Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40

Recent article moves removing capitalisation of 'line'

A certain user Dicklyon has been moving lots of railway line articles to remove the capitalisation of the word line, e.g. Crewe to Derby Line moved to Crewe to Derby line (see his contributions here) I was just wondering whether this was against some policy on the issue, and what people here feel about it. I would think a sweeping change like this should probably have some discussion. G-13114 (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It woud have been polite to ping me when complaining about me. Dicklyon (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
There has been a whole lot of these changes, but where is there a consensus for such a change, especially where line is part of the name of the line and so should be capitalised? Keith D (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. G-13114 (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I came here to make a section about this just now. I asked Dicklyon yesterday to point to some kind of consensus for the changes (here), but he was unable to do so. I am going to undo the changes and ask Dicklyon to generate a consensus for a change of name here on the WP UK Railways talk page, and move forward from there. Rcsprinter123 (post) 20:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what question you are saying I was unable to answer or provide evidence for. Can you be more explicit? Dicklyon (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The basis for this is in WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. These lines are capitalized in this project's titles even though they are not proper names, so we should be fixing them. There is broad consensus that projects should not have divergent conventions for capitalizing their own stuff. Dicklyon (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The thing is that we can't be looking at this on a case-by-case basis, because there needs to be consistency, otherwise it just looks weird and loads of links need updating. Pretty much all of the lines' names are proper names - are you saying that people who refer to the Woodhead Line are calling it that because it goes through a tiny hamlet called Woodhead? No, they're calling it that because that is its name (as will be shown in many sources), so they are proper names and should be capitalised. Rcsprinter123 (express) 20:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Are you going to block Amakuru (talk · contribs) too? They have been (rightly) undoing these moves too. Rcsprinter123 (post) 20:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
As an example of some of the stuff going on:'Cumbrian Coast Line' was changed to 'Cumbrian Coast line' on the grounds (according to the edit summary) that 'only proper names should be capitalised' . That argument might apply (although going against convention) if the railway was sailing under its true colours as the 'Carlisle - Barrow Line/line', but the line is marketed as the 'Cumbrian Coast Line' with that capitalisation, and I have yet to meet anybody who would capitalise 'Cumbrian Coast'on its own. The edit/move would therefore seem to be in direct contradiction of the principle cited to justify it Rjccumbria (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I did already post a link to the evidence, this book search, which shows that sources overwhelmingly capitalize "Cambrian Coast" in "Cambrian Coast line", but don't cap "line". Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, it's our consensus to use consistent capitalization in better sources as an indication of proper name status. Dicklyon (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Cumbria isn't in Wales.
I would agree with Rjcumbria here. The "Cumbrian Coast Line" is treated as a proper noun phrase and is regularly capitalised. So is the "Cambrian Coast Line", in railway circles. However "Cambrian Coast" is also used as a phrase in tourism, something which I've yet to hear for the Cumbrian coast - and note that the most touristic part of that Northern coast is mostly skipped by the line. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
You're just asserting without evidence again. I already showed evidence in books that is NOT the case that The "Cumbrian Coast Line" is treated as a proper noun phrase and is regularly capitalised. Dicklyon (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
In books: a search confined within Google Books is hardly exhaustive. A quick search in the wider world would show the capitalisation used in two local newspapers (the Whitehaven News and the Times and Star ), by Cumbria County Council, and by the Cumbrian Coast Line Community Rail Partnership Rjccumbria (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I should (Amakuru's move log). Just talk about it, don't fill up my watchlist with more grounds for blocking. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I can't rally see a justification for the lowercase move myself. In the case of say the West Coast Main Line it always appears in the capitalised form, and I can't see anyone arguing for a move to lowercase there. We should have consistency within the articles, otherwise we end up with a mishmash of capitalised and non-capitalised names. G-13114 (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I have been careful not to change the ones that appear to be widely treated as proper names, such as West Coast Main Line. But for most of the minor lines, the WP article titles are made-up descriptive terms, not proper names. Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, we use sentence case, not title case, in such cases. If I am wrong, show me which ones are treated as proper names in sources. None of the ones that I have checked are. Dicklyon (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I have checked Network Rail documents like the Sectional Appendix and Route Plans looking for a definitive answer, unfortunately while the ECML and WCML were always capitalised the others were inconsistent such as Styal Line appearing capitalised in some and not in others, same with Chat Moss Line. Predominantly however capitals were used even for things like 'Newcastle Goods Line' which I don't think is a commonly used term. WatcherZero (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@WatcherZero, you might be interested in the discussion going on at Talk:Chester_to_Manchester_Line#Requested_move_2_November_2016. G-13114 (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: In linguistic terms, there is no difference between "West Coast Main Line" and "Crewe to Derby Line", both fall under the Proper noun rule. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The one is consistently capitalized in thousands of sources. The other is hard to find in any source that's not a wikipedia clone, because we made it up. In general, when we make up descriptive terms, we don't promote them to proper name status, even if some other such things might have proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • These need to be discussed and decided on a case by case basis. I can see plenty of evidence for "Woodhead Line" and "Cambrian Coast Line" as capitalised proper noun phrases applied to a line which is of some note under that name, but not for "Crewe to Derby line" and similar, where the name is little more than a geographical description. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree - 'Maryport and Carlisle Railway' but 'Maryport to Carlisle railway' would seem about right. I would add more, but it seems I now need to learn Welsh... Rjccumbria (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I have no objection to treating as proper names any line names that are treated as proper names in most better sources. That's not the case for any of the ones I've moved, including Cambrian Coast line. I have not moved Woodhead Line, but it too if more often lowercase, as this book search clearly shows. Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
It makes no sense at all to have some railway lines recognised as proper names whereas others are not. The search results are unreliable as "Great Central Main Line" is considered by many as a proper name, yet "main line" appears in the lower case in a large number of the results. What is more instructive from the results is that where the line appears as part of the book's title, it is capitalised. Lamberhurst (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
That one is clearly more often lowercase in sources. And even if it were "mixed", per MOS:CAPS we would not consider it a proper name. A lot of sources just like to cap things that are important to them, without regard for whether it's a proper name or not. We don't do that. Actually, it's not even clear why we call it Great Central Main Line, a term that is uncommon in discussing it, it seems; see books. Great Central Railway is the closest thing to a proper name, and they had a main line, but that was never its proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I think this discussion perfectly demonstrates the type of endless disputes that await if we adopt Dicklyon's prefered naming convention. We'll have endless 'this is an official name so it should be capitalised, oh no it isn't' disputes repeated ad infinitum across many dozens of articles. G-13114 (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Generally such discussions are brief or nonexistent when moving toward the Wikipedia's style as expressed in the WP:MOS. Every now and then some project or corner of Wikipedia wants to have a different style, and things get more contentious. That doesn't need to be the case here. Dicklyon (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing in WP:MOS which supports your actions here. Rightly or wrongly, the MOS leaves a certain margin with regard to article titles. No doubt this subject will come up again on this page in the future and we will decide once again this question when you have lost interest in this particular hobby horse of yours. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS are both pretty clear that we reserve caps for proper names, whether in titles or otherwise. These descriptive line names don't come with any evidence of proper name status, so our convention is to not cap them. This has been repeatedly affirmed, all across Wikipedia; the fact that there are a few obscure corners that still have it wrong is not a reason to be discouraged from working on fixing. Dicklyon (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
As a parallel, that's why we de-cap the words "railway station" in e.g. Oxford railway station. The difference is that we have WP:NCUKSTATIONS (this uses lowercase in the entries in the "Name" column, except for the acronym "DLR" and the specific word "Metro"), whereas there is no equivalent NC doc for lines, so we fall back to MOS with all the argument that ensues. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Not quite on topic, but perhaps it might be an idea to avoid altogether 'descriptive names' as promoted by rail operators because they leave WP at the mercy of rail operators. As an example: in the days of British Rail, when questions were asked in Parliament about the 'Cumbrian coast line' Hansard capitalised it 'Ccl' and what was meant was the whole Stephensonian project of Carnforth to Carlisle at (close to) sea level. When franchising and marketing arrived , the Carnforth-Barrow line became the 'Furness Line' and the Carlisle-Barrow line the 'Cumbrian Coast Line' (both so capitalised, and whatever may be said to the contrary by people who choose to confine their search to Google Books there is abundant evidence to that effect in ephemera such as time tables and local newspapers). If the National Rail Enquiries: Named rail lines webpage is to be believed recently (possibly associated with the recent change of franchisee), the capitalisation 'Cumbrian Coast line' seems to have been adopted by the operator, but the name is now once again applied to to the whole run Carnforth-Carlisle via Barrow, and the Furness Line seems to have disappeared as a 'named line'. (To my mind, that's a lot more sensible, but 'Cumbrian Coast line' remains difficult to defend as an article title, because what the line serves is the Cumbrian coast, and the MOS is fairly clear on ignoring part-capitalisation of brand names) Rjccumbria (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Closure dates of stations

