Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Disused railway stations

I'm bringing this conversation across from my talk page to see if we can get a broader consensus. Basic summary: I've completed the categorisation-by-location run as discussed above, but most counties don't have a separate category for disused stations - can anyone think of reasons for/against breaking up Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom by county as has been done for the open stations? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Iridescenti,

I'm confused, but let me clarify: you added the Cat:Railway stations in Renfrewshire to a couple of closed railways on my watchlist, Georgetown railway station and Houston railway station, as per discussion on WP:UKT. I agree that they are located in Renfrewshire, but should they not be Cat:Disused (or closed) railway stations in Renfrewshire? It seams strange to Categorise them as Disused railway stations in Scotland and as Railway stations in Renfrewshire.Pyrotec 19:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely, but at the moment we only have separate "Disused stations in..." categories for a few of the largest English counties (you can see the full list here); everything else just gets lumped into Category:Disused railway stations in Scotland, Category:Disused railway stations in Wales, Category:Disused railway stations in Northern Ireland or Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom (for some reason, we don't have a Category:Disused railway stations in England).

As per the discussion on adding location categories, I've done the automated run adding the "Stations in..." category for places where no "Disused stations in..." category exists. It's not an ideal solution, but I think it's better than no category at all; at least this way, someone with an interest in (for example) Perthshire railways but with no knowledge of Renfrewshire can track down the stations without having to go through "Disused stations in Scotland".

Personally, I think we ought to have a "Disused stations in..." category for every county and wipe out the UK/Scotland/Wales/NI categories (as has been done for the open stations), but I don't want to carry out such a fundamental change without a very strong consensus. Some counties (notably Gwynedd and North Ayrshire) have more closed than open stations, and I absolutely agree that it's messing up the categories. For what it's worth, I do have an AWB script pumped-and-primed to add the "disused" in front of "railway stations in" if/when the broader categories are split up — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above, I'm going to copy-and-paste this discussion to WP:UKT to see if we can get a consensus either way — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds eminently sensible to me - I'd say go for it! Regards, Lynbarn 21:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a potential downside to this, which is why I'm waiting for consensus rather than being bold and going ahead - it will leave a lot of categories such as Category:Disused railway stations in Rutland or Category:Disused railway stations in Clackmannanshire with only one or two members. I'm going to be away for a couple of days, so will take a look when I get back to see what consensus is and act/not act accordingly — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think having a 'disused' category for every county is overkill. How about English regions and Sotland/Wales/Northern Ireland instead? Categories than can never have more than a handful of entries are a) unhelpful and b) likely to get deleted. DrFrench 22:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

County-based categories are unlikely to be deleted, even if not very full, as they comprise a cohesive set of categorisation (empty cats might be more of a problem!) The current Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom is of little practical use since the stations should all be listed within List of closed railway stations in Britain and its subpages anyway. If the cat is subdivided into counties, the user is presented with an alternative way of finding and examining the data.

EdJogg 00:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to convince me that Category:Disused railway stations in the East Riding of Yorkshire is a good way for users to find information?! If you are, then it ain't doing no good. I was going along fine with counties, but this is taking matters beyond the pale.Canterberry 00:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I created disused stations categories for the South West of England a long time ago on the principle that people using the ordianry station categories to search for artciles are most probably looking for an open station. With the Disused stations in ... showing at the top of the page as sub-categories, it is easy to expand your search. The same applies to heritage stations. If we do this for all the counties it will have the added advantage of reducing the number of pages listed at Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom.

