can help, but if you have any usable pics they would be greatly appreciated. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I found a Commons-licensed one on Flickr. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to geotag all highway articles

There is currently a proposal to modify WT:RJL to allow geotagging of highway articles in the junction lists, at specified important points along the route. Your input is welcome. --Rschen7754 02:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Scots and Gaelic names on railway station articles

Hi, I have been asked by Pencefn (talk · contribs) my opinion on the following:

Something for you to think about, Asarlaí (talk · contribs) has been adding Gaelic and Scots names to a lot of station articles. You might like to check them out. I am almost certain that Scots does not appear on any station sign, and Gaelic is appearing at more Scottish station, but I am certain most modified have not been so named. My understanding of the template was that it was only added when applied to the station sign. Thoughts? --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 15:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have all Scottish stations watchlisted, but I do have a few: and yes, I noticed this. My own view is that we should only show the station names as displayed at the station itself. Bilingual nameboards are virtually universal for Welsh stations (except where the English and Welsh names are the same), but I get the distinct impression that Scottish station nameboards show only one name. I note that several of these have been referenced to List of railway station names at NewsNet Scotland, but just how official are these? Being a Sassenach, I don't want to pronounce judgement unilaterally.

I do have one point that I feel should be seriously considered: I would have preferred if the non-English names had been enclosed in the relevant language identifier template, otherwise how is the average reader expected to know what the language is? We would use {{lang-gd}} for the Gaelic names, and {{lang-sco}} for the Scots names, like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"My own view is that we should only show the station names as displayed at the station itself."

This sounds like a fair compromize. ~Asarlaí 18:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree this is a fair compromise. I think Glasgow Queen Street station has Gaelic. I haven't seen any with Scots. On the English-language Wikipedia, anything beyond this would be original research. --John (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Scots and Gaelic are official languages of Scotland, so I think these names should be included where they are known and/or evidence of them being used (from reliable sources). Note that the ScotRail timetables now feature a number of Gaelic names, which include a few stations which don't (yet) have Gaelic signs. Or see the Ainmean-Àite na h-Alba database [3], which includes a number of station names. Also, it is now ScotRail policy to use Gaelic names on signs when stations are rebranded, so most stations should eventually get Gaelic names on signs.

I don't think that NewsNetScotland list is a reliable source, it is more like a blog, with its own bias. I don't know of any reliable sources for station names in Scots. --Vclaw (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

My own view is that we should only show the station names as displayed at the station itself.

I can live with this. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 22:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Why does it matter what it says on the sign? The infobox field is for "Other name", not "names displayed on the sign". How do you know what it says on the sign anyway, unless you check it yourself? Which seems a bit like the "original research" excuse you keep pushing. --Vclaw (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)