It is discussion point on whether a station closure date is the day when the last train ran or the first date when services ceased to operate. The dates I normally quote are the first date when services were withdrawn and are taken from books such as Passengers No More by G.Daniels and L.Dench, Chronology of London Railways by H.V.Borley and the various books on Disused Stations by J.E.Connor and B.Halford. In the past I have referred to the book with the name of (or similar) Register of Closed Stations by M.E.Quick which in the past I borrowed for reference however I do not have the excellent book by R.V.Butt. Some examples of dates I have used are the Crystal Palace High Level branch on which the last timetabled service ran on Sat. 18th September 1954, an enthusiasts special ran on Sunday 19th September and the BR official date of closure was Monday 20th September 1954. On the Woodside- Selsdon line the last train ran on Friday 13th May 1983 ( I was on it!) as there were no trains on Saturdays or Sundays so the effective closure issued on BR notices and official documents was Monday 16th May 1983. Accordingly I have tried to be consistent with the official date on when no trains ran which so far you have accepted. It appears that the policy has been changed by the books issued by Rose. Please discuss/clarify.Steamybrian2 (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

You should probably post this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways. Useddenim (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no global convention on this, but for Wikipedia purposes I'd be strongly inclined always to use "last day of service" rather than "first day of no service". Wikipedia is written for a general global audience, and "the moment at which the final train left" is far more intuitive than "first day on which a scheduled service failed to run" (which for some routes in other parts of the world, on which there are only one or two scheduled services a month or services only operate seasonally, could literally mean that the "closure date" is after the track is lifted and the buildings demolished). ‑ Iridescent 17:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
How does that work? Obviously if the trains are still running, or calling at the station, the railway or station in question is not closed. Therefore, the first day of closure is the first day on which trains are not running. Where's the problem? Britmax (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Because I'm lazy, I'll quote an example Rose uses to explain the issue with using "first day of no service": The section [of the Northern City Line] between Drayton Park and Old Street last operated under LT control on Saturday 4-10-1975 and was therefore said to be closed on and from Sunday 5th, as a normal seven-days-a-week service was in operation. However, Essex Road station had long previously not been open on Saturdays and Sundays and according to convention should therefore be shown as closed on and from Monday 6th—a day after all the other stations shut, although the last train actually called a day before the other stations permanently closed. The problem becomes magnified with seasonal services; for instance, Eurostar only stops at Moûtiers between 17 December and 8 April (to service the ski resorts). Should they decide next summer to abandon this service, the last day of service will be 8 April 2017, but "first day of no service" (and hence the formal closure) won't be until 17 December 2017, almost nine months after the last train actually called, which is very misleading to readers (who will reasonably assume that trains continued to call up to that date). ‑ Iridescent 19:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It's whatever the reliable referenced sources use. If different sources vary, quite possibly on the basis you outlined vis last train (de facto) v official documents (de jure), then the difference should be discussed on an article by article basis. I don't understand what "books issued by Rose" you refer to.
As an aside there are several disused stations fora that have reservations about Butt and found a significant number of errors - especially an assumption that all stations on a line opened on the day the line opened. Nthep (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