BTW I agree that there ought to be a Disused railway stations in England category so that the hierarchies match the normal practice seen in other county categorisations. That definetly sounds like a job for a bot!Geof Sheppard 07:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've split ...in the United Kingdom into England, Wales etc, leaving only the genuinely nationwide articles such as Beeching Axe in the parent category. (Unfortunately, non bottable, unless someone can write a bot capable of working out which country Portobello railway station is in...) Unless someone says otherwise over the next couple of days, I'll remove the "Railway stations in..." from the disused stations and split "Disused stations in England/Scotland/Wales" into counties (because the counties are within the regional areas, they can always be bot-changed from county to region if the county-by-county lists turn out to be unworkable). I won't split NI into counties, as there are so few disused stations there and those that are are almost all in Antrim — iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good start, but I think that the sub-categories under Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom should only be ...England, ... Northern ireland, ... Scotland, ... Wales, plus Beeching Axe. The counties now have duplicate parent categories of, for instance, both England and UK whereas just England would be sufficient as this is a sub-category of UK. Geof Sheppard 15:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As and when we have a final consensus, I'll take "...in the UK" out of both "Railway stations in..." and "Disused railway stations in..."; for the moment, I left them both in place pending a final decision on what structure the category trees will take. (My personal preference is for both open and closed stations to follow UK --> country --> county as the structure, but some people might prefer UK --> region --> county.) As part of this restructuring I intend to empty Railway stations in the United Kingdom of everything that isn't genuinely nationwide, as I've just done with Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom, with everything going into the appropriate local subcategory, and (if we decide to split them into counties) empty the "...in England", "...in Scotland" into counties or regions as well; this way, we might end up with lists small enough to work with. It will need to be done manually, as someone will need to work out which county each station goes into. As per my comments above, if noone raises any objections by then I'll perform the split on Thursday or Friday. Unless more people speak up in favour of doing it into regions, I'll do it into counties for reasons outlined previously — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus here for the changes you have proposed - but you seem to have decided to go ahead and make them anyway. That's rather disappointing. DrFrench 19:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll stop pending consensus in that case - so far only England's been done. I didn't see any particular objections; (if I've misconstrued anything I apologise). Nothing's been lost - the disused stations are still in Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom, just tucked away in subcategories (eg Category:Disused railway stations in the West Midlands), and because the county tag is now in the "Disused" category, they no longer need the parallel Category:Railway stations in (county) to provide a geographical fix, meaning that the "Railway stations in..." lists only show open stations. (This was making the lists very long in areas such as London and Derbyshire, where disused stations outnumber open ones; look at the not-yet-sorted Category:Railway stations in Gwynedd to see what I mean.)

If anyone wants the England stations reverted to their previous state, let me know - because the counties are still listed, deleting the "disused stations in..." and replacing them with "Railway stations in..." and "Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom" as things previously stood will be a mechanical operation a bot can do in 15 minutes — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've worked very hard ensuring that all the stations in the West Midlands are categorised into the relevant city/borough category, which is then linked both to the "Transport in City/Borough" and "Railway Stations in the West Midlands" categories. Now I find that all my work has been completely undone and suddenly there is no path to the articles from the relevant city/borough category. Can you please revert them all. In future, could you please let us know at WP West Midlands or Template:West Midlands railway stations what you're planning. Fingerpuppet 20:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow that's a big template! I picked Daisy Bank railway station at random, to see what the issues were, and found that 15/16ths of the article is template: 3/4 being the big West Midlands template, 1/8th the line template, and 1/16th the stub template -- in fact the 'article' is only really a single sentence (and is good example of why the disused South West England stations now have been redirected so effectively into grouped articles... But I digress....

I'm sure that Iridiscenti will gladly recreate the necessary Disused stations in Wolverhampton (etc) categories that you are missing, since this will meet your needs without wrecking the necessary rationalisation that he has put into place elsewhere.

EdJogg 21:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the cats have all changed now and they look and work much better than previously.

It is a huge template, and we're trying all sorts of ways to reduce the size, but with little success. And there's loads of disused stations in the area that still don't have articles for them... Fingerpuppet 22:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As per conversation on User talk:Fingerpuppet, I'll re-split the West Midlands unless someone raises an objection, since there are so many disused stations there I agree it does make sense to split them. What I do want to avoid is setting a precedent for breaking up London and Merseyside, which will leave a lot of empty shells with only one or two entries.

However, I'll give it a few more days before carrying on to Scotland and Wales in light of DrFrench's opposition above to try to build a broader consensus for or against splitting them — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Because of the smaller population densities, in both Scotland and Wales, outside the large towns and cities, splitting them into small areas might be beneficial. In the case of Scotland, in particular, should that be by historic county, the now abolished Regions (e.g. Highland, Strathclyde, etc), or the current local system of government. My preference would be to use the historic counties? That would nicely accommodate Beeching's axing of whole lines and duplicated link lines. Pyrotec 21:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of going by the current administrative regions for Scotland and Wales, eg Rhonda Cynon Taff, Highland etc; first of all, that's what the open stations categories use so it could get really confusing; secondly, it'll be harder to work out the correct region for some of the stations (could you tell me off the top of your head what historic county Methven Junction railway station was in); thirdly, it will make a really messy situation for Gwynedd, where the historic boundaries don't follow the 1960s boundaries. Also, for England we don't use Avon, Humberside, Middlesex etc

Incidentally, I've split West Midlands into Disused railway stations in Sandwell etc with them all as subcategories of both Disused stations in the West Midlands and of their respective "Railway stations in" category - hopefully that will prove stable — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Realistically, you have to look at how much is going to actually be in any category. If it's only one or two, then it may well be worth leaving them in the relevant national category. I would suggest that there should be a minimum of five for a category to be formed - and those categories should be local authority based, which would fit nicely into the geographical categorisation system. Fingerpuppet 22:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It would normally be stretching a point to have a category containing only one or two members, but they do exist. And, where there is a precedent for subdividing by area, for example all the '... by county' cats for England, readers will expect to find the same cats for each county, even if they're virtually empty. This would also be preferable to moving pages up into the national category, as someone navigating at the county level will be unable to find them easily. (Incidentally, two of the new Disused...WM cats are actually empty at present, although I presume this is a transient situation.)

EdJogg 23:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm slowly working south and east (a line at a time) - hence Coventry and Solihull don't have anything in them yet. Fingerpuppet

There may be nothing to fill them - I created a "disused in..." for each of the six W Mids districts on the assumption that - since the 1890 railway atlas has lots of wiggly lines there and the 2007 one doesn't, the lines presumably did exist. I also created a couple of empty county categories (eg Rutland) where I knew the stations did exist and just don't have articles yet (Ashwell, Seaton & Uppingham, Wakerley & Barrowden, Luffenham, Ketton, Ryhall & Belmisthorpe and Essendine, if anyone feels the urge). As a general note to everyone arguing the "the categories will be half empty", remember we don't have even a stub articles on a lot of disused lines, let alone stations, yet (I only created the Hammersmith and Chiswick branch last week, and that's a five-station line in - relatively - central London, not an obscure Welsh mineral railway), so it will be possible to fill out all those categories — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the sorting to match current counties (and sub-categories to these where required), as this makes for logical matches with open stations and other non-railway category hierarchies, although I have come a cross a few odd ones e.g. Category:Railway stations in Bristol, Bath and South Gloucestershire which has tried to recreate the old Avon, but missed out all the stations in North Somerset. Instead these find themselves in Category:Railway stations in Somerset, which is an even older "historic" county. But then that is local politics for you, and seems much less contnetious than some of the issues discussed on the Cornish pages! Geof Sheppard 07:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I might be to blame for at least some of that - I manually categorise stations when I come across them that don't already have a county, and have only the vaguest notion of where the Gloucestershire/South Gloucestershire/Bristol/Bath/Somerset boundaries are. I suspect there are probably some stations that should be in Category:Railway stations in the Tees Valley that have found their way into the wrong counties, too, and probably some in Staffordshire/Warwickshire that should actually be in West Midlands (and vice versa) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed a few articles for disused stations in the Tees Valley were in the North Yorkshire category, so moved them in, based on this map of the Tees Valley. The map had railway lines on which made it simpler. People from the area can't even agree whether they're from County Durham/Yorkshire, Cleveland or the Tees Valley, so many changes, so much confusion!--Simmo676 15:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A further thought if we're going to use historic boundaries instead of the current ones - it would lead to an almighty mess in categorising the outer London suburbs. Picture explaining to a bemused American armed with a map of London precisely how we've categorised North Woolwich ("Yes, I know the map shows it in central London but historically, it was a part of Kent. Yes, I agree it's completely surrounded by Essex but William the Conqueror redrew the boundaries. Well, obviously it was part of the Borough of Woolwich. What do you mean, it's nowhere near Woolwich? That's why it's now part of Newham. Although obviously, it was under direct administration by London Docklands in the 1980s.") Just look at the minor storm at Talk:Tottenham#Public transport for a small sample — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Been away for almost 2 weeks, but a very belated i haven't got a problem with this, My patch (the south east - kent, sussex, surrey and london) really benifits from a county (and in london a borough level) in these matters. So thank you! Pickle 03:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As there seems to be a broad consensus in favour of going ahead (and this conversation is getting very long), I'll split Scotland and Wales - on the basis of current counties (to match "Railway stations in...") in a couple of days time unless someone raises an objection. I'll also try to add a couple of articles (even if they're just "one-line and an infobox" stubs) to any of the new categories that are left empty. I don't propose splitting Glasgow, London, Manchester & Merseyside in the same way that's happened with the West Midlands unless anyone makes a good case for it — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Pyrotec (contribs) and Douglasnicol (contribs) have been working on this on Scottish stations. See Neilston (Low) and Troon (Harbour) as examples. --Stewart 21:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful - that's exactly what I had in mind (and what I've done for England). In that case I'll go ahead and split Wales as well to complete the mainland set - I propose to leave Northern Ireland untouched, as there are so few disused stations there — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Disused stations by year

I have created a set of categories around Category:Railway stations by year of disestablishment with individual years such as Category:Railway stations closed in 1964. The strucuture exactly matches that used for the existing Category:Railway stations by year of establishment. I have already created a couple of dozen individual year categroies, but if you find yourself needing a new one, the links that you need to put in your new category page are:

{{Cat topic in year| topic=Railway stations closed| year=1961}}

[[Category:Railway stations by year of disestablishment]]

[[Category:1961 disestablishments]]

[[Category:1960s in rail transport|Stations closed 1961]]

Then change the three years and one decade to the correct numbers.