This discussion started with the closure date of British Museum which I altered from the last day of services to the first day when trains were not stopping however "Redrose" reverted it referring to [1] however I have not found any books written by "Rose" on this subject. I have queried this but "Redrose" has referred me to his publications so I would be pleased to read his reply with further information. I am pleased to read that others have found errors have been found in the book written by Butt as in the past I have queried dates only to be told that what is issued in Butt. Thanks for your replies. Steamybrian2 (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Rose 2007.
Whenever you see "Rose" in relation to London Transport, you can safely assume that unless specified otherwise, it's a reference to The London Underground: A Diagrammatic History by Douglas Rose. ‑ Iridescent 18:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
This discussion has come up before here. The last day of service seems preferable not only for the reason given by Iridescent but also that it generally corresponds to the date of the "official closure", i.e. the date which is specified on the closure poster. See, for example, the closure documents relating to Norton Bridge for which the proposed closure date of 15 October 2017 is given. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I am not "Redrose", I am Redrose64 (talk · contribs). The edit in question (which nobody seems to have linked) is this one, the revert (again not linked - if disputing somebody's revert it's always a good idea to link to the revert in dispute) is this one.
On the sources, "books issued by Rose" refers to:
  • Rose, Douglas (December 2007) [1980]. The London Underground: A Diagrammatic History (8th ed.). Harrow Weald: Capital Transport. ISBN 978-1-85414-315-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
which is easily found, as you merely need to look further down the same article. Other editions are available, and it isn't a book (despite being cited as such and bearing an ISBN) - it's a B1-size folded diagram inspired by Harry Beck's diagram, but comprehensively annotated in small type. Rose is regarded as very accurate - Connor and Halford are not. I don't know about Borley. But my main problem is that we have here a list of former stations which was consistently cited to a single source (Rose), but Steamybrian2 (talk · contribs) changed just one of the entries to use other sources, which made that entry inconsistent with the others. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

One further discussion point- It would appear that the station closure dates for London Underground stations have been quoted from Douglas Rose book as being the last day on which services operated for example - Ongar, North Weald and Aldwych on Friday 30th September 1994 (I was there and confirmed in my diary) but as no services ran on Saturdays and Sundays the official closure date was Monday 3rd October 1994. It appears therefore that book was inconsistent with others which use the official closure date on the first date when no services first operated or when declared closed. Steamybrian2 (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

3 October is also the date given for the official closure of all three in {{Quick-Stations}} so I would go with that date, with a note in the text mentioning that the last train ran on 30 September. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Steamybrian2: As I noted above, Rose is not a book. Also as noted by Iridescent, Lamberhurst and myself, Rose uses the "last day of service" convention, and we have given reasons (partially copied from Rose) why that is preferable to "first day without service". I know of no reliable definition for "official closure date". --Redrose64 (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Official closure dates are issued on public notices issued by the railway companies. Try the following link. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=railway+closure+notice&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjHxPrV5qvQAhXGD8AKHXEIBxoQsAQIIw&biw=1280&bih=907#imgrc=_ If this does not work then go to "google" input "railway closure notices" There is a large selection and note the dates.Steamybrian2 (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

More undiscussed station moves

This time by Epicgenius (talk · contribs), see logs. I'm pretty sure that we agreed to put the parenthetical disambiguator in the middle, which makes these moves contrary to convention. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Last time this came up. Per my comments there, I could honestly not care less whether the disambiguator is in the middle or at the end provided it's consistent. ‑ Iridescent 08:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Amakaru has driven a coach and horses through that previous consensus and what we seem to be left with is parenthetical disambiguation in the middle only where the National Rail website provides for it. Epicgenius (talk · contribs) is just following through on that. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and @Iridescent:, we're not going have a consistent approach so long as the NR disambiguation goes against the Amakaru method. Hence, Higham railway station (Suffolk) and Higham (Kent) railway station. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Amakuru moved 24 pages (IDK if it's in his capacity as an admin, or in his capacity as an editor) while I moved 2. Also, there is Hammersmith tube station (Piccadilly and District lines), Hammersmith tube station (Hammersmith & City and Circle lines), Edgware Road tube station (Circle, District and Hammersmith & City lines), and Edgware Road tube station (Bakerloo line). Would you rather have these be moved too, Redrose64? I can revert my own moves. I apologize that I didn't see that consensus, but if this discussion is happening, then I see that there is no single unified disambiguation and that we need to rectify that right away. epicgenius (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
As I said at the time, the idea that we always put disambiguators in the middle is an error, based on a misconception. For some stations, the rail network itself defines a disambiguator, which is in many ways part of the official station name. Sutton (Surrey) railway station is one example of that. This has led some, including Redrose64, to infer that it is Wikipedia policy to name stations that way, with the disambiguator in the middle. That has never been the case, and WP:UKSTATION makes no mention of it. Stations which are not officially disambiguated by national rail should have their disambiguator at the end, like any other Wikipedia page, per MOS:DAB. I don't know whether my moving of the 24 pages mentioned above was in an admin or editor capacity - it doesn't matter much, as they were all reversions of previous undiscussed moves, which any editor is entitled to do per WP:RM. Thanks, and hope this helps  — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
One reason that the disambiguator is preferred to be in the middle is because {{rws}} is set up to use it that way. Mjroots (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't know about Amakuru's edits, but my edits only concerned {{Tubestation}}, and I just fixed it to accommodate two more parameters. I think {{Stnlnk}} can be reformatted in a similar format, but that template is only editable by admins or template editors. epicgenius (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
In the last two or three years, there have been several discussed moves for UK railway station articles, and the consensus each time was that the parenthetical disambiguator should be in the middle. It is not on for one person to singlehandedly go against that, and then claim "the idea that we always put disambiguators in the middle is an error, based on a misconception". --Redrose64 (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Useddenim (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Also agree but it's for us to update WP:UKSTATION to reflect that consensus (as was highlighted by the closing admin in the context of the Seaford (Sussex) page move). For the record, here is a list of 13 page move discussions. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Grimsby and Immingham Electric Railway stations

I would suggest that the G&IERly stations be renamed as follows (from the existing Xxx electric railway station):

This would put them in line with most other railway station names. Useddenim (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The G&I (Grimsby and Immingham Electric Railway) was an anomaly, it had a foot in two camps. It was physically separate from the national network, but part of it organisationally and for ticketing purposes. You could buy a ticket from Great Coates Level Crossing to Machynlleth; a published example is from Kings Cross to Immingham Dock "via Peakirk, Grimsby and Electric Cars" (Price p112). No-one called the stopping places "railway stations", neither users nor officialdom. The commonest terms used locally were "Halts", eg my mother always referred to Immingham Town as "Tramcar Halt". That said, the names of the halts themselves included no suffixes such as "Halt" or "Stopping Place" or "Station", any more than conventional stations included the suffix "Railway Station" (though some include "Halt" of course, leading to "Teigl Halt railway station" in Wikipedia.) In building the articles and corresponding route diagram I used "railway station" to trigger Wikipedia features and "electric" to give some commonality to the stopping places and distinctiveness from conventional stations. I suspect we're damned of we do and cursed if we don't. Immingham Dock poses the hardest test for readers, as the conventional Immingham Dock railway station and Immingham Dock tramcar terminus appeared simply as "Immingham Dock" on original material and throughout the literature, leading to a legion of mistakes, though they were physically separated by the dock entrance locks.