This has created a problem in the Decades in rail transport categories as the sorting on the open stations is coded as

[[Category:1960s in rail transport|Stations 1961]]

This really needs to be changed to sort as "Stations opened 1961" etc. Can this be done by a Bot? Geof Sheppard 07:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Template TWP

hi!

I was looking at the number of pages without this template: {{TWP}} (edit: using {{tl}} here so this page is not listed as unassessed. Slambo (Speak) 11:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

the other day, and i did quite a lot, but now my bot, ACBot is going through the request for approval process, i was wondering, if when it is approved, you might like it to help out by putting that template on? AC Best My Contributions Autograph Book 06:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort in adding the project banner to rail transport related articles. I add it to applicable article talk pages as I come across them. I've been working through Category:Unassessed rail transport articles for some time now adding this template's parameters as appropriate, but the work load seems to increase faster than it decreases. While I have no disputes with bot-tagging appropriate articles, I would like to request that project members take some time to assess a few articles periodically. Right now there are 1,371 articles that do not have a quality assessment. The general importance parameter is used to indicate the article's importance to rail transport on a worldwide basis; project specific importance ratings have been created for some related projects, and we can easily create a set of UK-importance categories here too. Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 11:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about everyone else, but I find it hard to assess most railway articles - with "importance to rail transport on a worldwide basis" as the criteria, virtually every loco article other than Rocket and Mallard (and possibly Olton Hall) are of virtually no importance on a worldwide basis; ditto for every TOC (historic and current) other than the GWR, and virtually every station apart from a couple of major hubs like Waterloo, a few of particular architectural significance, and the earliest Underground stations. I seriously think we should consider either splitting our assessment criteria away from TWP's or adding a second assessment line so, for example, Birmingham New Street can be simultaneously of low worldwide significance but of very high UK significance — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I can easily add a UK-specific importance tag like is currently done for others such as WP:NYPT (see Talk:A (New York City Subway service) for an example). Are there any objections to adding a UK-importance parameter? Slambo (Speak) 15:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If you hadn't gathered from the above, I strongly support the idea — iridescent (talk to me!) 10:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing a lot of UK (and NZ) tagging with TWP mainly in the south. The scope is vast (what 2,000+ stations alone) so I've not got very far. The UK-importance rating thing is a good idea, the London transport project (formerly tube) have it and i think it works well. Pickle 03:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope to have the new parameter working in the next day or two; my current plans are to put in some time testing things either today or tomorrow. I'm also watching another discussion at WP:NZR that could affect this. Optimal would be to add appropriate parameters for both projects at the same time to reduce the number of times the template is updated, but there's less surety about the parameters over there (current discussion relates to which picture should be used as the project icon). Slambo (Speak) 12:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've got UK-importance working in my test area now for the four standard importance levels (low, mid, high and top), but it throws errors if the value is mistyped. I'm about to go offline for the evening, but I had one quick question... Do you want to have the class parameter sort articles into UK Railways specific quality categories too? A couple of the other projects do this too, so it wouldn't be that much more to add. Slambo (Speak) 02:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely anything that helps accelerate the processing of articles must be a good thing? EdJogg 10:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I've got the basic Unknown/Stub/Start/B/GA/A/FA class levels working in my test area now. How about all of the other class options (List, Category, Image, Redirect, Template and Disambig)? Once I'm ready to push this update live, I'll create the category structure to go behind it. Slambo (Speak) 11:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes please, they are better than just NA Pickle 15:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You may have noticed that I've started on creating the assessment categories today. If someone could put together the assessment guidelines page (you can use the comparable page at TWP as a guide), especially in regards to the importance guide, I'd appreciate it. I'll be at a model train show out of town this weekend; I don't know if the hall has internet access, but I should have access from the hotel. I'm hoping to deploy the updates by Sunday. Slambo (Speak) 14:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok made Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/Assessment, anyone want to conjure up some good examples for the top, high, middle class of importance from the UK. Pickle 17:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The template updates are live and the categories are getting populated now. The class parameter will sort the article into the appropriate subcategory of Category:UK Railways articles by quality, and the new UK-importance parameter (which is only used if UK=yes is set) will sort the article into a subcategory of Category:UK Railways articles by importance. I'll have the template documentation updated soon... Slambo 42 19:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC) (using my unprivileged account on a public wireless access point right now)

"Adopt an article"

I'm surprised I've only just noticed this section but looking back through the page history it seems its been there since the project was started in April 2006. Whilst I am sure this is well intentioned, I am slightly concerned about it and feel it should probably be discussed. I don't feel it is appropriate for named editors to adopt articles in this way. I would be concerned that this could leave some editors with wrong impressions about article ownership.

In the past, some editors have seen the wording of WikiProject banners along the lines of "This article is maintained by..." as some claim that a particular project has or should have a higher influence over the content of the article. This has led to many banners being reworded to what I feel is a more appropriate wording that refers to the article being within the scope of the project.

I do of course welcome editors focussing their efforts on a particular article to try to improve it but feel that there shouldn't be declarations of articles being adopted. I would of course like to hear others opinions on this issue. Adambro 20:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You're quote right. Andy Mabbett 20:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, someone ^^^^ always comes along and spoils things. Canterberry 21:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So you mean it should be more a case of fostering an article, perhaps? Regards, Lynbarn 15:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the wording on {{maintained}}. It says that the named editors are knowledgeable and active in editing a specific article and that they can be contacted for further assistance while not being "owny". Slambo (Speak) 15:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe move it off the main page into a subpage, with lists for "Articles we're actively working on/intend to work on" and "Articles we're watching"? That would solve the problems I assume it was originally meant to address, of two people simultaneously expanding the same article without others' knowledge, or of fifteen people vandal-watching Manchester Victoria and no-one watching Manchester Piccadilly, while not looking so much like particular editors are claiming to WP:OWN the articles — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Infrastructure Technology

I was looking at the pages on track technology in Wikipedia in general and I thought that some work is needed. In particular there is inconsistent discussion of US and British practices, and no consistent development of a theme. I could just edit those pages direct but I would prefer to start a British-specific section. Would that be appropriate under this umbrella? It would stand a better chance of introducing a properly developed treatment of the topic.

Afterbrunel 21:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And I was looking at, for example the Cant (Road/Rail) page; this has a couple of lines on roads, and a lot more about railways. I have never heard the term "cant" used in highway engineering except as a slang term. I would like to separate out the two issues -- to leave the highway definition for those with better knowledge to deal with, and to have a specific Cant (Rail) page that could be much enhanced.

Could anyone comment on the appropriateness of this please, and if it is appropriate point me to the help page as to how to do it to make sure the links get corrected?

As Wiki is an international resource, it is usual to combine British, American, and other cultures into one article that deals with the whole topic, e.g. Broad gauge. If it becomes too big then that is the time to create local articles.

I notice, however, that Cant (road/rail) is completly unreferenced. Perhaps you should tag it to ask for references and, for the road section, specific citations to show that it is the correct use of the word. Geof Sheppard 07:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Stub sorting - again!

I had cause this morning to visit Category:United Kingdom rail stubs and was shocked to find nearly 800 articles in this category. It clearly needs splitting into more manageable chunks, as we did with the station stubs not so long ago.

The main areas seem to be railway companies, locomotives/multiple units, and engine sheds/TMDs. Each of these areas could do with their own categories, perhaps:

Although the last could actually be "railway infrastructure stubs" to match the high level categories for full articles, in which case it would also include junctions, bridges, etc. If we do this and any of the new categories are still too large, then we can split them down into, eg, regional sub-categories.

Any comments? Geof Sheppard 12:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Geof I'd be happy to help in any way I can - unfortunately as I am quite new to Wikipedia I have no idea how to go about sorting stubs into categories, although I have visited some, and in a couple of instances made some suggestions on how the articles might be expanded. By the way when does a stub cease to be a stub? What is the criteria, other than being a short article? ColourSarge 16:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, welcome on board! Wiki defines a stub as an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information. The next level up the quality scale is "start" which has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element.

I have made a start on visiting random stub articles to see if they are sufficient to be moved up - in which case I just delete the stub template - or if I can provide enough information to expand it. I have also proposed some mergers where the stubs are unlikely to ever be expanded into a notable article.

For instance Weston-super-Mare railway station looked like this until a few days ago. An example of a "start" class article is Bath Spa railway station which is clearly not a stub, but still lacks some elements of a good article, such as a detailed history.