I would vote to stick with including the word "electric" because "Boulevard Road electric railway station" signals something different from "Boulevard Road railway station", likewise throughout the line. Locals of a certain age will recognise "Great Coates Level Crossing electric railway station" as distinct from both Great Coates railway station and the non-existent railway station at Great Coates level crossing, which was adjacent to the tramcar halt at Gt Coates Level Crossing which wasn't next to Great Coates station (shall I go on?!)

An alternative might be to replace "electric" with something like "tramway", eg Immingham Town tramway railway station, but I'd stick with "electric".

I'd vote for getting rid of the brackets round Queens Road, however. Dave DavidAHull (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Then perhaps they should be moved to Xxx stop, similar to other tram/light rail lines. Useddenim (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I've fished out a photo of the Grimsby terminus - Grimsby (Corporation Bridge) electric railway station - both it and the Immingham Dock electric railway station terminus had large signs over them proclaiming them to be "TRAMWAY STATION" (not Immingham Tramway Station or Grimsby TS, just plain "TRAMWAY STATION", no other stops anywhere on the line had any signs at all, zilch, zero, nowt, nuffink. I'm not really sure what dragon we're trying to slay here, but I propose we let sleeping dogs lie. Maybe if anyone else picks it up as worth putting finger to keyboard we might revisit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidAHull (talk • contribs) 19:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Er, why are these showing in red??? DaveDavidAHull (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

They're showing in red because Grimsby (Corporation Bridge) electric railway station railway station and Immingham Dock electric railway station railway station don't exist. Grimsby (Corporation Bridge) electric railway station and Immingham Dock electric railway station do exist, but you used the {{rws}} template which puts a further " railway station" at the end. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Which is why I was proposing that they be moved en masse to either Xxx railway station or Xxx tram stop. Useddenim (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Class 377

There was a train fire at Eastbourne early this morning. Forum chat is that a Class 377 was involved. A RS is needed so that the info can be added to the article. Mjroots (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't see anything in those sources which stated that it was a 377 involved. Mjroots (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Irish railways

On 15 November Wikimucker (talk · contribs) made two dozen edits (including some page moves) to Irish railway station and railway line articles. Could someone with more knowledge of this area than me please review them? Useddenim (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as you reverted my edits first (User:Useddenim))there is nothing to review is there.? I will re-revert your unilateral reversions and will then await input from other editors in this talk page athr than make any changes to Irish railway pages. Wikimucker (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
It seems that Wikimucker is unclear about a couple of concepts: primarily WP:BRD (not, reinstate the changes and take the first steps to an WP:EDIT WAR). Second, his first attempt to dabble with WP:Route diagram templates resulted in changes contrary to the generally-accepted style of these templates. (As an aside, when features of a map change, said features are updated, not removed.) Generally—i.e. unless part of an historical sequence—RDTs show past, current and proposed lines and station, with appropriate notations.
Concerning the two dozen (now 31) edits that Wikimucker made to Irish railway station and railway line articles, I changed only the three RDTs. (Correction: I also restored a deleted quote and added a ‘non-existant’ WP:Reliable source for it—that only took one Google click to find.) As far as I can tell, the changes that Wikimucker made to the diagrams contradict the map shown on the Western Railway Corridor page. Useddenim (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The Western Railway Corridor is a political campaign that has been ongoing since the Claremorris - Colooney railway shut down in 1974. The Purpose of Templete in an Encylopedia is to show lines that exist and are routable for passengers and freight, not fantasies. The RDTs in question were fantasies (or historic) depending on your viewpoint. I only changed the RDTs to reflect reality and I would ask that they be changed back as the editing was accurate in all respects.
You will find nobody who can show a _functioning railway_ line between Athenry and Claremorris and also one between Claremorris and Colooney, as they are historic curios. The templates should reflect reality...what with this being an Encyclopedia and all. That is all I tried to do. Were one to take an ultra narrow template view then HS2 in the UK will have to be a variant on the Grand Central Railway as it is co terminate with it. I would personally consider such a view to be a nonsense. Should one show the original great western 7 footer along with the current Great Western in a template... by around the same logic? Many things can be done with templates that are of little utility in presenting a clear picture to encylopedia readers.
Supporting data for a Limerick - Athenry Railway template is as follows.
a) Irish Rail Network Statement 20176 (Page numbered 42) showing the segment is called "Limerick - Athenry". > www.irishrail.ie/media/ie_2017_network_statement_.pdf
b) trains do not terminate in Athenry but continue to Galway. Galway is double counted as is is already in the Dublin Westport Galway template. So Limerick Athenry is the segment and the trains themselves terminate in Galway which I showed for clarity.
Also note the helpful up to date map of the Irish Railway network on page 36 and I would like the Wikipedia to reflect that map in its templates.
I further note that these UK Project templates are by and large unreferenced unlike the articles that they are embedded in.
Some practical guidance would be in order rather than brazen reversion of another editors work next time. I trust you will revert your own reversions of my work when you check that link/pages. Very Kind Regards. Wikimucker (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't know enough about Irish rail to comment on the specific dispute, but just to point out that The Purpose of Templete in an Encylopedia is to show lines that exist and are routable for passengers and freight, not fantasies is total nonsense. There are plenty of precedents for UK railway templates including closed sections and/or future proposals ({{Wealden Line}}, {{Metropolitan line navbox}}, {{Windsor Link Railway, Berkshire RDT}}, {{Docklands Light Railway}} and {{Manchester Metrolink tram stops}} are a few which spring to mind but you can find more with no trouble), and while Ireland is obviously a separate case, the histories of UK/ROI/NI are intertwined enough that it's common sense to take the same approach for all three. ‑ Iridescent 16:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Shudehill Interchange

User:Charlesdrakew seems to have a problem with the article Shudehill Interchange (see edit history here) saying it's unreferenced and not a guide, even though I made an effort to reference it, and it is not in excess detail on the service details. I can't see any basis for his reversion. What do others think? G-13114 (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you should read WP:EW and WP:BRD. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I've done all the things listed there. G-13114 (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
So why do you persist in re-adding the deleted content, instead of discussing? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Then let's go discuss it. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Riley and Son deletion discussion

Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains -mattbuck (Talk) 07:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate the input of anyone here into Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Riley and Son. I sort of got involved by accident, have a general sense that this is a notable-enough company, but it's not really my area. Thanks Mcewan (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Diagram "articles" in mainspace

I've started a discussion here regarding moving articles such as East Coast Main Line diagram to the template namespace; input is welcome. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 10:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Greenwich station

Can someone move Greenwich station to Greenwich railway station to be consistent with every other UK station article? 5.67.196.193 (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it's got DLR as well as National Rail, see last row of table in WP:NCUKSTATIONS. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I am puzzled as to why this station I in the opened and closed in 1878 categories. The line was extended east in 1878 but I see no reason for it to be in both categories. a poor entry for this station generally.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The station was resited: in other words, the old station closed and a new one (on a different site) opened. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The article describes the station building as having been opened in 1840. Do we have any evidence that the station was significantly resited in 1878, or was it merely remodelled (as many other stations have been without being categorised as closed and reopened)? --David Biddulph (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The Complete Atlas of Railway Station Names by Tony Bewick shows two stations at Greenwich - the first, closed before 1 Jan 1901, to the west of the current station. I cannot lay my hands on my Butt at the moment (if you'll pardon the expression!) Optimist on the run (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Follow-up - I've successfully located my Butt (it was in the obvious place - I just couldn't see it). It lists the following four entries for stations named Greenwich:-
  • Greenwich L&Gr Op 24 December 1838 Cl 12 April 1840. [Replaced by SE station slightly closer to Greenwich]
  • Greenwich SE Op 12 April 1840 L&Gr; Cl 11 January 1877. [Replaced L&Gr station slightly further from Greenwich,; replaced by SE&C 1st station on adjacent site]
  • Greenwich [1] SE&C Op 11 January 1877 SE. [Replaced SE station on adjacent site]
  • Greenwich [2] SE&C Op 1 1888 LC&D; RN Greenwich Park 1 July 1900.
The final entry is clearly unrelated, but I've included it for completeness. Source Butt, R. V. J. (October 1995). The Directory of Railway Stations: details every public and private passenger station, halt, platform and stopping place, past and present (1st ed.). Sparkford: Patrick Stephens Ltd. p. 109. ISBN 978-1-85260-508-7. OCLC 60251199. OL 11956311M. Optimist on the run (talk) 07:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
So it sounds as if the move was to an adjacent site, which is presumably why the 1840 station building is still in use. It also sounds as if the move was in 1877, not 1878, so the current 1878 categories are in error if Butt is correct. I'll leave it to others to decide whether 1877 closure and reopening categories are needed if the station closed and reopened on the same day using the same station building. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Having visited the station a number of times over the years the 1840 building always seemed well sited with regard to the rest of the station. The terminus arrangements c1869 are shown in the Middleton Press book but unfortunately not the whole plan and especially the relationship between the station building and that platform. I have always believed that the buildings beyond the terminus (board room and a couple of waiting rooms) were demolished and the line carried on more or less on that alignment. Hold on mystery solved - the 1840 building was demolished and the line lowered to get under Greenwich Park. Material from the 1840 station were re-used in the new station building so the current building dates from 1877. Therefore the open/closing dates are correct.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Map origin

THIS MAP is in danger of being deleted from the commons unless information about the source is found. The original uploader hasn't been active for ten years, so we can't ask them. I was wondering if anyone here could help. It looks like it might come from a book or something, and if the author died more than 70 years ago it would be in the public domain. G-13114 (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@G-13114: (pinging Sameboat) Might be possible to make a new map from a high-resolution OpenStreetMap screenshot, similarly to how File:Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel route map.svg was made. Most of the lines in the map nominated for deletion are still intact, and the few no longer in existence are delineated by other map features. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 03:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not copied from either of these
  • Dixon, Frank (1994) [1973]. The Manchester South Junction & Altrincham Railway. The Oakwood Library of Railway History (2nd ed.). Headington: Oakwood Press. ISBN 0-85361-454-7. OL34.
  • Knight, N.R. (1999). Scenes from the Past: 36 (Part One) - Altrincham to Manchester Before Metrolink. Romiley: Foxline. ISBN 1-870119-60-6.
Other books do exist though. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

This looks hand-drawn to me. Note the original revision: [1]. That looks like he drew it himself, and gave his real name. That was a common enough practice in 2006. The claim that it dates from 1931 was added in 2014 by Sfan00 IMG (talk · contribs). This is just cleanup, but I think it's a mistake. Mackensen (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Comparing this map with the other 3 uploaded by the same person (Special:ListFiles/EnglishElectric) it looks like you could be right. But is this enough evidence to prevent deletion? -- Dr Greg  talk  15:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it is, particularly given that he used his real name on numerous photographs which were all transferred to Commons. I've edited the file on Commons to reflect this. Mackensen (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the help everyone. G-13114 (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Cryptic templates - NRstn and NRrws

There are several templates, among them {{NRstn}} and {{NRrws}}, that were created a few weeks ago, and have been used by 109.153.124.38 (talk) on the article Southern (Govia Thameslink Railway), see for example this edit and this one, note the comment "if you're not allowed to use the template then why does it even exist in the first place? It's there for a reason so it should be used".