The next stage is for us to agree on the level of sorting necessary so that we can put froward a Projcet Stub Sorting Proposal and then create the necessary templates. I think a quick win would be to remove the locomotive stubs, most of which carry templates for both loco-stub and uk-stub, and combine them into a new stub category that is a sub-category of both. Geof Sheppard 07:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

High Speed Two

Following recent announcements of a proposed new line between London and Birmingham, possibly as an extension of Eurostar, i have created (briefly) an article on High Speed Two. Simply south 14:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Central Citylink route map

Does someone with better graphics capabilities than me want to create a replacement for Image:Central Citylink Route map.gif? It's a copyvio, so will have to be deleted. --RFBailey 09:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What did it depict? (It's been deleted so I can't look at it). Afterbrunel 19:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions for lines

I may be stirring up a proverbial hornets nest here, but is there a consensus on naming convention for railway lines?

The reason I ask is that I had previously merged Network Rail route EA 1060 into the pre-existing article on the line at Crouch Valley Line, but the redirect was undone. I've now listed it as a proposed merge (discussion at Talk:Crouch Valley Line#Merge in of Network Rail route EA 1060) but the responses back so far surprise me, and I even believe they go against Wikipedia's WP:COMMONNAME policy -- has there been any precedent set, or is this likely to be it? -- Ratarsed 12:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Its one question to ask about "line" naming conventions but i think what you are getting is the age old and (as far as i know) as yet unresolved debate about "lines" and "services". All of the network rail network, the physical track, which is to some people what they mean when they say "line" is given a network rail number, thus names like "EA 1060" are perfectly valid. A critic would be that it sounds horrifically complicated, not user friendly. On the other hand, other people identify "services", a train that goes from A to B. At the simplistic level this coincides with the other definition, but more often than not it see the train service sharing part or even all of its journey with another train service (often with another wikipedia article). One example of (i think) a good co-existence is Portsmouth Direct Line and Network Rail route SW 110. I'm aware of no consensus (yet) about what how this should be handled, and it gets even more complex the closer to urban areas one gets or along the big main lines. I wish you luck!!! Pickle 13:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been using the Portsmouth Direct Line, which is surely the correct common and historical name, for over twenty years, and this is the first I knew that it had a Netwrok Rail route number. Most WP users looking for information on the rail route between Woking and Portsmouth will not look for 'SW 110' as their first search term. Those that do are probably just wanting to know where it really is! (Or they are after far more specialised information than should be in WP.)

Network Rail route SW 110 should just be a redirect, after all, what other possible information could be contained within that is not simply duplicating that in Portsmouth Direct Line? (Existing content should be merged across, of course.) Keeping the articles separate is a recipe for duplication of information and effort.

EdJogg 15:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with EdJogg that this kind of duplication is unnecessary. Names like Network Rail route EA 1060 are awful: how many people actually know them by that name? Not many. --RFBailey 17:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that all the "Network Rail route XX YYYY" format isn't useful, but as an examination of the Portsmouth Direct Line article shows, it is referring to the service from Waterloo to Portsmouth Harbour as well as the physical line that the services uses, but the service also uses the West Coastway, South West Main Line, etc. Take another more complex example, such as the West Coast Main Line (WCML), while the main physical track has undoubtedly got a "Network Rail route XX YYYY", the number of services over it is extensive, with a plethora of inter city, regional, commuter, sleeper and freight services run by numerous operators. In one sense this sort of avoid the temptation to create an article for each train service that run along a line. Another example might be down my way, along the Chatham Main Line itself, stopper run from Victoria out to orpington, then another stopper run fast out to where the previous service splits off and covers out to faversham, before the final service runs fast to mid Kent before being the stopper for the rest of the line (that without going into the other branches that have services crossing over and running on the actual line). While the idea of say "Network Rail route SW 110" and "Portsmouth Direct Line" seams ripe for merger, it doesn't cover or explain the SWML portion, west coastway, or the Portsmouth harbour section. What about all the little curves and freight branches that ave NR numbers but no generic name ? I think this is really tough and a hasty decision here could cause future problems. Pickle 14:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've had some time to think about this. As usual it is necessary to first consider why we should be adding these N.R. routes to WP.

What information should be present in a 'Network Rail route xxxx' article?
What information could be relevant that would not be better placed in the original line article? History of the line's construction, distances, gradient profiles, pictures, signalling upgrades, should all be part of the railway line's article; timetabling and service information don't belong in WP. So what's left?