I find the templates to be cryptic beyond the point of usefulness; as to why they exist, they exist because Mvpo666 (talk · contribs) and Useddenim (talk · contribs) created them, and nobody has (yet) taken them to WP:TFD. Should we nip this in the bud? --Redrose64 (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I find the parameter route kilometres baffling as all Network Rail lines are measured in miles and chains. It doesn't even convert it to miles from kilometres automatically. Perhaps the creator's should be pinged to allow them the chance of defence (should they want to). The joy of all things (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I did "ping" them (I don't like that word, in my line of work it has a very different and somewhat older meaning), by using {{user|Mvpo666}} and {{user|Useddenim}}. They will have received a notification, just as The joy of all things (talk · contribs) got one for this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Take {{NRstn}} and {{NRrws}} to TFD - it is unreasonable to expect editors to know the codes for stations, and I suspect there may be issues with screen-readers as well. Optimist on the run (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I wrote {{NRrws}} because someone made a request/suggestion for it. (Unfortunately, I can’t find the thread right now.) Somewhere things went off the rails (pun intended) with respect to the coding: the template should choose correctly between Xxx railway station and Xxx station, and the NR station code should be displayed while the link should point to the relevant article (the latter error being trivial to fix). I imagine the intent of the original requestor was for use in navboxes, tables, etc; not as a lazy shortcut. As to The joy of all things’ comment about “the parameter route kilometres”, I have no idea what they are talking about, as the template only has the single parameter {{{1}}}. Useddenim (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Useddenim many apologies - an early morning edit shows that I need to pay more attention. I was massively confused between the changes and mistook the TOC infobox for your changes. The Infobox has the route kilometres in it (which I still find baffling). I have struck through my comments and I apologise profusely. I must go now because Amazon have just delivered a dunce cap and I need to stand in the corner for a while. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 08:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The joy of all things@ No problem; we all make Homer Simpson edits. ;) Useddenim (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Foo Line or Foo line?

No consensus for the proposal put forward. Mjroots (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've just reverted an undiscussed move of the Bittern Line article to Bittern line. I thought we'd thrashed this out earlier this year that the capitalised phrase had consensus.

Proposals
  1. That all railway line articles are housed at the title that has "... Line" in capital letters (Foo Line, Foo Branch Line, Foo Main Line etc).
  2. That all such articles are moved protected at Admin level.

Discuss. Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I had a discussion with Dicklyon about this regarding the Airedale lineTalk:Airedale line; but it seems to stay as lower case because I could not find enough evidence with caps for line. I still think his random book search is wrong as it is mostly travel guides. If you have enough book citations showing Bittern Line with caps on the initial letters, submit it as evidence. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
This can generate much heat, including disagreement over what the consensus actually was. See User talk:Redrose64#No move warring on Wirral line; Talk:Woodhead line#Requested move 17 December 2016; and Talk:Woodhead line#Procedure and what we have learned. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
The Bittern Line and Wherry Lines are marketed as such by the operator, Broads Authority and local tourist board. Mjroots (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I knew this issue was going to cause lots of arguments. The only way to have consistency in article titles with the uppercase/lowercase 'Line', and avoid endless arguments over which names are nouns or descriptors, is to have consistent capitalisation. I have argued as such, but certain people seem to want to pursue a hobby horse and cause unnecessary strife. G-13114 (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Arising from the title Q, there is another one for some longer line names: is the line serving the valley of the Foo: "Foo Valley Line", "Foo Valley line", or "Foo valley line" ? More fundamentally, another way to have consistency would be for WP to deal with lines by articles with 'Terminus to Terminus line' titles, and any/all branding names to redirect. So, for example the line built by the Newcastle and Carlisle railway would be covered by an article called [[Newcastle to Carlisle line]], and searches for or links to [[Tyne Valley Line]] and [[Tyne valley line]] would end up there (likewise [[Hadrian's Wall Line]] if the marketing men change their name for the line). I am driven to suggesting this (which I appreciate might well turn out to be more trouble than it is worth) because it seems to me the most stable solution in the long term. A search for 'Cumbrian Coast Line' (the designation closest to my heart) shows that over the years it has been capitalised Ccl, CCL and (very recently) CCl, and/but Ccl meant Carnforth-Barrow-Carlisle, CCL meant Barrow-Carlisle (Carnforth-Barrow being the Furness Line), and now CCl apparently means Carnforth-Barrow-Carlisle (the 'Furness Line' designation now having disappeared): I feel Wikipedia needs to be stabler than that. Rjccumbria (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

We've had a couple of discussions already (see Talk:Woodhead line and Talk:Settle–Carlisle line, which closed in favor of following the policies and guidelines of WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, that is, to reserve capital letters for proper names. And at the latter, there was some concern about how to achieve consistency, and I suggested that moving toward compliance with the MOS is the usual way to do that. The proposal to achieve consistency by capitalizing "Line" even where it's not a proper name is a non-starter, I think, but feel free to propose it. As for the Bittern line, I admit that the sources that use lowercase, such as this book, are in a small minority, and I may have overstepped the threshold for "consistently capitalized in sources" on that one, so I won't object to keeping it capitalized. If there are others like that, please do point them out, and I'll apologize and move on. Dicklyon (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

As for Wherry Lines, I agree there, too, that the sources that downcase it, such as this book are pretty uncommon. So we can treat it as a proper name. I'll fix if someone hasn't already. I apologize for using too high a threshold on "consistently capitalized in sources". Dicklyon (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, moved and edited those and Template:Railway_lines_in_the_East_of_England; when all that propagates I'll find articles that link to the lowercase redirect and fix those back to Line, too. Sorry for the noise. Please do let me know if there are others that appear to be "consistently capitalied in sources"; I did check them all in book search, but may have allowed a too-small number of lowercase uses to influence me if these two are any indication; mostly I think not. Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

As for Cumbrian Coast line, that capitalization does seem to be in the majority in books, and it also seems most consistent with how other lines appear in sources and in Wikipedia. But we can entertain alternatives. And Furness line is probably not a synonym, since it has its own article that mentions the CCL; it has about 70% lowercase in books, so clearly not regarded as a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

As for the lines serving valleys, "Valley line" is pretty common per books n-grams, but we should look at them individually, too (as I have done) if there are questions as to whether this is always the right answer. I'm not sure why Trent Valley Line appears to be so common in the n-grams stats, while (never mind, I see Trent Valley line is higher up in the n-grams, too) book search suggests Trent Valley line; I haven't touched that one. Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