Could they be expanded beyond stub status without simply copying content from the companion railway line article?
How many "Network Rail routes" are there?
Currently there are fifteen listed on WP (using this standard format), of which five are redirects, one an alternate capitalisation of the route code.
We could provide articles/redirects for every single one, in the same way that we could provide them for every single 'A'-road in the UK, but probably won't
Each railway line article could include a "Correlation to Network Rail routes" section, which would tabulate each NRR applying to the railway line, including distances, junction names, etc

Would this be sufficient coverage for all the little curves and freight branches.?

EdJogg 00:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A similar problem has already been discussed in relation to the Great Western Main Line. The currecnt state of play is that this only covers the "historic" route from London to Bristol, with clear links to the associated routes to palces such as South Wales Main Line. This is all the more complex because in recent Network Rail business plans the Reading to Penzance Line has been separated out as a different route, but even this is split in Wiki into a Reading to Plymouth Line and a Cornish Main Line so follows neither convention!

This has left the Bristol-Taunton line as an isolated and unloved section - Network Rail consider it part of the Great Western Main Line, while train services are nearly all operated as part of the Cross-Country Route.

In my opinion the routes should match up with the main passenger flows, as this is generally what is notable about them and therefore makes them worthy of inclusion in Wiki. using the NR numbering convention is not the way to go. Geof Sheppard 07:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Penmanshiel Tunnel collapse

Hi everyone, I did a search on the above subject and could find no mention of it on Wikipedia. I asked whether there should be an article on the UK Railways Portal discussion page, and it was suggested that I create an account and start a page for this topic. I have done this, but being my first article, I am more than open to constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement. I have looked through a number of the help pages and to be honest it's all a bit beyond me at the moment (no doubt I will catch on in time), however I'd be really grateful if you could give me any pointers to help me improve the article and make sure it's worthy of remaining on Wikipedia! ColourSarge 23:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Link to article: Penmanshiel Tunnel collapse. Geof Sheppard 07:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There's not much wrong with it, so you must have 'caught on' pretty quickly, but I would question the article title. Although most of the article deals with the collapse, logically it should be titled Penmanshiel Tunnel, with Penmanshiel Tunnel collapse being a redirect to the section in the 'main' article. Admittedly I'm not sure what else could be written about the tunnel itself, although the article makes no mention of any railway companies using it in later years, but it existed before and after the collapse... Thoughts, anyone?

Secondly, I would dispute the assertion about the Google map link. Admittedly it does show the road and railway clearly, but it doesn't show the tunnel, and, not knowing the area, I have no idea where it might be sited on the line. A map section in the article showing the old and new alignments would be a great help here.

Thirdly, before-and-after photos of the tunnel mouth(s) and the memorial would be good -- although finding a link to the fotopic site is a good start.

EdJogg 09:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, having looked at the photos I can now see why it is so difficult to trace the old route, although you can then work out on the OS map which is the disused section of the A1. I'll adjust the article wording accordingly. This underlines the need for a map showing the old and new alignments!

EdJogg 16:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with EdJogg that it is a good article, especially as a first try. Perhaps, I could agree with the renaming suggestion to Penmanshiel Tunnel with a redirect page to the Penmanshiel Tunnel collapse. However, once it has collapsed it ceased being a working railway tunnel - it was a tomb. I remember following events at the time on the news. Perhaps EdJogg is referring to post North British Railway, in which case it will be London and North Eastern Railway and then British Railways. At the time of the collapse, it was owned by British Railways. Pyrotec 16:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I did know that but was highlighting the (continued :o) ) absence of this information in the article. (Was the NBR absorbed straight into the LNER? my knowledge of Scottish railways is negligible.) EdJogg 13:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, thanks for the feedback, pleased to know that I at least haven't violated any taboos. I was wondering about the title. Would it be right to just name the article after the tunnel, as by rights it doesn't really exist any longer, as part of it was blocked by the cave in and both ends were subsequently sealed...hence why I named it after the event rather than the place?

I did manage to set up pages called Penmanshiel Tunnel and Penmanshiel Diversion which both redirect to this page, and I also put some dates into the relevant date pages for the collapse and diversion opening, as I remember reading that a "good" wikipedia page has links to other pages.

With regard to the map, I tried to find something which showed the old alignment but couldn't (although I only gave it about ten minutes as it was getting quite late!) I think the map which is there shows that the "natural" line of the railway and A1 both deviate significantly, although I suppose you could argue that it might have been built like that to avoid a hill anyway....as for producing a map showing the old and new, I thought about this, but neither Google Earth nor Multimap have anything high definition enough to be sure of the alignment, so short of getting hold of an old map and tracing from that I wouldn't have a clue - any ideas?