And I'm not wedded to books as sources; just very wary of random web pages, which are so specialist, promotional, and in many case wiki clones. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks as though I didn't make myself adequately clear on a number of points. Taking the minor ones first:
Regarding sources: what are your views on (and/or arguments against) the National Rail listing of Named Railway lines?
I report the capitalisation of "Cumbrian Coast Line" and "Furness Line" from personal experience of their past timetables and past reporting in local papers. (I accept, however, that - as far as Wikipedia is concerned - evidence gleaned from ephemera by being a local is OR and therefore inadmissible, whereas evidence gleaned from entries in guidebooks by a Google Books search by a non-native is pure gold.) Under those capitalisations (or not, as the case might be), they were two officially distinct entities/brands which met or connected at Barrow. Previously, official documents (answers in Parliament etc) had talked of the 'Cumbrian coast line' meaning the "Cumbrian Coast L/line" and the "Furness L/line" taken together. Subsequently (within the last year) a new franchisee has altered nomenclature (and in my view capitalisation), giving a new entity/brand : the "Cumbrian Coast line" which again means the "Cumbrian Coast L/line" (as was) and the "Furness L/line" (as was) taken together. Wikipedia entries have not yet been modified to reflect this; as they say: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. There is (or at any rate, I make) no suggestion that "Furness Line" is a synonym of "Cumbrian Coast line"; it is a former designation of a portion of the current "Cumbrian Coast line" entity/brand. (To throw off another aside, the line over which the Furness Line ran was operated (pre-grouping) by the Furness Railway; in those days it could legitimately have been referred to as 'the Furness line' without this being evidence against 'the Furness Railway' being the appropriate description of its operating entity.)
My main difficulty with "Foo Valley line" and variants is that "Foo Valley Line" might be justifiable as a fully capitalised proper name; if not "Foo valley line" would be justifiable because "Foo" is a well-established proper name for the river, but if the normal capitalisation of the valley of the Foo is "Foo valley", I don't see that frequency of use statistics are much of an argument for a partially capitalised proper name such as "Foo Valley line". So if "Foo Valley Line" is rejected, I would have thought that "Foo Valley line" vs "Foo valley line" should be decided , not by a run-off between those three-word phrases, but by determining whether "Foo Valley" is the consistent capitalisation of that two-word phrase.
New point (sorry!): Once 'consistent capitalisation' has been decided on a case-by-case basis, would you regard the capitalisation as fixed once-and-for-all at that decided upon by that exercise, or is it only fixed subject to review by future book searches by editors dissatisfied with the status quo? Rjccumbria (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The "Named Railway Lines" doc doesn't show any usage in sentence context, so has no info on whether they would treat those as proper names; we need to look to sources that use them in running text.
Past experience and timetables also don't tell us much. In timetables, line names would typically be headings, or titles, in title case. Wikipedia uses sentence case for titles.
Indeed it does, but you might like to review that argument against the two points that (1) I do not believe I have given you any reason to believe that I am so far gone as to think that headings are in sentence case (2) my experience is of timetables such as this,old timetable for my local line in which the line name does not appear in headings, but does appear in sentences (for example on page 6).Rjccumbria (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that there may be complications with current brandings and operating entities; we should discusss if there are reasons to go with those. But for articles primarily on the lines, I think the generic is better. And yes operating companies are typically like "Foo Railway".
On the valley lines, I'm happy to use lowercase valley if that's what sources do. My impression, supported by the n-grams link, is that "Foo Valley" is typically treated as a proper name, and "Foo Valley line" not.
In Wikipedia, nothing is fixed forever, but if decisions are make in light of the MOS and sources, they are more likely to be stable and defensible against the stready trickle of editors making changes. So far, most of these line articles had not been edited for style, and were full of inconsistent caps even on the name of the topic, over-capitalization of lots of other stuff, malformed use of hyphens and dashes, etc. Cleaning this stuff up does tend to last fairly well, in my experience. Dicklyon (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Looking again at some named valleys, I agree that the valley part is not "consistently capitalized in sources"; about 2/3 typically. So we can make a call either way on that, I think (and the book n-grams tend to over-estimate caps because they typically include lots of titles and headings in title case; there's no easy way to restrict to in-sentence usage, but we can try things like this in which now "the Tyne valley" dominates the capitalized version.). Dicklyon (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)::
"Once 'consistent capitalisation' has been decided on a case-by-case basis, would you regard the capitalisation as fixed once-and-for-all at that decided upon by that exercise, or is it only fixed subject to review by future book searches by editors dissatisfied with the status quo?"....... Well there's a simple solution to this problem. As both capitalised and non capitalised forms are in use and acceptable, we avoid the inevitable arguments and the inevitable inconsistencies in article titles, by simply adopting capitalisation of 'Line' as the standard....Simples! Anyone? G-13114 (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Simple, but contrary to some pretty fundamental and widely accepted policies and guidelines at Wikipedia (WP:NCCAPS especially). Dicklyon (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Maybe, but since in most cases there is plenty of ambiguity over whether they constitute 'proper names' or not. It would be far simpler and tidier to just leave it capitalised. G-13114 (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
or equally simple and for exactly the same reasons we make all Foo line -lowercase. Nthep (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
No, these are Proper Noun phrases and should be capitalised. It's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland; I hope the difference is clear. Mjroots (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
My comment was slightly tongue-in-cheek but not every line article is about a proper noun phrase e.g. Crewe–Derby line and this discussion is failing to differentiate between those article titles which are (or maybe) proper noun phrases like the Bittern Line and those like Crewe-Derby line which aren't and instead appears to be seeking a unilateral format on all regardless of the grammatical construct of the title. There will never be consistency because there is no consistency in the way lines are named outside of WP and we need to accept that and concentrate on content rather than long repeated discussions on L or 'l. Nthep (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Heartily agree with last comment! Happy new year and here's to better UK rail content! Cheers--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Likewise; when the content is >80% there and >95% correct will be time enough to worry about capitalisation of titles. 'Inconsistent capitalisation' is a red-herring, because one meaning of 'consistent' - according to the OED - is 'following accepted rules'; if 'the Midland Railway line to Carlisle' can be shortened 'to the Midland line to Carlisle', then - following accepted rules - so can 'the Foo Line line into Toytown' be shortened to 'the Foo line into Toytown' without invalidating the 'Foo Line' as a acceptable capitalisation. One point following from that it might be sensible to note when doing future edits: it looks to me as though 'L' is easier to defend if the article is about the service and the route it runs on, lower case if the article is about the route and the services it runs on. On that basis I'm now off to look at Railway articles I've worked on to make sure they say 'the C&W Railway was an English railway company that built and operated a line between C & W.', rather than 'the C&W Railway was an English railway line between C & W' which I fear would leave them open to assault by n-gram in support of re-capitalisation as [[C & W railway]]. Rjccumbria (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC) (Sorry - temporary lapse in proof-reading - for "the route and the services it runs on." read "the route and the services that run on it.")Rjccumbria (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Further evidence for usage as proper names, at least for the lines in West Yorkshire: A B C D E, and I've asked West Yorkshire Metro how they would prefer their line names to be written. After all, they came up with them. Let's see what they have to say. --Schlosser67 (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I added reference letters to your links so I can comment on them individually:
  • A – The Huddersfield Daily Examiner says Metro "announced a new ‘leaf fall’ time table for the Penistone Line". OK, that's one (though they usually don't cap line names in other articles, especially on the Huddersfield line).
  • B – These asset tables use caps in table entries. No uses in sentences, so no evidence as to whether they would treat line naes as proper names or not.
  • C – Specialist source thetrainline.com does cap in sentence context, "Most trains to Ashton-under-Lyne travel on the Huddersfield Line..."
  • D – Most caps are for "XXX Main Line", which most sources treat as proper names, and for headings like "Huddersfield Line:". In sentence context, we find a mix: "Hope Valley line", "Calder Valley Line, Harrogate Line", and even "East Coast main line" in one place, suggesting a general lack of awareness of case considerations.
  • E – Similarly inconsistent, with "The Penistone line cuts through the south..." and other sentences that cap it. Too inconsistent to represent any real editorial decisions about proper name status.
So it's not clear why you think these help the case for caps, when the great majority of book and news sources clearly choose to treat "line" as generic. Dicklyon (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Crofton Park railway station

Please see recent edits of 82.211.74.62 (talk), in particular the edit summary of this revert, which I find incredible given that they started the thread at User talk:Redrose64#Crofton Park Station to which I have twice replied; I also posted at User talk:82.211.74.62#December 2016. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Article semiprotected for 7 days by Samtar. Nördic Nightfury 14:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Cross London Route Utilisation Strategy

Before I AFD it, can anyone see any potential value to keeping Cross London Route Utilisation Strategy? ‑ Iridescent 20:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

What would be the rationale for a deletion request there? Dicklyon (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
That it's an extremely outdated content fork of London Overground? Did you actually read it? ‑ Iridescent 21:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
No; wanted to know your reason first. If it's an outdated content fork, covered elsewhere, I'd call it a re-merge and just do it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Tebay rail accident

Do we want to include this? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd say not. Has nothing to do with the accident. Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd say yes. If we're covering the sentence and the appeal, we should cover other punishments directly as a result of Tebay too. Although I'm not sure why he would need an O licence to drive a HGV (as the article incorrectly suggests), or why he needs an O licence to operate a purely recovery fleet. We should be careful with wording on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Lines as names

See User_talk:Peter_Shearan#Lines_as_names and articles such as Hallam Line, which, since Peter Shearan edited their ledes in 2005, start with "The Hallam Line is the name given to rail services...". This seems like an odd change for an article previously about "a railway connecting Leeds and Sheffield via Barnsley". I realize that "line" terminology is used, often without explicit distinction, for the route, the railway, the service, the company, etc., but even if the article is about the service, it's not about the name itself, but about what is named. We should perhaps fix such things back to what the articles were about before he did that? Is there a discussion some place about good ways to open articles about lines? Dicklyon (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Wales & Borders

I've started a discussion about a couple of things relating to the name of this franchise/company to Talk:Wales and Borders. I'm adding a pointer here as I don't expect that to be a highly watched page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

RFC on hyphen in "narrow-gauge railway" titles

At Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Hyphen in titles of articles on railways of a narrow gauge I have started an RFC. The question reads: Should articles with "Narrow gauge railways" and such in their titles include a hyphen as "Narrow-gauge railways"? And is there any tweak needed to the guidelines at WP:HYPHEN to be more helpful in deciding such things? Participation is welcome. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It needs help to flesh out the cases for and against. Please help or comment if you are interested. Dicklyon (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

When should disused lines be shown in routeboxes?

Talk:Earley railway station#No disused railway at Earley and this removal. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

FAC that might be of interest

Hello. If anyone fancies a break from arguing over "Line" vs "line" or the placement of hyphens, my latest FAC could do with a few more eyes: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/North Eastern Railway War Memorial/archive1. It's part of a series of articles I'm writing about war memorials; this one commemorates the dead from the North Eastern Railway in the First World War (for anyone familiar with York, it's the great big obelisk you probably walk past on your way from the station to the city centre). All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

An excellent read.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Bordesley railway station

Is this still open? It doesn't figure in the latest ORR usage stats and nor can you find it on journey-planning sites. Johnlp (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Well it's still officially open, just no scheduled trains stop there anymore I think. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Still served by the one train on a Saturday as mentioned in the article. Leaves at 13:36 towards Malvern [2] Nthep (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Strange that it has dropped off the official stats for 2015-16. Johnlp (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
It's there, if you have downloaded the Excel spreadsheet [3] row 256 is the one you want. Nthep (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah. Since when has it been known as "Birmingham Bordesley"? Johnlp (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
According to the Working Timetable Section CG02, page 51, it's the 2V30 13:18 (SO) Whitlock's End to Great Malvern, booked to depart Bordesley at 13:36½. If you're interested, the start of the journey is in Section CG03 and it also runs through Section CG04 and terminates in Section PB06. I couldn't find a return trip, so with its one train a week, one way only, it's a bit like Denton or Reddish South. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there a source for this? It's mentioned in the article without refs. Your analysis is presumably correct (I can't be bothered to look it up), but it's WP:OR. Optimist on the run (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, 13,350 entries/exits per year, but there is only one train per week or 52 trains per year - that works out at 257 passengers on each train who board or alight at Bordesley. There aren't that many seats on a 2-car Class 172, surely? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
There is mention of football specials for the nearby Birmingham City stadium... Johnlp (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the estimations are wrong? Alternatively, when the barriers are working at Moor Street, it is the cheapest return ticket to buy so that it allows you unfettered access to photograph the 68's on the Chiltern services. I have done that several times in the past 18 months....The joy of all things (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The estimations include all the passengers for the football. Although there is only one booked train a week when there is a home match at Birmingham City F.C. additonal stops are added to the plethora of servces that would normally pass Bordesley. These services are crush loaded as a consequence.Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_37&oldid=1189836065"