Oops I forgot to do the tildes ColourSarge 12:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The monthly railway magazines, The Railway Magazine and Modern Railways, covering this time period, will have a lot of details - it is sometimes possible to pick up bundles quite cheaply, as libraries are now getting rid of them; I don't have any '97 railway magazines at the moment. Also the broad sheet newspapers, Times, Telegraph, (Glasgow) Herald, Scotsman; some of these are now searchable via public libraries, or are on the web.Pyrotec 19:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if there's an element of telepathy about WP editors. I was just in the process of writing a 'Requested Move' section on the talk page...

(Sorry, interrupted by boss, even though it's lunchtime!)

As at least one other editor, plus (significantly) the original author, agrees with me that the redirect should go the other way, I'll get on and move it.

Incidentally, my feeling is that it was a tunnel (and, it could be argued that it still is), and the article should cover its whole history, not just its ultimate demise.

EdJogg 13:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Now moved, as per proposals, and categories updated accordingly. Haven't changed any links on other pages though.

EdJogg 13:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Invitation/Information

Due to its history or expressed opinions, I believe that this wikiproject would be interested in a Sprawl Control Proposal currently in development. Please note that the idea is not deletionist, and advocates retention of all suitable material, by current definitions. If you oppose the idea in principal, please do not attempt to discourage its development. The intent is that all views may be integrated into a proposal that may achieve the stated aims and be acceptable to as wide an audience as possible.

It is thus felt that it is particularly important that relevant wikiprojects participate in the formulation of the proposal.

This invitation template was placed by: SamBC 15:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think your proposal has some merit, but needs a good deal more development. The railways project does need some more control and structure, but other than that I do not currently believe that it is poor in respect of "sprawl". My own observations are that unnecessary articles do get removed/merged/renamed and on the whole the project is quite well behaved. Wikipedia, is a "living and breathing" thing, and any attempt to use "sprawl" as some means to control the development of the railways project would not gain my support. Canterberry 21:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please understand, the invitation isn't meant as any sort of criticism. just that this community might be interested. SamBC 21:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I felt no criticism, and like I said, I think the idea has merit. I think I may have been misunderstood. The railway project is still under development, and yes it may suffer from some sprawl, but (hopefully) nothing too serious. The project does need an injection of structure and better control, but it there is still much to do (will probably always will be), and so I would hate to see "sprawl" used until the project is a little more organised and a little more mature. I think the term "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" applies. The railways project needs to be "tighter" ... but does it suffer from sprawl? Maybe, but is that just a sign of "teenage angst" and "growing pains" rather than something more serious that requires the attention of a "surgeon" ... which is what I consider "sprawl" to mean. Canterberry 21:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand, I'd just like to point out that the proposal is directed at a much wider 'problem' or audience than this or closely-related projects. Input on the proposal's pages would be very much appreciated, speaking to the proposal as a whole. SamBC 22:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Gauge templates

The gauge templates, which convert from imperial to metric, for example {{RailGauge|10.25}}, display as 10.25 rather than 10¼ in (260 mm)

Is there a technical reason for this, or can these templates be changed? I don't mind making the changes, but I'm reluctant to do so if it will cause problems I'm not aware of. Thanks, Lynbarn 16:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The "technical reason" is that rather than using the "¼" symbol, the template uses another wikipedia template {{frac|1|4}} which produces the output 1⁄4 - which is actually made up of the following html code:

<span class="template-frac"><sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub></span>

This, I suppose, would give some consistency when using fractions that aren't available as a standard character, such as 9⁄16 or 31⁄365.

-=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 16:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case, if the {{frac}} template were to use:

<span class="template-frac"><small><sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub></small></span>

which would display as a much closer fit within the "envelope" of the typeface (sorry, I don't know the technical terms!) for example, 1¹/₄ compared with 1¹⁄₄ for the current template, or 1¼ using the font character. Would this improve the visual effect? Is this change likely to cause any disquiet elsewhere? Regards, Lynbarn 18:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

British Rail templates redesign

I have proposed a redesign of the templates Template:British Rail Locomotives, Template:British Rail DMU and Template:British Rail EMU.

The proposals can be found on the relevant talk pages: Template talk:British Rail Locomotives, Template talk:British Rail DMU and Template talk:British Rail EMU.

I would appriciate comments, opinions and suggestions. Cheers, --Jorvik 20:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow! It (the design) follows on from my recent template about Departemental Trains. Tell me, is that where you got the idea from? AC Best Autograph Book 21:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes --Jorvik 10:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

I am creating a new newsletter for WikiProject UK Railways!

You can see a sample of it at User:ACBest/Newsletter1!

Please register your interest below!

Cheers! AC Best Autograph Book 21:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)